HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda: Study Session Item a: Development of the property located at 5436 Durfee Avenue.ralm
�
DATE
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
March 19, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION CONCERNING POTENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5436 DURFEE AVENUE
Recommendation: Provide Direction
SUMMARY
On February 19, 2013, the Development Services Department received a request for
consideration from Canfield Development concerning a desire to build single - family
homes at 5436 Durfee Avenue. This property is located in the extreme southeast corner
of Arcadia, at the end of Clark Street, adjacent to the City of El Monte (see Attachment
A). The property is approximately 5.2 acres in size and is zoned M -1 (Light Industrial).
Properties to the northwest of the site in Arcadia are developed with industrial buildings,
but property to the south and directly west of the site are zoned and developed as
single - family residential in El Monte. The primary request is to re -zone this parcel to
allow residential development of this site. Canfield Development has provided a letter of
request as well as a Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis for this project (see
Attachment "B "). Direction is requested from the City Council on whether this is a
desirable land use for this parcel.
BACKGROUND
The subject property has long been vacant and has formerly been utilized for outdoor
storage uses. The property also has a history of code enforcement problems related to
illegal dumping and storage. The City's industrial area (generally including Clark Street
and Goldring Road) is located to the northwest. To the east of the property is a quarry
operation primarily within the City of Irwindale, and property to the southeast is the
Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area (Rodeffer Site) within Arcadia. The most
immediate neighbors, however, are residents to the west and south within the City of El
Monte. The City has received several proposals over the years to develop the site with
industrial uses commensurate with the zoning. The most recent of these applications
was in 2006 -2007, but this project was not pursued.
Potential Residential Development at 5436 Durfee Avenue
March 19, 2013
Page 2 of 4
The City has also received requests to develop a residential project in this location. In
fact, in late 2004 and early 2005 the City Council entertained a proposal from a
developer to annex this property into El Monte. On January 18, 2005, the City Council
approved in concept a potential annexation along with several recommended conditions
(see Attachment "C "). However, this project was also not pursued. The current request
is similar to the request received in 2004, without the annexation option.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is interested in building homes on this site. The attached letter and lot
scheme represent the type of development being contemplated. The schematic
included with Attachment "A" shows 54 detached single - family homes. This proposed
project is at a higher density than Arcadia's single - family zones would allow, at 10.4
units per acre. Lot sizes would be an average of approximately 4,200 square feet. As a
point of comparison, the smallest lots currently allowed in Arcadia are 7,500 square feet
minimum, or approximately 5.8 lots per acre. As a result, this project would require a
Specific Plan or Planned Unit Development, in addition to a Zone Change and General
Plan Amendment, to be developed in the City.
The industrial market in this area is not strong and has not been strong for several
years. The site has been vacant for many years and a new industrial project on this site
is unlikely in the near future. Despite this, it is clear that the City's intent for the site has
always been as an industrial use. The applicants are aware of this fact, and are aware
of the history of this parcel, and of the City's concerns surrounding residential
development at this location. In response to this, a Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact
Analysis was completed for the applicant by Kosmont Companies. This analysis
reviews the fiscal impacts of developing residential on this property as compared to
industrial, and evaluates estimated short and long -term economic impacts of the project.
The report estimates property tax, sales, tax, and other taxes generated from the 54
units, and compares this to the estimated costs of providing services to the site,
primarily Police and Fire services. Since the net fiscal impact is estimated to be
negative ($4,300 annually), the study suggests that a one -time payment for 50 years
($135,000) to cover this deficit could be part of the project approval. Other options
would be to consider a public services "district" to be approved as part of the project.
Similar to a Homeowner's Association, this would be a Mello -Roos district whereby
residents would pay an annual fee that would accrue to the City to fund additional
service costs associated with residential development at this location.
Whereas the financial study provides a starting point to compare residential vs.
industrial uses, the most important issue when evaluating potential Arcadia residences
in this location is the provision of public services, namely Fire and Police Services. If
residences were built in Arcadia at this location, response times for Fire and Police
would be substantially different than for any other residential location in the City. The
nearest Fire Station is Fire Station 105, located on South Santa Anita Avenue.
Residences at Durfee Avenue could not, based on simple response times alone, be
afforded the same level of service as other residential areas in Arcadia. This is not
Potential Residential Development at 5436 Durfee Avenue
March 19, 2013
Page 3 of 4
consistent with the level of service the City expects to provide to its residents. The
public services district, or the one -time payment, proposed by the applicant is a fair and
worthwhile gesture, but the funding that could be generated by such a district would not
address the response times despite the presence of mutual aid agreements with
neighboring jurisdictions.
The Development Services Department has been consistent in informing applicants
over the years that residential development in this area of Arcadia is problematic.
Residential development in this area would be inconsistent with the zoning of the area,
inconsistent with the General Plan, and incompatible with the current industrial uses in
Arcadia to the northwest of the property. Taking a long term view, if the Lower Azusa
Reclamation Area to the southeast redevelops with industrial or commercial uses, it is
possible that this site would be more viable as an industrial use. Even though there is a
buffer (and elevation change) between the Reclamation Area and the Durfee property,
the compatibility of up to 54 new homes in this area could be an issue with future
development of that property as a commercial or industrial project. That being said, the
fact remains that this site has not been developed as an Industrial site for many years
and it does not seem likely this will occur in the near future. The proposal submitted by
Canfield Development would provide additional housing units for the City at a price point
and style not currently available.
The options for consideration available to the City in this case are as follows:
1) Conclude that residential development in this location is not desirable and keep
the property as an industrial -zoned parcel.
2) Conclude that residential development is the highest and best use for the
property and signify the City Council's interest in entertaining a Zone Change and
General Plan Amendment (and possibly a Specific Plan or Planned Unit
Development and Public Service District) to review the possibility of allowing
residential uses at this location.
In addition, there has historically been interest from the community in retention of an
equestrian easement located within this site to allow access from Durfee Avenue to the
horse trail located north of the Arcadia Reclamation site. It is recommended that
retention of this easement be considered as part of any future development.
FISCAL IMPACT
The potential fiscal impact is difficult to measure given that there is not a true industrial
project to evaluate against the applicant's proposal. The Kosmont study provides a look
at potential value between the land uses and concludes that residential is a better value
for the site. Nevertheless, the Kosmont study concludes that residential uses would
have a negative net impact on City services. It should be noted that the Kosmont study
has not been given any scrutiny by City staff or a third party to verify the assumptions
and conclusions in the document.
Potential Residential Development at 5436 Durfee Avenue
March 19, 2013
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction.
Approved_
Dominic La��art�
Clfy Manager
Attachment "A" - Site Location
Attachment "B" - Canfield Development request for consideration and Economic Study
Attachment "C" - January 18, 2005 Staff Report and Minutes on former annexation
request
wy4'
Property Map
�� r+ 5436 Durfee Avenuz
CANFIELD
DEVELOPMENT INC.
office 310.446.8276
fax 888.902.9730
www.canfield- development cvm
10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 402
Los Angeles, CA 90025
DATE: February 19th, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Durfee Partnership
Oved Anter
Haskel Iny — Great American Capital
Brian Gelt — Canfield Development, Inc.
SUBJECT: Request for Consideration of a Zone Change and General Plan
Amendment to Allow for Development of 54 Residential Units at 5436
Durfee Avenue.
For some time our partnership has been exploring the future of the underutilized lots
located on the 5.2 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Durfee Avenue and Clark
Street. While several development schemes have been proposed on this property over
the last decade, nothing has come to fruition and this land has remained vacant for
nearly 15 years.
Our team is proposing a residential development for this property that will provide much
needed housing for moderate income families and first -time homebuyers, add vibrancy
to the surrounding community, and better integrate the uses along Durfee Avenue.
While we understand the inherent challenges of locating a new residential development
here, we are confident that through coordination with the City of Arcadia concerns over
providing services to the district can be easily mitigated and substantial benefits will be
realized.
Benefits:
• Neighborhood Consistency — Our well- designed, medium - density housing
development offers an ideal transition between the industrial properties to the
north and the large -lot homes immediately to the south. This is will create a
more consistent land use pattern along the boundary between El Monte and
Arcadia, benefiting both cities.
