Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 21, 2001A N N O T A T E D A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and ;PC od Redevelopment Agency ORPORAtR9 Meeting August 21, 2001 5:00P.m. Council Chambers Conference Room ACTION ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) no one spoke 1. STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction on the City's refuse and recycling program Directed staff to implement an Automated Greenwaste Collection Program, a Multi - Family Waste -to- Energy Refuse & Recycling 7:00P.m. Program. Appropriated $32,000 to the At 6:40 p.m. the City Council Council Chambers Solid Waste Budget for a Management Aide RECESSED and RECONVENED in the Council Position. Directed staff to prepare job Chambers at 7:00 p.m. discription. 5 -0 INVOCATION Rev. Jolene Cadenbach, Arcadia Congregational Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Gary Kovacic ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All present 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading Adopted 5 -0 in full. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE to Robert C. Baderian, Planning Commissioner 4. PRESENTATION to Police Officer John Bonomo and Police Officer Larry Weston Mickey Segal, Mayor • Gail A. Marshall, Mayor Protempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Shang Chang, Gary A. Kovacic, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager June D. Alford, City Clerk ACTION Consent continued d. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Post Alarm to provide security personnel at the Library e. Recommendation to approve Tom's Uniforms, Uniform Express and West End Uniforms as vendors for Police Department Uniforms Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6258, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 2001 -2002 to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts g. Recommendation to award a 3 -year contract in an amount not to exceed $120,000.00 to Groeniger & Company for water meters h. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore for labor relations and personnel legal services for fiscal years 2001 -2002 and 2002 -2003 Recommendation to accept all work performed by W.A. Rasic _ Construction Co. for the construction of the Foothill Boulevard Sewer Relief Pipeline as complete and to authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $16,855.55 Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $245,305.00 to RBF Consulting for construction management and inspection services for the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 3 Rehabilitation Project and to approve the EPA funding of $884,026.00, increasing the Capital Improvement Project Budget to $1,768,052.00 k. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6259 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the City of Arcadia's Premium Only Plan (Section 125) and Dependent Care Spending Account Plan (IRC Section 129) documents and implementing the City of Arcadia's Health Care Spending Account Plan Recommendation to approve an expenditure of $18,000.00 in Asset Seizure Funds for the purchase of a Krimesite Scope Reflective Ultra Violet Imaging System for Fingerprint Detection ACTION 5. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed item of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed item #5a, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or some else raised at or prior to the time of the public hearing. Pub. Hrg. Closed a. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6250 a resolution of the City Adopted. Res. 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, ordering the vacation of a portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the north City boundary 6. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Sonia Williams Tony Henrich 7. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Nick Pokerjack City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items See Minutes RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL 8. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All present 9. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Minutes of the August 7, 2001 regular meeting Approved 5 -0 6:00 ADJOURN the Redevelopment Agency to September 4, 2001 at 5ta&p.m. RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL 10. CONSENT a. Minutes of the August 7, 2001 regular meeting Approved 5 -0 b. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6257 a resolution of the City Approved 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, declaring the City's intention to grant a franchise to the Southern California Water Company to serve the southeastern and eastern portions of Arcadia and setting a public hearing for September 18, 2001 C.. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Approved 5 -0 AIM to provide interim personnel at the Library 01 Consent continued R e. N Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Post Alarm to provide security personnel at the Library Recommendation to approve Tom's Uniforms, Uniform Express and West End Uniforms as vendors for Police Department Uniforms Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6258, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 2001 -2002 to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts ACTION Approved 5 -0 Approved 5 -0 Approved 5 -0 Recommendation to award a 3 -year contract in an amount not to exceed Approved 5 -0 $120,000.00 to Groeniger & Company for water meters h. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a Approved 5 -0 Professional Services Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore for labor relations and personnel legal services for fiscal years 2001 -2002 and 2002 -2003 Recommendation to accept all work performed by W.A. Rasic Approved 5 -0 Construction Co. for the construction of the Foothill Boulevard Sewer Relief Pipeline as complete and to authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $16,855.55 j. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement in the Approved 5 -0 amount of $245,305.00 to RBF Consulting for construction management and inspection services for the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 3 Rehabilitation Project and to approve the EPA funding of $884,026.00, increasing the Capital Improvement Project Budget to $1,768,052.00 k. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6259 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the City of Arcadia's Premium Only Plan (Section 125) and Dependent Care Spending Account Plan (IRC Section 129) documents and implementing the City of Arcadia's Health Care Spending Account Plan Recommendation to approve an expenditure of $18,000.00 in Asset Seizure Funds for the purchase of a Krimesite Scope Reflective Ultra Violet Imaging System for Fingerprint Detection 3 Approved 5 -0 Approved 5 -0 ACTION 11. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6253, a resolution of the City Approved 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving an amendment to contract for the Public Employees Retirement System, 3% @50 for local safety members and military credit for local fire members Recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 2148, an ordinance of Approved 5 -0 the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing an Amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System 6:00 ADJOURN the City Council to September 4, 2001 at p.m. in memory of Brian Campbell ADJOURNED at 7:40 p.m. M August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Janet Sporleder, City Librarian Reviewed by: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Directoq) SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AIM TO PROVIDE INTERIM PERSONNEL SUMMARY: The Arcadia Library Board of Trustees is in the process of developing a long -range strategic plan that includes a review of the organizational structure. Permanent appointments to new or vacant positions are being delayed pending the results of this process. In order to maintain daily operations, the Library has been utilizing the services of temporary staff provided by Advanced Information Management (AIM), a staffing service firm that specializes in providing library and information personnel. Currently, AIM is providing the Library with the equivalent of 1.5 full -time professional librarians who assist with cataloging new materials and with the public at the Information Desk and with one library technician who assists with processing new materials for circulation. The Library has utilized the services of AIM on various occasions over the past three years and found their performance satisfactory. It is recommended the Library continue with AIM for professional staffing services through December 31, 2001, when the completion of the strategic planning process is anticipated. DISCUSSION: The Arcadia Public Library Board of Trustees has been involved in evaluating Library services for over a year. In September 2000, Cooperative Personnel Services was awarded a contract to evaluate Library operations and to provide strategic and operational guidance. Dr. Peggy Newgarden of Cooperative Personnel Services met with the Library Board and with staff. A community forum provided input from residents and a panel of experts generated a set of suggestions. The final report was submitted to the Library Board in May 2001. It recommended a strategic planning program be implemented. It also recommended the Board consider re- structuring the organization. A strategic. planning process has commenced; a final plan is expected to be adopted in the fall. IMAGED LASER As the Board of Trustees engages in the strategic planning process and considers reorganization, the Library must address the immediate needs of day -to -day operations. One full -time library techniciamis needed to process library materials. One and a half full time equivalent librarians are needed to catalog new materials and to assist the public at the Reference Desk. Permanent appointments to these positions are being delayed as the Board determines its priorities for staffing levels. AIM is a staffing service firm that specializes in providing library and information personnel to special, public and academic libraries. They provide staffing at all levels, from professional librarians to library clerks and technicians. A total of $100,000 was allocated this fiscal year to implement the recommendations of the. Library operations study. The City is also realizing a salary savings as a result of a vacancy created by temporary staffing realignments following the appointment of a new City Librarian. Utilization of these funds for temporary personnel assures the current level of library service will continue during the time required to conclude the long -range planning process. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of providing the services as described is approximately $9,000.00 per month, depending on the availability of personnel to fill the positions as needed. Sufficient funds are available in the Library Budget for the 2001 -2002 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to extend a professional services agreement with AIM to provide interim personnel to ensure the on- going, day -to -day operations of the Library through December 31, 2001. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager az36�3D �� '�"• =•9 ''� STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: TRACEY HAUSE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTO PREPARED BY: SONNY MORKUS, HUMAN RESOURCES A RISK MANAGER ,4,4M SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6259 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AMENDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA'S PREMIUM ONLY PLAN (SECTION 125) AND DEPENDENT CARE SPENDING ACCOUNT PLAN (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 129) DOCUMENTS AND IMPLEMENTING THE CITY OF ARCADIA' S HEALTH CARE SPENDING ACCOUNT PLAN DATE: AUGUST 21, 2001 SUMMARY The attached Resolution No. 6259 will amend the program to add a health care spending account plan. existing City of Arcadia flexible spending accounts BACKGROUND In January 1991, the City of Arcadia implemented the Premium Only Plan (Section 125) and the Dependent Care Spending Account Plan (Section 129). These programs are allowed by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and they provide a voluntary way for employees to annually set aside funds on a pretax dollars basis and then allow the employees to use the funds for health care premiums or dependent care. Resolution No. 6259 will amend the existing program to add a pretax spending account plan for non - premium health care expenses. The addition of the Health Care Spending Account Plan will assist interested employees in achieving greater tax benefits in making their health care expenditures for themselves and eligible family members through this plan. Under this plan, participating employees decide how much they want to set aside for health care expenditures on a pretax basis with automatic deductions made through the payroll process. Then, as expenditures occur for the employee or family members, the employees submit their receipts and get reimbursed from their pretax accounts. The maximum that- employees can set aside for this plan is $5,000.00 per calendar year. With the approval of the attached Resolution No. 6259, City staff will include the Health Care Spending Account Plan in the City Employees Open Enrollment Period (August 15 through September 30, 2001). This option will also be discussed at the City Employees Benefits Fair on the morning of August 23, 2001. FISCAL IMPACT The implementation and administration of the Health Care Spending Account Plan will have negligible related personnel work time and will not have a fiscal impact on the City's budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the implementation of the City of Arcadia's Health Care Spending Accounts, effective January 1, 2002. APPROVED: t�h.Y► -M .AB..a`� Attachment William R. Kelly, City Nffinager LASER IMAGED 620 r rAcO�+°iuts ° STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: August 21, 2001 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: TRACEY HAUSE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR PREPARED BY: DAVID T. BELL, ASSISTANT HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6253 — A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 3% @ 50 FOR LOCAL SAFETY MEMBERS AND MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR LOCAL FIRE MEMBERS AND ORDINANCE NO. 2148, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. SUMMARY Adoption of Resolution No. 6253 and Ordinance No. allows the City to contract with the Public Employees Retirement System to provide retirement for local safety members only at 3% @ 50 and permit local fire members only to purchase service credit for military service. Adoption of this resolution and ordinance is required by the Government Code to implement these provisions. DISCUSSION On July 3, 2001, Resolution No. 6242 was passed which established compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Fire Fighters Association for fiscal years 2001 -2003. One of the agreements that was included in Resolution No. 6242 was a provision to contract with the Public Employees Retirement System to provide retirement at 3% @ 50 and permit members to purchase service credit for military service. Under this resolution, an employee may retire at age 50 with 3% of their salary, and they may purchase up to four years of service credit for any continuous active military or merchant marine service prior to employment. LASER IMAGED n Page 2 August 21, 2001 M On ,July 17, 2001, Resolution No. 6247 was passed which established compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Police Officers Association for fiscal years 2001 -2003. One of the agreements that was included in Resolution No. 6247 was a provision to contract with the Public Employees Retirement System to provide retirement at 3% @ 50. Under this resolution, an employee may be eligible to retire at age 50 with 3% of their salary. FISCAL IMPACT Although there are no immediate fiscal impacts associated with Resolution No. 6253 and Ordinance No. 2148 at this time, it is required by State law to disclose the following changes in plan assets and liabilities as a result of the amendment: 1. Change in the present value of benefits $8,930,301 2. Change in the unfunded Accrued Liability $8,081,116 3. Change in the employer rate 0.000% The actuarial funding process calculates a regular schedule of contributions which . are designed to accumulate the required assets to meet the benefit obligations. As a result, there will be adjustments to the employer rate in the future to insure all contracted benefits are funded. Future adjustments have been disclosed previously during the budget process and labor negotiations. A detailed contract amendment cost analysis valuation is on file in the Administrative Services Department if additional information is requested. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6253 — a Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract for the Public Employees' Retirement System, 3% @ 50 for local safety members and military service credit for local fire members and Introduce Ordinance No. 2148, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia authorizing. an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. - 0- s ����.�... fie►:. 