• New High - Quality Housing - New housing choices in this neighborhood will be
provided for the employees of local businesses and offer families earning more
than $100K annually with an opportunity to relocate into a city they want to call
home. These new homes will be constructed with attention to detail and delivered
at a level of excellence that will make Arcadia proud.
• Greater Employment & Economic Stimulation — The construction - related
economic benefits resulting from this project are significant and exceed any that
could be achieved under the current industrial zoning requirements.
(See Kosmont Company Fiscal Net Impact Analysis)
Municipal Revenues - More than $1 million in permit and impact fees will be
generated for the City of Arcadia as a result of this project.
In order to ensure the benefits described above are achieved successfully and at a
minimal cost of service to the City of Arcadia we recommend the following:
Police — Regular routine patrols of the area should continue as is so that
sufficient response times are provided to the new development.
• Fire — A mutual aid agreement between the County of Los Angeles Fire Station
169 at 5112 Peck and the City of Arcadia should be executed to ensure
adequate levels of service for the residents of the development.
• Municipal Service Reimbursement - The projected annual fiscal deficit of
$4,300 for municipal service created by this new project shall be reimbursed by
the developer for up to 50 years through either an up- front, lump sum payment or
other preferred structure. (See Kosmont Company Fiscal Net Impact Analysis)
We look forward to cooperating with the Council and City staff to craft a proposal that
will maximize the potential of this part of Arcadia.
Very truly yours,
The Durfee Partnership
CLARK STREFT
SITE
N
/'%k
40
5r-A-E: I" = 50' -0'
m6pm�
O 020 AO ED
DURFEE AVENUE SITE PLAN SINGLE - FAMILY SCHEME
Fekumry 4, 2013 ,.
I.IlrI CHAN(i ItOHLII+ 3 8 ASS Dc
kosmon�
Memorandum
To: Brian Gelt, VP Construction & Development, Canfield Development, Inc.
From: Lary J. Kosmont CRE®, President & CEO, Kosmont Companies
Joseph Dieguez, Vice President, Kosmont Companies
Date: February 20, 2013
Subject: Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis — 5436 Durfee Avenue
I. Executive Summary
Background & Purpose
289 N. Roberston Blvd. II, LLC ( "Owner") owns approximately 5 acres of land at the southeast
comer of the intersection of Durfee Avenue and Clark Street ( "Site ") in the City of Arcadia
( "City "). Owner and Canfield Development, Inc. ( "Developer ") are in discussions with the City
regarding the development of an approximately 54 -unit residential project ( "Project") on the Site,
which is currently vacant and being used for outdoor storage. The Project would consist of
approximately 140,000 square feet of for -sale residential housing, valued at approximately $35
million. The Site is currently zoned for light industrial use (M -1), and Owner and Developer are
requesting a zone change 1 General Plan amendment.
Owner and Developer have retained Kosmont Companies ( "Kosmont ") to provide a preliminary
estimate of the net fiscal impacts of the Project to the City based on primary municipal revenue
and expenditure drivers, with commentary on impacts relative to a hypothetical industrial
development on the Site, and including a general evaluation of alternatives to mitigate additional
service costs to the City as a result of the Project.
Summary of Findings
The tables on the following page summarize the preliminary estimate of net fiscal impacts and
short -term construction - related benefits of the Project to the City.'
It is estimated based on evaluation of primary municipal revenue and expenditure drivers that
the Project would have a relatively equivalent net annual fiscal impact and a greater (more
positive) short -term construction - related economic impact when compared to a hypothetical
industrial use, with increased police and fire expenditures offset primarily by increased property
tax, property transfer tax, sales tax, and utility user tax revenues.
' Estimated impacts upon Project built -out & stabilization. Preliminary Analysis does not include general fund
revenues to be derived from other tax sources, licenses & permits, fines & penalties, revenue from other agencies,
and other sources. Preliminary Analysis does not include general fund expenditures to be derived from public works
services, development services, library & museum services, and other sources.
FAA
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are rot a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
kOSM ntp,�,,, 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90x17 ph 213,417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 2 of 30
Preliminary Summary of Net Fiscal Impacts
Primary General Fund Revenues
Property Tax
$29,500
Property Transfer Tax
$2,900
Sales Tax
$23,400
Utility User Tax
$4,500
Total Primary Revenue Sources $60,300
Primary General Fund Expenditures
Police $37,600
Fire $27,000
Total Primary Expenditure Sources $64,600
Estimated Net Fiscal Impact $43300
Per Unit Estimated Annual Impact $80
Short-Term Construction - Related Economic Impacts
(IMPLAN)
Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
Employment (FTE)
115
33
41
189
Labor Income (in $ mil)
$8.9
$2.3
$2.3
$13.5
Economic Output (in $ mil)
$21.0
$6.6
$6.5
$34.1
If the City wished to mitigate the estimated negative fiscal impacts of the Project in part or
whole, alternatives include a one -time payment by the Owner /Developer to the City following
transaction closing in the context of "a Development Agreement as compensation for the net
present value of projected fiscal impacts (e.g. approximately $135,000 as compensation for 50
years of projected estimated negative net fiscal impacts).
It may also be feasible for a revenue raising measure (e.g. special tax) to be levied on Project
residents in order to mitigate the estimated negative fiscal impacts to the City in part or in whole,
by way of a vote of property owners to be affected by the measure or by a vote of the general
electorate. Voter /ballot eligibility is determined based on the measure selected. Additional
research and discussion with the City Attorney and/or special bond counsel would be
recommended in any case prior to initiation any revenue raising endeavor. This alternative for
aost mitigation may not be preferred due to the associated administrative costs to implement.
The ru alyses, projections, assumptions, rats of retum, and any examples presented herein are far illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
RA onry. Actual results may differ materialty from those expressed in this analysis.
ko S In c1Il 1 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Caldomia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.9311
"...nD pit-
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 3 of 30
II. Analysis Methodology
The Analysis contained herein is based on information provided by Canfield Development, City
of Arcadia, Los Angeles County Tax Assessor, California Board of Equalization, U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ESRI, and Minnesota IMPLAN Group.
This preliminary Analysis is not intended to estimate all Project - generated fiscal revenues and
expenditures, but rather to provide an estimate of the primary revenue and expenditure
categories related to the Project. A comprehensive net fiscal impact analysis would be
necessary to estimate all potential Project - related revenue and expenditure sources, including
revenue items such as licenses and permits, fines and penalties, revenue from other agencies,
and expenditure items such as public works services, development services, library and
museum services, and others.
General Assumptions
General assumptions are as follows with more specific assumptions denoted where applicable:
Dollar amounts are expressed in 2013 dollars
• Construction- related economic benefits are expressed in gross terms
• Construction employment figures are short-term, full -time equivalent ( "FTE ") jobs.
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
Municipal revenue sources to be generated by the Project are estimated as follows:
• Property Tax: Estimated based on the Project's anticipated assessed valuation and the
applicable ad valorem property tax rates for the County tax rate areas ( "TRA ") in which
the Project is located (TRA 03588 and 09186)
Property Transfer Tax. Estimated based on the number of for -sale residential units, their
estimated value, the City's property turnover tax rate, and the percentage of units
expected to turnover (sale transactions) each year
Sales Tax: Estimated based on the projected off -site expenditures by Project residents,
calculated based on resident income (average City household income used), percentage
of income spent on taxable retail goods and services (estimated according to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey), the expected capture rate of
taxable retail spending within the City (based on City taxable retail sales performance
and high level review of surrounding retail amenities), and the City sales tax rate
• Utility User Tax: Estimated based on the number of dwelling units ( "DU ") in the Project,
the projected utility usage for the average Project DU, and the applicable City utility user
tax rates.
Municipal expenditure sources to be generated by the Project are based primarily on the City's
Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 Budget and Project - specific factors. Key aspects of the methodology
are highlighted as follows:
• Identify the primary general fund expenditure line items that would be impacted on an
annually - recurring basis by the Project (police and fire)
FANIThe analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko smon Figueroa Street South Figue Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
Fm
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 4 of 30
For the identified line items, correlate the "relevant population" for purposes of
calculating per capita revenue and expenditure factors
+ In the case of line items affected by both residents and employees within the City, the
combined resident and "daytime" employee populations are considered
• Calculate per capita factors for affected line item based on the total dollar amount in the
City's current budget divided by the relevant effective population
• Apply these per capita factors to the Project in order to forecast fiscal impacts.
iMPLAN Modeyin
This Analysis uses lMPLAN (IM
pact analysis for PLANning), an econometric input/output model
to quantify the economic impact of the Project's construction activity to the local region. This
proprietary model estimates the economic impacts on the industries in a given geographic area
based on known economic inputs such as budgetary expenses or project cost estimates. The
model estimates direct, indirect, and induced impacts expressed in terms of increased labor
income ( "wages "), job creation, and economic output. Impact estimates include direct, indirect,
and induced benefits.
Direct impacts refer to the change in total output and employment resulting from direct final
demand changes in expenditures and/or production values. Direct benefits include expenditures
made by Developer for construction activities necessary to Build the Project, as well as the jobs
created to carry out these construction activities.
Indirect benefits refer to the impacts resulting from changes in inter - industry purchases as they
respond to demands of the industries directly affected by the Project's construction activities.
Indirect benefits include industries affected by the ongoing operations and building of a project,
such as wholesale trade and architectural and engineering services.
Induced benefits are the changes in local spending resulting from household income increases
(i.e. for those households employed directly or indirectly in affected sectors). Individuals who
are directly or indirectly employed as related to ongoing operation and construction activities will
generate additional economic activity based on their personal expenditures proximate to the
Project.
1 A portion of City's existing population which generates a portion of the City's current revenue and expenditures
include the non - resident workforce employed in the City. In this Analysis, a person employed in the City is assumed
:o be equivalent to a resident for the purpose of estimating revenues and expenditures. This 1 -to -1 ratio accounts for
the spending by City-based employees as a result of their time in the City. The ratio is based on Kosmont's review
of comparable local cities and general experience. "City Effective Population" as used herein, represents actual City
residents in addition to equivalent "employee" residents.
FAAM
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for Illustrative
purposes and are not a guaneirfte of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Anal results may differ rnaWelly from those expressed in this analysis.
ko smote 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213A17.33DO fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 5 of 30
III. Fiscal and Economic Impacts
Annual Net Fiscal Impacts
The Project is expected to generate fiscal revenues and expenditures for the City. The
difference between the two (revenues minus expenses) is referred to as the net fiscal impact.
At full build -out and stabilization, the Project is estimated to generate a negative net fiscal
impact of $4,300 for the City. Estimated primary fiscal revenues total $60,300. Estimated
primary fiscal expenditures total $64,600. Please see Appendices for fiscal impact details.
Primary sources of fiscal revenue include:
• Property tax: $29,500
• Property transfer tax: $2,900
• Sales tax: $23,400
• Utility user tax: $4,500.
When compared to a hypothetical industrial development on the Site, the Project is expected to
produce a greater amount of property tax and property transfer tax revenues to the City, due to
the higher property value typically associated with residential uses when compared to industrial
uses.
The Project is also expected to generate a greater amount of sales tax revenue to the City, due
to the higher density of Project occupants relative to a typical industrial user scenario, higher
expected household income (due to high City average household income) and related amount
of taxable retail spending of Project residents versus industrial employees, and greater
expected capture of taxable retail spending within City limits (individuals tend to spend more in
the City where they live versus where they work).
The Project is expected to generate a greater amount of utility user tax revenue to the City, due
to the higher utility usage per square foot associated with residential uses when compared to
typical industrial uses (City utility user tax is the same for residential and industrial uses).
Primary sources of fiscal expenditures include:
• Police: $37,600
• Fire: $27,000.
It should be noted that police and fire expenditures are projected to represent approximately
60% of total City general fund expenditures, according to the City Fiscal Year 2012 -2013
Budget. The Project is expected to generate a greater amount of police and fire service
expenditures to the City, due to the higher density of Project occupants relative to a typical
industrial use scenario.
It is estimated on a preliminary level that the increased fiscal revenues to the City would
"balance" the increased fiscal expenditures when comparing the Project to a
hypothetical industrial use on the Site.
FAM
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or kture results. Project pro forma and tax anayses are projections
only_ Actual remits may differ materially from those expressed in this analysts.
kOsmon 865 South Figueroa Street 351h Floor Las Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax MA17.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 6 of 30
One -Time Construction - Related Economic Impacts
The construction activity generated by the Project will induce construction- related spending,
which is expected to create temporary jobs and fuel the local Los Angeles County economy. To
illustrate the economic impacts of construction, this Analysis uses an econometric tool known as
an Input - Output ( "10 ") model.
Project construction is estimated to generate approximately 189 short-term jobs, $13.5 million in
wages, and $34.1 million in total economic output and through direct, indirect, and induced
economic activity. Please see Appendices for economic impact details by industry.
When compared to a hypothetical industrial development on the Site, the Project is
expected to produce a -greater (more positive) amount of construction - related economic
impact, due to the higher constructions costs and related industry spending associated
with residential development versus industrial development.
IV. Conclusions & Municipal Cost Mitigation Alternatives
Preliminary Analysis Conclusions
• Project results in a ne ative net fiscal impact of approximately $4,300 annually
This translates to approximately $80 per unit annually
• When compared to a hypothetical industrial development, Project is expected to result in
an eguivalent annual net fiscal impact, and a ra eater (more positive) amount of
construction - related economic impact
Municipal Cost Mitigation Alternatives
In order to mitigate additional municipal service costs to the City net of revenues to be derived
from the Project, two primary alternatives are discussed herein for consideration:
1. One -Time Developer /Owner Payment to City following transaction closing (preferred)
2. Ongoing Revenue Measure (e.g. Special Tax)
Alternative #1 involves a one -time payment from the Developer/Owner to the City following
entitlement approval and transaction closing (e.g. within 6 months of closing) as compensation
for the net present value of estimated negative fiscal impacts projected for a time period
consistent with the useful life of Project improvements. Appendix R illustrates a range of net
present values for the projected estimated net fiscal impacts. A one -time payment of
approximately $135,000 would correspond to 50 years of projected estimated net fiscal impacts.
The upfront payment could be incorporated into a Development Agreement between the City
and the Developer, which could be drafted by the City Attorney (additional City Attorney costs
would apply for Agreement preparation).
Alternative #2 involves the implementation of an annuallongoing revenue measure, such as a
special tax, to be levied on Project residents in order to mitigate the estimated negative fiscal
impacts related to the Project. This alternative may not be the preferred approach due to the
FAN
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates or mum, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor fuhire results_ Project pro Tonne and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
kO S M 11( 865 south Figueroa street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 7 of 30
administrative costs to both City and Developer /Owner associated with implementation of any
revenue - raising measure. Following is a discussion of the feasibility of a potential revenue
measure related to the Project.
Revenue Measure General Feasibility
The following is high level discussion of a series of potential approaches to service cost
mitigation as it pertains to the Project. California law includes many nuances and specific
terminology that apply to local government revenue - raising measures. This discussion is
intended to provide general guidance. If the Owner /Developer /City ultimately elects to pursue a
specific avenue as outlined herein, consultation with municipal and special counsel is
recommended.
Should the City wish to mitigate Project - related fiscal expenditures through a revenue - raising
measure, there are three primary avenues to pursue: (1) fees, (2) assessments, and (3) taxes.
Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 218 (1996), Proposition 26 (2010), and other State legislation
regulate the manner in which cities can raise revenue through these measures.
Proposition 26 Guidance
Proposition 26 ( "Prop 26 "), known as the "Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative," provides the most
recent legislative guidance /restriction of the legislative initiatives mentioned above. According
to Prop 26, a local tax is defined as "any levy, charge or exaction of any kind imposed by a local
government" with some specific exceptions. This means that a local government would need to
obtain a simple majority approval of the voters for the revenue measure if the revenues are to
be used for general governmental purposes ( "general tax "), or a two- thirds voter approval if the
revenues are to be used for a special /designated purpose ( "special tax"). This is in contrast to a
general fee (not a property - related fee), which may be adopted by a majority vote of the city
council.
The seven exceptions to the local tax definition in Prop 26 are as follows:3
1. Special Benefit or Privilege Exception provides that a fee imposed by local
government that provides a special benefit to the person paying the fee or directly grants
the person some privilege is not a tax. Common examples include fees for planning
permits, restricted neighborhood parking permits, and entertainment and street closure
permits.