3K William R. Kelly City Manager 3j vdr�° STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Directoo Reviewed by: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director �repared by: Jan Steese, Purchasing Officer SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A THREE YEAR CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000.00 PER YEAR TO GROENIGER & COMPANY FOR WATER METERS SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council approve a three year contract for water meter purchases. DISCUSSION: The City was the lead agency for a multi -city proposal requesting bids for water meters. The cities included in this bid were Arcadia, Burbank, Downey, Glendale and Manahattan Beach. This contract is for a three year term and was mutually agreed to by all agencies involved. Groeniger & Company has submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible written bid for the water meters. This contract will commence upon City Council approval and continue through June 30, 2004. The contract is to provide new meters for installations and for the annual meter replacement program included in the Capital Improvement Program. All agencies have mutually agreed to award the contract as stipulated in the terms and conditions. Bid documents were mailed to twelve (12) vendors and a Notice Inviting Bids was published locally. There were seven (7) responses received. After the bids were received the cities met and mutually agreed to award a contract to Groeniger & Company as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a three year contract with Groeniger & Company to provide water meters. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds for these meters is provided in the 2001/02 Operating Budget. The total amount of the contract for the City of Arcadia is $120,000.00 per year for (3) three years. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council award a three year contract in the amount of $120,000.00 per year for three (3) years to Groeniger & Company for water meters for fiscal years 2001/02 — 2003/04. TH J s Approved: ua-�M William R. Kelly, City Manager POLICE DEPARTMENT Date: August 21, 2001 To: Mayor and City Council From: David H. Hinig, Chief of Polic��� Subject: Report and Recommendation to Approve the Expenditure of $18,000 in Police Department Asset Seizure Funds to Purchase the "Krimesite Scope Reflective Ultra Violet Imaging System" for Fingerprint Detection. Summary The Police Department is in the process of upgrading its fingerprint detection equipment to ensure that it meets contemporary technology and maximizes the Department's potential for locating fingerprint evidence at crime scenes. Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories has developed a new detection device that allows latent prints to be located and filmed by the use of alternate light source technology, thus enhancing the likelihood of recovering fingerprints and enhancing the potential to identify criminal suspects. The Department proposes to use $18,000 in Asset Seizure Funds to purchase this new fingerprint detection equipment. Discussion Fingerprint evidence is one of the most important and reliable types of evidence used by police departments in identifying and successfully prosecuting criminals. Traditional forms of detection used for latent prints include; fingerprint dusting, anhydrous fuming, and various alternate light source detectors. Recently, Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories developed a device called the "Krimesite Scope, Reflective Ultra Violet Imaging System." This device allows the user to scan a room or crime scene and immediately detect fingerprints that cannot be located by traditional means. Further, it detects latent prints on surfaces where prints cannot be lifted without destroying the print. The device allows the crime scene technician to photograph or videotape the latent print, thus preserving the print integrity for evidence and court purposes. Cost of the detection equipment is $18,000. Included in that cost is a digital adapter package allowing for both camera and video recording of fingerprints. The package cost LASER IMAGED R is $3,125, however Sirchie Laboratories, the sole vendor for this equipment, is including the adapter package at no cost as an incentive to purchase the equipment prior to August 31, 2001. Because this is new technology and not a replacement of existing equipment, the Department can use Asset Seizure Funds for the purchase. Fiscal Imoact This purchase will be made using $18,000 in Asset Seizure Funds, thus there will be no impact on the Department Budget or City General Funds. Vendor Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories, 100 Hunter Place, Youngsville, North Carolina 27596 holds proprietary rights to the "Krimesite Scope" detection equipment and is the sole vendor for the product. Recommendation This technology will significantly advance the Police Department's capability of locating and processing fingerprint evidence. The Department recommends that the City Council approve the expenditure of $18,000 in Police Department Asset Seizure Funds to purchase the "Krimesite Scope Reflective Ultra Violet Imaging System" for fingerprint detection. Approved: &BK William R. Kelly, City Manager a /a_3 n fAC��toiu,T10'���+ STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT Date: August 21, 2001 To: Mayor and City Council From: Dave Hinig, Chief of Policy' U,,'. Subject: Report and Recommendation to Approve Tom's Uniforms, Uniform Express and West End Uniforms as Vendors for Police Department Uniforms SUMMARY The Police Department budget allocates $68,850 to purchase uniforms, leather gear, and related support equipment for employees, reserve officers and volunteers. The Department uses Tom's Uniforms, Uniform Express and West End Uniforms as vendors. Expenditures made with each vendor are dependent upon what specific items are needed and whether certain items are routinely available through the vendor. City of Arcadia purchasing guidelines require City Council approval for open purchase order expenditures exceeding $5,000 with any single vendor. Because each of the aforementioned uniform vendors generally exceed that threshold on an annual basis, the Police Department requests approval to use these vendors for Fiscal Year 2001- 2002. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Police Department has used Tom's Uniforms in Alhambra, Uniform Express in Montebello and West End Uniforms in Montclair as uniform vendors for the past ten years. Prior to that, Mr. Man's of El Monte was the sole contract provider. While contracting with Mr. Man's, the Police Department experienced continuous problems related to stock availability, fitting schedules, and general service. There were many instances where officers had to wait several months for uniform delivery and the Department was forced to use alternate suppliers. Ultimately Mr. Man's went out of business, however it was clear that contracting with a single source for uniforms was detrimental to efficient purchasing. Based upon the negative experience with Mr. Man's, the City of Arcadia authorized the use of the three aforementioned vendors for uniforms. Our experience throughout the past ten years with these suppliers has been very good. LASER NAGED Although the amount of money expended with each vendor varies from year to year, each vendor generally receives a minimum of $5,000 in expenditures that are paid through pre - approved open purchase orders. A number of variables affect which vendor officers and employees select, however some factors are; uniform material, i.e. wool vs. blend, or polyester, size of the officers, gender (only one of the three provides uniform long sleeve wool shirts for women), proximity to the officers homes, and hours of operation, to name a few. The Department has done a price comparison between the vendors and found that the "per item" costs are competitive between the vendors. The attached table reflects the item -by -item comparison. The table also shows areas (N /A) where items are not available from a specific vendor. In instances where those items are needed, it would require the Department to use an alternate uniform source. FISCAL IMPACT The City Council has authorized a maximum expenditure of $68,850 in the Police Department budget for uniforms and related support equipment. This money is allocated from the City's General Fund. Because this is a previously authorized expenditure, it will have no impact on the budget. RECOMMENDATION The current practice of using multiple vendors to meet the uniform needs of the Police Department has been cost effective and efficient from an operational standpoint. It is recommended that the City Council Approve Tom's Uniforms, Uniform Express and West End Uniforms as Vendors for Police Department Uniforms. Approved: ON* William R. Kelly, City Manager s 0 S {Dr� STAFF REPORT August 21, 2001 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARMENT TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared By: Rita A. Kurth, Water Services Officer SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6257 DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO GRANT FRANCHISE TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY TO SERVE THE SOUTHEASTERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS OF ARCADIA AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6257 declaring the City's intention to grant Southern California Water Company a franchise to use or to lay and use pipes, conduits and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing water for any and all purposes in, along, across, upon and under the public streets, way, alleys, and places within the southeastern and eastern portions of the City of Arcadia. A map of the areas in Arcadia served by Southern California Water Company is attached. It is also recommended that the City Council set the date of September 18, 2001 as a date for the public hearing and introduction of an ordinance granting a franchise to Southern California Water Company. This is required by City Charter Section 1303. ISCUSSION: On November 23, 2001, the franchise agreement with Southern California Water Company expires after a five -year term approved by the City Council in 1996. The Water Company would like to renew the franchise agreement and has requested a twenty -five year term (see attached letter and application for franchise). Since the previous franchise agreements have all had five -year terms, staff feels that twenty -five years is a long time for an agreement and suggests that a ten -year term would be more appropriate. Southern California Water has 207 active services in the southeastern and eastern portions of Arcadia and pays a franchise fee to the City of Arcadia of 2% annually of the gross revenue. This franchise agreement has been in effect since 1961. The consequence of not granting the franchise agreement with Southern California Water Company would be for the City Council to initiate a formal condemnation process and pay for the infrastructure already in place. Considering the small number of services, the legal costs of the condemnation process and payment for the existing infrastructure, staff does not consider this a fiscally prudent option. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council %60 Vail August 21, 2001 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: According to the Administrative Services Department, the City of Arcadia received $1,302.76 in revenue from the Southern California Water Company in 2000. The State of California Public Utilities Code Section 6231(c) adopted a franchise fee of up to 2 %, but not less than 1%, of a utility's gross annual revenue to be paid to municipalities where those utilities use or lay pipes, conduits and appurtenances in the public right -of -way. As a general rule, most public agencies have set 2% as the standard for privately operated water companies serving municipalities. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 6257 declaring the City's intention to grant to Southern California Water Company a franchise to use or to lay and use pipes, conduits and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing water for any and all purposes in, along, across, upon and under the public streets, way, alleys and places within the City of Arcadia. 2. Set the date of September 18, 2001 for a public hearing to receive any comments or objections to the City's intention to grant a franchise agreement to Southern California Water Company and for the introduction of an ordinance granting such franchise. 3. Determine whether the length of the franchise agreement will be twenty -five years as requested by Southern California Water Company, or ten years as suggested by staff. PM:RK:dw Attachments Approved by: qknk�k William R. Kelly, City Manager u SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY y '• a A SUBSIDIARY or- AmmicAN STATE-'; WA,rut COMPANY FOOTHILL DISTRICT �9TFR Cp VV� 401S. SAN DIMAS CANYON ROAD •SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773 • (909)592-4271 FAX(909)592 6690 July 19, 2001 1;7 - City of Arcadia P O Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Atten: June Alford, City Clerk 4!t Y OF RFtCtI' �I,.., It has been five years since our Company's Franchise Agreement was renewed in 1996 with the City of Arcadia and it is due to expire on November 22, 2001. We would like to renew the Franchise Agreement. We are requesting, however, that the length of time be extended to twenty -five years from November 23, 2001, to November 22, 2026. This would make Arcadia consistent with existing franchise agreements for other cities served by Southern California Water Company. The fees paid to the City will, remain 2% of our gross revenue collected from our customers in the City. Attached you will find the Application for Franchise. Southern California Water Company will also reimburse the City for expenses incurred in notification of the public as required by the ordinance. If you may need any further information please call. Sincerely, Thomas E. Ries Foothill District Manager TER: afj c James B. Gallagher Rita Kurth File 2113.01 �w V40 APPLICATION FOR FRANCHISE July 17, 2001 San Dimas, California CITY OF ARCADIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA and its City Council Gentlemen: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY, a California corporation, as Applicant, hereby applies for a franchise pursuant to Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (the "Franchise Act of 1937 "), and avers as follows: (1) Applicant's name and address is: Southern California Water Company 630 East Foothill Blvd. San Dimas, CA 91773 -9016 (2) The purpose of said franchise shall be to use or to lay and use pipes, ditches, flumes, conduits and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing water for any and all purposes in, along, across, upon and under the public streets, ways, alleys and places as they now exist or may hereafter exist within the City of Arcadia. (3) The term of the franchise so requested shall begin on November 23.2001 and expire on November 22, 2026. That is to say this franchise shall endure in full force and effect until, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California it is voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by the Applicant, or until the State or some municipal or public APPLICATION FOR FRANCHISE /July 17, 2001 Page 2 corporation hereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn and take under the power of eminent domain all property actually used and useful in the exercise of such franchise and situate within the territorial limits of the state, municipal, or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until such franchise may be forfeited for noncompliance with its terms by Applicant. (4) If said franchise shall be granted to it, Applicant will pay to the City for each full or fractional calendar year during the life thereof, in lawful money of the United States, a sum annually equivalent to two per cent (2a) of the gross annual receipts of Applicant arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than a sum equivalent to one percent (lo) of the gross annual receipts derived by Applicant from the sale of water within the limits of said City. We request that said franchise be granted by ordinance in the form which accompanies the form of resolution which we have prepared and submit herewith for your use, should you elect to use the same. Very truly yours, SOUTHEM CALIFORNIA CO ANY By t0. 61- James B. Gallag r Vice President Pr4,���� i STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6258 FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECESSARY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 -2002 TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS OF THE. CITY LIGHTING & PARKING DISTRICTS. SUMMARY The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 [Division 14 of the California Streets and Highway Code Section 18,000 et seq.] to establish Lighting Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts consist of five (5) districts (Exhibit "A "). These districts were formed to provide a source of revenue for the cost of power, maintenance and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs collected from the property owner from funds derived from a tax applied to land values. The City also formed two (2) Parking Districts in the downtown area (Exhibit "B "), in accordance with the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. Funding