2. Government Service or Product Exception provides that a fee imposed for a specific
government service or government product provided directly to the person paying the
fee is not a tax. Some common examples are fees for parks and recreation classes.
3. Licenses and Permits Exception provides that the following are not taxes: a fee
imposed for issuing licenses and permits; and the costs of administrative enforcement of
licenses and permits. Common examples include health and safety permits, building
licenses, police background checks, and permits for regulated businesses (such as
massage establishments, card rooms, taxicabs and tow -truck operators).
3 Source: California Loe:l Government Finance Almanac (2013), League of California Cities (2011)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results. Project pro forme and tax analyses ere projections
- only. Actual rmb may differ materially from those expressed in Oils anaysls,
ko s ma n� 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 9DO17 ph 213.417.33DO fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 8 of 30
For the exceptions set forth in items 1 through 3, Prop 26 imposes the additional
requirement that the fee imposed must not exceed the city's reasonable costs. If the fee
does exceed the reasonable costs, then it is not eligible for any of these exceptions and
would be a tax subject to voter approval.
4. Local Government Property Exception provides that fees charged for the use of or
entrance to local government property is not a tax. Some common examples are city
facility room rentals, equipment rental fees, park entrance fees and golf greens fees.
5. Fines and Penalties Exception provides that fines and penalties imposed for violations
of the law are not taxes. Common examples include parking fines, code enforcement
fines, library late return penalties and late payment penalties.
6. Property Development Exception provides that a fee imposed as a condition of
property development is not a tax. Some common examples are development impact
fees, construction and grading permit fees, fees imposed by California Environmental
Quality Act mitigation requirements, and Quimby Act and park mitigation fees.
7. Proposition 218 ( "Prop 218 ") Exception provides that property assessments and
property - related fees that are already subject to the approval requirements of Prop 218
are not taxes. Common examples include water and sewer rates and special district
assessments, such as Landscape and Lighting District Act assessments.
In cases where this is any doubt as to whether any exemption above applies, it is Kosmont's
observation that classification as a local tax per Prop 26 tends to prevail.
Fee Measure Feasibility
Although a potential fee measure as relevant to the Project would address government services
(potentially exempt per exemption #2), general governmental services such as police protection
and fire suppression are difficult to link directly to a resident or business potentially paying the
fee. Instead, according to Prop 218, a fee imposed as an incident to property ownership is
delineated as a "property - related" fee. Property - related fees have potential to be exempt from
definition as a tax per exception #7, however, per the guidelines outlined in Prop 218, property -
related fees are explicitly prohibited from use for general governmental services, including
police and fire services. General and property- related fees are hence both excluded from
further discussion.
Assessment Measure Feasibility
Certain assessment measures are potentially excepted from definition as a tax per Exception
#7, subject to assessment approval requirements as outlined in Prop 218. State Government
Code § 50078 et seq. in conjunction with Prop 218 gives authority to a local agency that
provides fire suppression services (directly or by contract with the state or another local agency)
to levy an assessment services with 213 voter approval (weighted in proportion to assessment
iability) for the purpose of obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression
equipment or for the purpose of paying the salaries and benefits of firefighting personnel, or
both. The City must specify the property to be subject to the assessment, the amount, basis,
schedule, and other details. Recent legal action pertaining to local assessments would suggest
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
pwp❑ses end are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results_ Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
-only. Actual results may thirst materially from those expressed in this analysis.
]{ $ n 865 south Figueroa Street, 36th Fbor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213 497.3300 fax 213.417 3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal impact Analysis
February 2093
Page 9 of 30
that a defensible engineer's report be employed to determine property -owner need for fire
services.
Unlike fire suppression services, police protection services are not explicitly mentioned in State
Government Code as eligible for assessment levy, and programs such as police protection that
benefit people, rather than specific properties, are not eligible for assessments according to
Prop 218. In California, additional levies for police services are typically requested through a
special tax initiative (see section below).
Tax Measure Feasibility
Most tax measures are voted on for approval by a citywide vote, requiring either a simple
majority approval (for general taxes) or a two- thirds supermajority approval (special taxes), as
previously stated. It should be noted, however, that several legislative bills have recently been
proposed to amend Proposition 13 to lower the voter approval requirement for certain parcel
and other special taxes from two- thirds to 55 %. Among the proposed bills is Assembly
Constitutional Amendment 3 (Campos, D — San Jose), which would lower the approval
threshold for police and fire services and facilities.
Beyond these basic criteria, there are special circumstances that can apply to districts formed
within cities for special purposes. A Community Facilities District is a relatively common
example of a special district formed for the purposes of providing specific benefits for property
owners within the district, such as the residents of the Project.
Community Facilities District ( "CFD ") Approach
Once formed, a CFD could levy a special tax (such as a parcel tax) on property owners, the
pledge of revenues from which could finance the purchase of an asset that would either (a)
reduce the costs of providing municipal services such as police or fire (such as a new station or
other equipment) or (b) produce annual revenues to offset cost of services. Examples of
possible income- producing assets range from water rights tied to the Project (low maintenance,
increase in value over time) to solar power generating assets (estimated maintenance and
replacement costs could be included).
The two- thirds supermajority approval necessary for such a special tax would be feasible based
on the single ownership of the Project upon build -out. It should be noted that future residents
would have the authority to repeal the tax (also applies to fees and assessments); however if
said revenue sources were pledged to a bond payment, the case may be that the residents
would not be able to eliminate the revenue stream if it would jeopardize the security of the
bonded indebtedness (this is a matter for bond counsel to evaluate and provide advice).
A special tax levied to mitigate the relatively low additional cost of services to the Project would
likely not involve a bond issue, however, due to the high cost of bond issuance. A loan from a
financial institution would likely be a more feasible option, given the lower cost of origination,
Considering the City's AA+ credit rating and a pledge of property tax revenues, it is expected
that a suitable lender may be recruited. The ability of future residents to repeal the tax would
need to be addressed in loan documentation (this is a matter for bond counsel to evaluate and
provide advice).
For the purpose of illustration, if a special tax assessment were levied on Project property
owners and collateralized for a 30 -year loan to finance the present value of the estimated net
rAA
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illuslra5ve
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed In this analysis.
ko s MOD 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213A17.3311
5436 burfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 10 of 34
fiscal impact of the Project over a term of 50 years (approximately $135,122) at an interest rate
of 6.0 %, the annual loan payment would equal approximately $16,721 ($310 1 unit), or 0.06% of
the initial Project value upon build -out, for 30 years. Please see Appendices R and S for details.
There may be term limitations based on federal and/or state law. Specific terms are provided
for illustrative purposes only and would require bond counsel review regarding validity of term
length.
If an annual loan payment corresponding directly to the estimated annual net fiscal impact were
desired (approximately $4,300 in the first year, or $80 per unit), a creative financing alternative
could involve a negative amortization loan with escalating payments (to match anticipated
increasing service costs) over a longer term (e.g. 99 years) with a balloon payment upon
maturity. Please see Appendix T for a sample illustrative analysis. There may be term
limitations based on federal and/or state law. Specific terms are provided for illustrative
purposes only and would require bond counsel review regarding validity of term length.
Additional research and discussion with the City Attorney and /or special bond counsel would be
recommended in any case prior to consideration of and initiation any revenue raising endeavor
mentioned herein. Further, there may be other financing alternatives not discussed or
mentioned herein.
Tt,e analyses, projections, assumptions, retes of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andior future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only, +4ctual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ICO 5 FTIO�CI��i� 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.331]0 fax 213.417.3319
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 11 of 30
Appendix A: Region Map
Ifara.rtfys Bt�rbanic flltadea'ia�
oa�CS
Ulu datoke���@n1�8iF�� J
Af cridFar� .V.G, l�eriara
� t'X .,- �y'. .�� f� � id" � I1. •. * - .A'Y'�..�1rt YMYYa � r1
.l k► 'ice `_. Alimmbra
Covirm r
P
•_'� �$VY9�1y Fltl�;3: ' : "' Es , �' . Ii�l�OrltFft�i* r� �V�f@5�`�01�11118'y.,�
Las Ai de ' �srk
ikni Cuhieir �Cily� rf�u "�lontebe`� ;, War1
c:p
Marine ,i . HuntlngtceY
P rk Areaw
in 0 ' t
Lynolow. I& Habra- v
H.
�` .• 'd rte Co ttarti f } `i iorv,i�ii - =y0fbsl
FtAi Mri is
Torrance heiri 1 .
-, z_l3utby tSftufla t :, ,
�rstvs `�.:. f Cypress Lq� oa.
t81ts 'F , YY --I
Lo mrtL3 , r8fl9gQ
RJ:IrICIiQ: rti t. e ' *lx' 11+lestminster r
N. .r�� � $ F ' . i= a�lntaifi I �� •
Source: Google Maps (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and am not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
I& .
only. Actual results may differ materially from chase expressed In this analysis.
ko 5 mo n 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.331 t
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2093
Page 92 of 30
Appendix B: Local Area Map
kill
�aro�st1Iitl MtlMYla "k
i
fig dli _
JN'1V1' t s Arcadia
� k
''. Les An
i
Note: Mayflower Village, North El Monte, and South Monrovia Island census designated places
(CDP) additionally depicted above
Source: ESRI (2013)
The anayses, pr*ctkm. assuimptions, rates of retum, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro iorrrra and tax analyses are projections
t
VAL only. Actual results may diifar materially from those expressed in this analysis.
loo S mo 1 -� 865 South Figueroa street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Califamia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5438 Du-`ee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 13 of 30
Appendix C: Site Aerial
Source; Los Angeles County Tax Assessor
FJ4kThe analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko smote 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Califomia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 14 of 30
Appendix D. Site Map
Source: Canfield Development
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for Illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections:
only. Actual results may differ materially, from those expressed in this ana"Is.
ko s mon 865 South Fgueroa Strawy 351h Fbor Los Angeles Califomia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213A17.3311
Appendix E; Analysis Assumptions
City Data Factor
City Resident Population (2012) 56,669
Employees in City (2012) 14,497
City Effective Population (Residents + Employees) 71,166
Average Household Size (2012) 2.84
Average Household Income (2012) $92,994
Project Data
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 15 of 30
Source
ESRI; U.S. Census Bureau
City of Arcadia 2012 CAFR
Kosmont Companies
ESRI; U.S. Census Bureau
ESRI; U.S. Census Bureau
Existing Site Value $5,347,000 LA County Tax Assessor
Average For -Sale Unit Value $650,000 Canfield Development
Number of Dwelling Units (DU)1 Households 54 Canfield Development
Number of Expected Residents (DU x Avg HH Size) 153 Kosmont Companies
Tax Rates
General Levy Property Tax Rate 1.00% LA County Tax Assessor
City General Fund Share of General Levy' 9.9% LA County Tax Assessor
Real Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.055% City of Arcadia
Property Turnover Rate per Year (Stabilized) 15.0% Kosmont Companies
MJL,
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rakes of retum, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual endlor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only_ Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko smont� 865 South Figueroa Slreet, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3340 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 16 of 30
Appendix F: Property Tax
Average Unit Value $650,000
Total Project Value $35,100,000
(Less) Existing Site Value ($5,347,000)
Net Total Project Value $29,753,000
Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $297,530
City Share of ProDertv Tax General Levy 9.93% $29,500
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any wwrnples presented herein are for Illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andtor future results. Project pro forma and fax analyses are projections
- ' only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed In this analysis.
ko s moII 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Califamia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213,417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 17 of 30
Appendix G: Property Transfer Tax
Total Residential Assessed Value $35,100,000
Property Turnover Rate (per year) 15.0%
Value of Properties Transferred $5,265,000
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro icxma and tax analyses are projections
F,k4 only. Aotual results may diner materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko s mo n 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Caliramia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Furfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 18 of 30
Appendix H: Annual Resident Taxable Spending
Average Household Income in Arcadia:
$92,994
Annual Taxable Expenditures
Percent
Amount
Food at home
5.2%
$4,789
Food Away from Home
3.9%
$3,635
Alcoholic Beverages
0.7%
$693
Fuel oil and other fuels
0.2%
$194
Other household expenses
0.9%
$864
Housekeeping Supplies
0.8%
$781
Household Furn & Equip
2.2%
$2,075
Apparel & Services
2.5%
$2,298
Vehicle Purchases
5.0%
$4,611
Gasoline & Oil
4.0%
$3,739
Maintenance & Repairs
1.3%
$1,189
Drugs
0.6%
$599
Medical supplies
0.2%
$172
Entertainment
3.8%
$3,491
Personal care products and services
0.9%
$857
Reading
0.2%
$156
Tobacco related
0.4%
$415
Total
32.9%
$30,560
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (2011), Canfield
Development (2013), Kosmont Companies (2013)
FAA
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rakes of return, and any examples presented herein are for Illustrative
purpos" and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forme and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
AO SM=L 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Fbor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.33(0 fax 213.417.3311
Appendix I: Arcadia Retail Sales Performance Evaluation
Re ion
Temple City
Baldwin Park
El Monte
LA County Average
California State Average
Arcadia
Taxable Retail
Sales Per Capita*
$3,603
$5,165
$8,185
$8,721
$9,152
$12,394
543$ Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 19 of 30
* Four quarters ending Q2 2011 (latest available data from CA Board of Equilization)
Note: Irwindale not included due to population of only 1,422
Source: CA Board of Equilization (2011), U.S. Census (2010)
City of Arcadia
Taxable Retail Sales Per Capita $12,394
Retail Spending Potential Per Capita* $10,604
Per Capita Sales Surplus $1,790
Percent Sales Surplus 16.9%
* Retail spending potential based on average household income and percentage of income spent on
taxable retail goods and services
Source: CA Board of Equalization (2011), U.S. Census (2010), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011),
Kosmont Companies (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are praiections
FARI only_ Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko S mo n,L 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 20 of 30
Appendix J. Sales Tax
Number of Stabilized On -Site Residents 153
Estimated Annual Taxable Expenditures 1 Resident * $30,560
Total Estimated Resident Taxable Expenditures $4,686,746
Estimated Annual Spending Captured in City ** 50% $2,343,373
1 Total Annual Sales Tax to City 1.00% $23,400 1
* See Appendix H for derivation of annual taxable expenditures per resident
** Spending capture rates based on Kosmont high -level review of existing retail amenities within
proposed Project trade area (including Westfield Santa Anita Mall) and a high -level analysis of
City's overall taxable retail sales capture /leakage performance (Appendix 1)
Note: All amounts in 2013 dollars
Source: Canfield Development (2013), U.S. Census Bureau (2010), ESRI (2013), Kosmont
Companies (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax anatyses are projections
Pik ;11 only. Actual results may differ maWalty from those expressed in this analysis.
ko smok, 865 South Fgueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 9(]017 ph 213.417.3306 fax 213.497.3391
Appendix K: Utility User Tax
Utility Cost
Utility Usage
City Tax Rate
Subtotal
5436 Ourfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 21 of 30
# DU
Electricity
Gas
Phone
$1,0001DU
$350/DU
$350/DU
54 DU
$54,000
$18,900
$18,900
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
$2,700
$900
$900
Total Annual Utility User Tax to City $4,500 1
Note: All amounts in 2013 dollar;
Source: City of Arcadia, Canfield Development, Kosmont Companies (2013)
Fjk4
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may ditfw materially from those expressed in this analysis.
ko s mo nt 865 South Hguaroa Street, 35th Floor IAs Angeles Caffornia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 laurfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2093
Page 22 of 30
Appendix L: General Fund Expenditures
Note: Police and fire expenditures projected to represent approximately 60% of total City general fund expenditures,
according to the City FY 2012 -13 Budget
Source: City of Arcadia Fiscal Year 2012 -13 Annual Budget, Kosmont Companies (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or fature results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those eVressed in this analysis.
ko S M L 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 215.417.3311
Budget Item
Budget
Amount
Basis
Per Capita
Cost
Police
Fire
$17,458,350
$12,532,B00
City Effective Population
City Effective Population
$245.32
$176.11
Total Police & Fire Expenditures
$29,991,150
1
1 $421.43
Note: Police and fire expenditures projected to represent approximately 60% of total City general fund expenditures,
according to the City FY 2012 -13 Budget
Source: City of Arcadia Fiscal Year 2012 -13 Annual Budget, Kosmont Companies (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or fature results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those eVressed in this analysis.
ko S M L 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 215.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 23 of 30
Appendix M: Estimated Net Fiscal Impacts (Major Revenues Minus Major Expenditures)
Per Capita
Basis
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax
Project -Based Characteristics
$29,500
Property Transfer Tax
Project -Based Characteristics
2,900
Sales Tax
Project -Based Characteristics
23,400
Utility User Tax
-- Project -Based Characteristics
4,500
Total General Fund Revenues
$60,300
General Fund Expenditures
Police
$245.32 Project Effective Population
37,600
Fire
$176.11 Project Effective Population
27,000
Total General Fund Expenditures
$64,600
Source: City of Arcadia Fiscal Year 2012 -13 Annual Budget, Kosmont Companies (2013)
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for iflustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
onty. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
kosmon 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 24 of 30
Appendix N: Estimated Construction Budget
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented heroin are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results. project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
t1..
FA: only. Actual results may diner materially from those expressed in this analysis.
iiQ SMDII k� 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Fbor Los A,ngeies California 90017 ph 213.417.3340 fax 213A17.3311
Total
Per Unit
Per SF '
Land
$5,000,000
$92,593
$35.71
19.2%
Hard Costs
$13,979,063
$258,872
$99.85
53.8%
Soft Costs
$5,121,695
$94,846
$36.58
19.7%
Financing Costs
$1,884,105
$34,891
$13.46
7.3%
Total
$25.984.863
$481.201
$185.61
100.0%
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented heroin are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results. project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
t1..
FA: only. Actual results may diner materially from those expressed in this analysis.
iiQ SMDII k� 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Fbor Los A,ngeies California 90017 ph 213.417.3340 fax 213A17.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 25 of 30
Appendix O: Short-Term Construction - Related Employment Impacts (IMPLAN)
Summary of Total Employment Impact on Local Area (Construction Period)
NAICS Industry
11
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting
21
Mining
22
Utilities
23
Construction
31 -33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
44 -45
Retail trade
48 -49
Transportation & Warehousing
51
Information
52
Finance & insurance
53
Real estate & rental
54
Professional - scientific & tech svcs
55
Management of companies
56
Administrative & waste services
61
Educational svcs
62
Health & social services
71
Arts- entertainment & recreation
72
Accommodation & food services
81
Other services
92
Government & non NAICs
0
Total
Direct Indirect Induced Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
0
0
77
0
3
1
4
0
2
1
3
0
4
8
12
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
3
7
3
3
12
0
1
3
5
32
8
2
41
0
0
0
1
0
4
2
6
0
0
2
2
0
0
8
8
0
0
1
2
0
2
4
6
0
2
3
4
0
1
1
2
115
33
41
189
NAICS = North American Industry Classification System
Source: IMPLAN Professional Input- Output Model
The analyses, projeWons, assumptions, rtes of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustretive
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results.. NOW pro forma and tax analyses are projeowns,
FAMI only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
koSrnq.nT 865 South Figueroa Street, 351h Floor Los Angeles Califomia 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
plbks
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 26 of 30
Appendix P: Short-Term Construction - Related Labor Income Impacts ( IMPLAN)
Summary of Total Labor Income Impact on Local Area (Construction Period)
(in Millions of 2012 Dollars)
NAICS Industry
..
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting
21
Mining
22
Utilities
23
Construction
31 -33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
44-45
Retail trade
48-49
Transportation & Warehousing
51
Information
52
Finance & insurance
53
Real estate & rental
54
Professional - scientific & tech svcs
55
Management of companies
56
Administrative & waste services
61
Educational svcs
62
Health & social services
71
Arts- entertainment & recreation
72
Accommodation & food services
81
Other services
92
Government & non NAICs
$0.0
Total
Direct Indirect Induced Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5.5
$0.0
$0.0
$5.5
$0.0
$0.2
$0.1
$0.3
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$0.0
$0.1
$0.3
$0.5
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$0.0
$0.2
$0.1
$0.4
$0.7
$0.3
$0.3
$1.2
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$2.7
$0.7
$0.2
$3.6
$0.0
$0.1
$0.0
$0.1
$0.0
$0.2
$0.1
$0.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.5
$0.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
$0.1
1 $0.1
$0.1
$8.9
$2.3
1 $2.3
1 $13.5
NAICS = North American Industry Classification System
Source: IMPLAN Professional Input - Output Model
FAM
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illusiralive
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfoT future results_ Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in this analysis.
kOSMQn wL 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.x17.3340 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Dur'ee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 27 of 30
Appendix Q: Short-Term Construction - Related Economic Output Impacts (IMPL-AN)
Summary of Total Economic Output impact on Local Area (Construction Period)
(in Millions of 2012 Dollars)
NAICS Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total
11
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting
21
Mining
22
Utilities
23
Construction
31 -33
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale Trade
44 -45
Retail trade
48 -49
Transportation & Warehousing
51
Information
52
Finance & insurance
53
Real estate & rental
54
Professional- scientific & tech secs
55
Management of companies
56
Administrative & waste services
61
Educational secs
62
Health & social services
71
Arts- entertainment & recreation
72
Accommodation & food services
81
Other services
92
Government & non NAICs
$0.0
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.0
$0.1
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$14.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14.0
$0.0
$1.3
$0.6
$1.9
$0.0
$0.3
$0.3
$0.6
$0.0
$0.3
$0.7
$1.1
$0.0
$0.2
$0.1
$0.3
$0.0
$0.9
$0.4
$1.4
$1.9
$0.7
$0.7
$3.3
$0.0
$0.6
$1.3
$1.8
$5.1
$1.3
$0.3
$6.7
$0.0
$0.1
$0.0
$0.2
$0.0
$0.3
$0.1
$0.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.9
$0.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.2
$0.2
$0.0
$0.1
$0.3
$0.4
$0.0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
$0.1
$21.0
$6.6
$6.5
$34.1
NAICS = North American Industry Classification System
Source: IMPLAN Professional Input- Output Model
FJA
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or figure results. Project pro farms and tax analyses are projections
onty. Actual result mey diner meWally from those expressed in this analysis.
KOSM2.nT
PKWO 865 south Fguerna Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles Califomia 90017 ph 2l3.417.3300 tax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 28 of 30
Appendix R: Present Value of Preliminary Estimated Net Fiscal Impact of Project to City
Term:
50 Years
Inflation:
3.50%
Discount Rate:
5.50%
Initial Annual Cost:
4,300
Present Value:
$ 135,122
S
Discount Rate
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.5%
7.0%
30
119,514
110,973
103,268
96,305
90,000
84,282
79,086
50
189,814
168,543
150,499
135,122
121,958
110,638
100,859
99
335,122
269,434
221,016
184,729
157,077
135,652
118,780
MThe analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for Mustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andlor future results_ Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
A, only. Actual results may differ materialy from those expressed in this analysis.
ko Smont1ft 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.33D11 fax 213.417.3311
Appendix S: Sample CFD Loan /Fee Run
Development Profile
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 29 of 30
Existing Land Value:
Incremental Development Value:
Total Development Value:
Initial Annual Revenue Per 0.1% Mello -Roos
Required Mello -Roos Rate (Initial)
Initial Balance:
Loan Term:
Interest Rate:
Payment Frequency:
Payment:
Total Annual Payments:
$135,122
30 Years
6.0%
2 (Year
$8,361
$16,721
Annual Assessment: 0.06° of initial P
Value (for 30
$5,347,000
$24,353,000
$29,700,000
$29,700
aes, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
and are not a guarentiee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
l ). _iI results may differ materially from those expressed in this anegrs19.
865 South Figueroa Street, 351h Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 fax 213.417.3311
5436 Durfee Avenue
Preliminary Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
February 2013
Page 30 of 30
Appendix T. Sample Negative Amortization Loan
Initial Annual Payment: 4,300 AV Growth: 2.50%
Desired Escalation: 3.5%
Interest Rate: 6.0% (Daily Compounding)
Term: 99 Years
Terminal Balance: $0
Year
Principal
Balance
Payment
Interest
Principal
Reduction
Property
Value
Required
Mello -Roos
%
1
$147,213
$4,300
$9,102
($4,802)
$29,700,000
0.014%
2
152,015
4,451
9,399
(4,949)
30,442,500
0.015%
3
156,964
4,606
9,705
(5,099)
31,203,563
0.015%
4
162,063
4,767
10,021
(5,253)
31,983,652
0.015%
5
167,316
4,934
10,345
(5,411)
32,783,243
0.015%
6
172,727
5,107
10,680
(5,573)
33,602,824
0.015%
7
178,300
5,286
11,025
(5,739)
34,442,895
0.015%
8
184,039
5,471
11,379
(5,909)
35,303,967
0.015%
9
189,947
5,662
11,745
(6,082)
36,186,566
0.016%
10
196,030
5,860
12,121
(6,260)
37,091,230
0.016%
11
202,290
6,066
12,508
(6,442)
38,018,511
0.016%
12
208,732
6,278
12,906
(6,628)
38,968,974
0.016%
13
215,361
6,498
13,316
(6,818)
39,943,198
0.016%
14
222,179
6,725
13,738
(7,013)
40,941,778
0.016%
15
229,192
6,960
14,171
(7,211)
41,965,322
0.017%
16
236,403
7,204
14,617
(7,413)
43,014,456
0.017%
17
243,816
7,456
15,075
(7,619)
44,089,817
0.017%
18
251,435
7,717
15,547
(7,829)
45,192,062
0.017%
19
259,264
7,987
16,031
(8,043)
46,321,864
0.017%
20
267,308
8,267
16,528
(8,261)
47,479,911
0.017%
99
0
125,205
0
125,205
333,960,619
0.037%
FAX
The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative
purposes and are not a guarantee of actual andfor future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections
only. Actual results may dltfer Materially from those expressed in this anelos.
110 sinan 865 South Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.417.3300 W213.417.3311
jq
January 18, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City ManagedDevelopment Services Director
By: Donna L., Butler, Community Development Administrator �/
SUBJECT: Proposed Boundary Reorganization between We City of Arcadia and the
City of El Monte
Recommendation: Conceptually approve the proposed reorganization
SUMMARY
On October 5, 2004, the City Council considered a request by Western - Pacific.
Development & Construction Company, Inc. to annex to the City of El Monte a 5± acre
parcel fronting on Durfee Avenue currently located in the City of Arcadia (see attached
map). The City Council tabled Its consideration of this item for three months in order to
further analyze the Impacts of the annexation on the City of Arcadia.
The site is currently used for outdoor storage and was recently purchased by Western
Peclfic. Western Pacific would like to develop the site with market rate single - family
detached homes. ' El Monte has approved the concept of the boundary reorganization
(annexation), but prior to proceeding with the formal process through LAFCO (the Local
Agency Formation Commission), El Monte would like some assurance from the Arcadia
City Council that the City supports the proposed reorganization.
It is the Development Services Departments opinion that the proposed boundary
reorganization is appropriate because of the location-and surrounding development, and
recommends that the City Council approve, in concept, this request.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Approximately two years ago, Western Pacific Development & Construction (i.e. Western
Pacific or applicant) contacted the City with a proposal to develop approximately three (3)
acres of property located in Arcadia on the east side of Durfee Avenue, south of Clark
Durfee Reorganization
Page 1
January 18, 2005
Avenue with medium density residential. Since Western Pacific's initial contact with the
City, the project site has been increased to 5.19 acres.
The properties are zoned M -1 (fight industrial) and the General Plan designation is
"industrial." The site is currently used for outdoor storage. Properties to the northwest
along Claris Street are located in Arcadia and developed with industrial uses.
Property to the east is a quarry operation primarily located in the City of Irwindale with a
small portion located in Arcadia. Properties to the west and south are located in the City
of El Monte and developed with single - famlly residences. Property to the southeast of the
site is located in Arcadia and Is the site of the Arcadia Reclamation Project (old Rodeffer
Quarry). The Arcadia City boundary is adjacent to the easterly side of Durfee, Avenue.
The street, Durfee Avenue, is within the City of El Monte jurisdiction.
During the initial meetings, the Development Services Department advised Western
Pacific that it was not likely that staff would support residential development in this area of
the City of Arcadia. It was mentioned that residential would be inconsistent with the
Arcadia General Plan designation of industrial as well as the M -1 zoning.
Because Western Pacific wanted to construct housing, they presented the idea of
annexing the property into the City of El Monte. They pointed out that Durfee Avenue is
In the City of El Monte as well as the residential properties to the west and south,of the
subject site. After discussion with other Arcadia City departments, staff advised Western
Pacific that' a boundary reorganization (annexation) might be considered If the City of El
Monte agreed to the idea. It was mentioned, however, that a direct connection would
have to be maintained between the Arcadia City limits along Clark Street and the Arcadia
Reclamation site located in Arcadia to the southeast of the subject property.
Since the applicant's initial proposal, Arcadia and El Monte staff have met regarding this
possible annexation. Because of the proximity of homes along Durfee Avenue In the City
of El Monte, both city staffs agreed that the annexation of this area Into El Monte seemed
appropriate. Conversely, developing residential- in this area of Arcadia would be
Inconsistent with the `Arcadia General Plan, the zoning and the typical industrial
development to the north along Clark Street.
There are no industrial uses fronting on Durfee Avenue. Industrial development of this
property in conformance with Arcadia's General Plan and zoning could be considered
incompatible with the residential properties located on Durfee Avenue in El Monte.
Industrial uses tend to generate more noise and truck traffic which may be disruptive and
inappropriate when located immediately adjacent to residential properties.
Residential development in this area would be more Compatible with the single- family
residential properties located within- El Monte to the south and west of the subject
properties than industrial uses. Because of the property location, both Arcadia and El
Monte City staff agree that this property could be better served by-.the City of El Monte
and in all appearances appears to be located with El Monte.
Durfee Reorganization
Page 2
January 18, 2005
Impacts of Reorganization
If the subject property is developed with industrial uses, Arcadia would benefit from an
increase in property,taxes as a result of development. Although there,are some industrial
uses that generate sales tax, most industrial uses do not create additional revenues over
and above the property taxes. So for purposes of this discussion, staff would assume
that any industrial development would not generate sales tax.
In regards to services, in August 2003, the Development Services Department circulated
a memo to Police, Fire and Public Works Services regarding the potential
"detachmentlannexation" of the property on Durfee Avenue. The departments noted that
there were "no strong" reasons to oppose such an action. However, it was noted that
because this property abuts "industrially zoned property in Arcadia and Irwindale to the
north_ and east respectively, future property owners should be made aware of potential
noise and proximity issues prior to purchasing a home in this area so that neither Arcadia
or El Monte police are burdened by nuisance complaints related to such industrial uses."
As a note, the industrial property to the north that is accessed from Clark Street is
developed with -small warehouse units with no manufacturing so the impact on potential
residential uses Is minimal.
In reviewing the pros and cons of the City reorganization, there are no disadvantaged to
maintaining. this property within the City of Arcadia. The property is privately owned and
currently used for outdoor storage, which is a legal nonconforming use. However, the
property generally Is poorly maintained. The site is accessible only from DurFee Avenue
which is entirely located within the City of El Monte. If the property was developed with
industrial uses, the City would benefit from some increase in property taxes, though the
amount is difficult to determine.
Another option would. be to allow development of residential uses within the City of
Arcadia. Residential Is Inconsistent wish the Arcadia's General Plan and 'zoning and
logically does not make sense when there are no other properties In this area of the City
of Arcadia developed with residential uses. It would be difficult to service this residential
area, particularly Arcadia public safety services.
Westem Pacific has made it clear that they wish to develop the property with market rate
housing units to complement and enhance the existing residential properties within the
City of El Monte.
In a letter to the City of El Monte, the Development Services Department commented that
In theory "Arcadia would support a residential project compatible with the surrounding
neighboyhood along Durfee Avenue" If the property were annexed to the City of El Monte.
It was noted, however, that the equestrian easement located within the site should be
maintained across the property to provide access from Durfee Avenue to the horse trail
located north of the Arcadia Reclamation site.
Durfee Reorganization
Page 3
January 18, 2005
The City received the attached letter dated Dedember 13, 2004 from the City of El Monte
supporting the annexation and noting that in.June 2003 the El Monte City Council granted
conceptual approval to the. reorganization proposal presented by Western Pacific
Development to develop the site with .single- family detached units ranging in size from
2,200 -2,700 sq: ft. with sales ' prices, between $500,000 and $600,000. It is El - Monte's
opinion that development of the site with residential uses will serve as a transition
between the industrially zoned properties In Arcadia and the residential horse properties
in El Monte. `
Applicant's Proposal
The proposed area of the boundary reorganization is 5.19 acres, The applicant is
proposing to construct a planned residential development with a maximum of 34 .dwelling
units (approximately, 6.6 dwelling units per acre). At this, time, the- plan Is tentative
pending the annexation. According to the applicant as the project progresses
modifications to the plan. may be necessary as required' by the City. of El Monte.
If the reorganization is approved, -the easterly portion of the •site adjacent to the -City of
Irwindale will remain within the City of Arcadia, providing a connection to-the'remainder of
the City located along lower Azusa Road including the Arcadia Reclamation'site and the
industrial complex on the south side of Lower Azusa Road. The narrowest portion of this
connection within Arcadia would be 30' -0 °. A portion of this area is comprised of slopes
for the adjoining quarry. -The horse trail would be relocated at the northerly boundary of
the parcel and along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse riders in the
area. This trail proceeds east between Irwindale and Arcadia north of the Arcadia -
Reclamation site.
LAFCO
LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) is the regulatory agency responsible for
reviewing and approving jurisdictional boundary changes. A 'routine application that is
non - controversial typically takes approximately 3 to 4 months.to process after a complete
application is submitted10 the LAFCO office.
It is anticipated that the landowner ( Westem Pacific) would initiate the boundary
reorganization- although an agency, in this case the' Pity of El Monte, may also initiate a
petftion..
Prior to annexation to a city, the property must be pre - general planned and pre zoned. In
addition the. applicant may be required to submit information for an 'environmental
assessment,
in order to proceed with the boundary reorganization,- Western Pacific Development &
Construction is requesting that the City. Council approve -the concept of the boundary
reorganization to the City of E1 Monte.
Durfee Reorganization
Page 4
January 18, 2005
If the Council approves this concept, Western Paciflc-will proceed with the appropriate
pre - General Plan and pre - zoning of the property to residential with the City of El Monte.
Once that has been completed and the appropriate resolutions adopted, the applicant
may proceed with filing for boundary reorganization with LAFCO.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council approves the concept for boundary reorganization, staff 'would
recommend that the applicant pay any costs to the City of Arcadia that might be incurred
as a result of this de- annexation, including staff time.
From a revenue standpoint, because the properties involved in the annexation from the
City of Arcadia to the City of E1 Monte are essentially, current property tax receipts to the
City of Arcadia are minimal. However, this was prior to the recent sale of the properties
to Western Pacific so staff is not aware of the new property tax base. If the site were
developed with a 110,000 sq. ft. Industrial building (50% FAR), the City might receive
approximately $90,000+ in property takes a year,
There are no direct costs to the City associated with the annexation.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve in concept the request for a boundary reorganization
as illustrated on the attached maps to permit approximately 5.19 acres of land in
the City of Arcadia to be annexed into the City of El Monte with the conditions:
(1) that the horse trail be relocated to the northerly boundary of the parcel and
along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse riders in the area,
(2) that Western Pacific pay all City of Arcadia costs for the processing and (3) that
the density of the proposed project not exceed approximately 6.6 dwelling units
per acre or 34 dwelling units.
Approved: = Ln W
William R. Kelly, City Manager
cc: December 13, 2004 letter from the City of'EI Monte
Maps of the proposed boundary reorganization
Durfee Reorganization
Page 5
January 18, 2005
CITY OF EL- MONTE
CITY MANAGEWS OFFICE
Deceinber 13, 2004
Mr. William R. Kelly, City Manager
City of Arcadia
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 92006 -6021
Subject: Proposed Durfee Avenue /Clark Street, Deiachment/Acinexatlon
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Juan D. Mireles
City Manager
James W. Mussenden
Assistant City Manager
This letter is intended to provide you and the Arcadia City Council additional information about
the proposed detachmcnt/annexation of a--5 acre site located near the intersection of.Ducfee
Avenue and Clark Street in Arcadia.
In rune of 2003, the El Monte City Council granted conceptual approval to the
detachment/annexation proposal presented by Westem Pacific Development. Western Pacific
currently owes-the site and they are proposing to build 34 single- family detached units ranging in
size from 2200 -2700 square feet, with a corresponding sales price between $500,000 and
$600,000:
Development of the site with residential uses will serve as a transition between the industrially
zoned properties in Arcadia and the large lot, horse properties in El Monte. At this point, the
property owner and El Monte staff are seeking conceptual approval before proceeding with a
formal application to LAFCO. We-understand that this' conceptual approval is non - binding and
that your City Council will have at least two opportunities to take formal action on the project
before the annexation is approved.
We hope this letter will ciari$f issues•that'the.Arcadia City Cottncil raised in October trod that
this heal can again be presented to- yo' City Council for their consideration. If you have any
further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Alv D. MIREr�s
ity Manager
11333 VALLEY E4ULEYARD, EL MONTE, CA 1JFORNIA 91731.32931(626) 500 -20011 FAX (626) 453,3612
EMAIL: 0 1 -m zui WI;ESM: I- a
0
L-4 x H, 15F,
sku i ovi -swI!r-
low, RILAKT
!Air B.. IN THE
Aj ..VOAW"�WuNff -07 LOS AM==
4STA 211113M
V 4
t'K
UNICLOW. .70 QDAM .0140M.
ou 0 •
K MAT %kI oiw..&Wdbw.
dmftd 1n'-
.3
L
dWa.
........ . . . . . .
'A
AM
o"mmAW-4firal 4
id'
51.
ro
ML
4
j
Tow
UPI
%
ftik —w-wr 4w
V
W.P.
LAW
APR
ALMIp4al DIM
A
12
. . . . . . . . . .
47;00092
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b. Ming= gf the January 4.2005 continued meeting,
Recommendation: Approve
C. Professional Services Agreement - U ate Pavement Management Program
Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam & Associates,
Inc. In the amount of $32,414 to update the citywide pavement management program;
and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
d. Award - Construction Management and Material Testing _Services for Santa Anita reservoir
N9--_4.
Recommendation: Award a professional services agreement in the amount of
$270,000.00 to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the construction management and inspection of
the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project, and award a professional services agreement in
the amount of $55,120.00 to Ninyo and Moore Consulting, for material testing during the
construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and authorize the City Manager
and City Clerk to execute contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney.
e. Total Compensation Study.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with Johnson and Associates for a total compensation study for an amount not
to exceed $26,000.00.
f. Additional appropriation for Police Department Firearms Training Rangc.
Recommendation: Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure Funds to
complete the firearms training range project.
g. Contribution to Arcadia Music Sh f2 leg iii their lion in the Presidential
Inaugural Parade.
Recommendation: Appropriate $500.00 from the General Fund Reserve and approve a
contribution in the same amount to the Arcadia High School Music Club.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.b through 2. g. on the Consent Calendar.
Roll Call Ayes: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovadc
Noes: None.
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Proposed Boundary frga0,lzation hgt=0 t jg. Q& of hrodia and the City of El Monte
Mr. Penman presented the staff report; he noted that staffs recommendation represented
the highest and best use of the property; he further noted that staff addressed the
various benefits and impacts of keeping the land in Arcadia.
7 01 -18 -05
47:00013
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal and
carried on roll call vote to approve in concept the request for a boundary reorganization
to permit approximately 5.19 acres of land in the City of Arcadia to be annexted into the
City of El Monte with the conditions: 1) that the horse trails be relocated to the northerly
boundary of the parcel and along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse
riders in the area, 2) that Western Pacific pay all City of Arcadia costs for the processing,
and 3) that the density of the proposed project not exceed approximately 6.6 dwelling
units per acre or 34 dwellingi units.
Roil Call Ayes: Coundl/Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
b. Proclamation 1 eamen
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of Emergency Services'
issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Chandler and
carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution No. 6459: A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, California, ratifying the proclamation of the existence of a local
emergency within said city pertaining to the torrential rain and related matters
commendhg on January 8, 2005.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes. None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council, noting no further business, adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in memory of
Former Mayor Robert Considine and Mr. John Dickson, to Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 5:00 p.m.,
City Council Chamber Conference Room.
ATTEST:
James H. Barrows, City Clerk
�1aJ i lI� 911 E.
A
8 01 -18 -05
i