for the maintenance of these districts is derived in part from property assessments and in part from contributions from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. . Additionally, in June of 2001, the City issued General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a Police Facility. The debt service on the bonds is payable from a voter approved levy. DISCUSSION Each year a resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting and Parking Districts. This information is the basis for establishing tax rates, which are forwarded to Los Angeles County and applied to properties in specific districts. A separate schedule LASER IMAGED (Exhibit "C ") is attached two provide expanded detail of assessed valuations, beginning balances, estimated expenditures and the proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2001 -2002. Attached is a report from the Public Works Services Department which identifies the annual operating costs within the lighting zones. Also attached is the Staff Report from the Development Services Department, approved by the Parking District Commission on June 7, 2001, fixing the amount to be raised from tax assessment to maintain the City's two (2) Parking Districts. These reports and the identified costs serve as the basis for establishing the proposed rates. A special election was held on November 2, 1999, to consider a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $8,000,000 for the construction of a Police Facility. More than two- thirds of the votes casted were in favor of the agreed indebtedness with the principal and interest payable from taxes levied upon the taxable property within the City. This annual levy will provide for interest payments in the amount of $500,663 due on February 1, 2002 and August 1, 2002 and a principal payment of $65,000 due on August 1, 2002. FISCAL IMPACT The rates established for Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 will recover the debt service payment on the general obligation bonds and the costs eligible for reimbursement within the established districts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6258 fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 2000 -2001 to pay the debt service on the general obligation bonds and authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts. Attachment: Resolution No. 6258 APPROVED: William R. Kelly, City nager TLH:mlp �C�Rp06AT69',0 August 21, 2001 J�Ore�4s� /q'n STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Stan Scholl, City Engineer Prepared By: Tim Kelleher, Senior Engineering Assistant SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6250 ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORT19N OF KARDASHIAN AVENUE NORTH OF DEARBORN STREET AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH CITY BOUNDARY i SUMMARY The City Council at its July 17, 2001 meeting approved Resolution No. 6246 declaring the City's intention to vacate a portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the north City boundary (Attachment A). Based on evidence presented, staff is recommending that Council adopt Resolution No. 6250 ordering the vacation of said portion of Kardashian Avenue. BACKGROUND Foothill Transit has proposed a bus maintenance operations facility on the east side of Peck Road adjacent to the ',mining pit and north of the public storage facility. During the sale of the property, the title search uncovered an existing easement for a public street ( Kardashian Avenue) within the site. The easement was established by the Chicago Tract Map recorded in 1888. Currently, the street is unused. Foothill Transit has requested that the City vacate the street thus clearing title so that they may use the property. At its June 26, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission made the finding that vacating said portion of Kardashian Avenue was in conformance with the City's General Plan. Staff's investigation and report to the Planning Commission was that the portion of Kardashian Avenue is unnecessary for present or future right of way needs. DISCUSSION Currently the subject portion of Kardashian Avenue dead ends into the mining pit and would be little value moving'I traffic. The adjoining property owners (Foothill Transit on the west side and Hanson Aggregates on the east) are the underlying title fee holders. If Council LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 2 approves the vacation, the easement is dissolved returning all rights normally associated with land ownership back to the two property owners. Foothill Transit's proposal is to use the vacated property as emergency access as well as improving bus circulation for a parking lot. Notice of tonight's Public Hearing and the Resolution declaring the City's intention to vacate were published on July 26th and August 2nd in the Arcadia Weekly and posted on July 19, 2001. As of this date, the City has not received any objections to the vacation. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City staff conducted an Initial Study for the proposed street vacation. The Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the street vacation may have a significant effect on the environment hence a Negative Declaration has been proposed (Attachment B). Pursuant to Sections 15072, 15073, 15074 and 15105 of CEQA, for a proposed Negative Declaration the City shall provide publication and /or posting of the Notice and a minimum of twenty -one (21) days' public review period, and the City Council shall approve the Negative Declaration, if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review process that there is no substantial evidence that the street vacation will have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT The City Council at its July 17, 2001 meeting directed the staff to collect $2,000.00 from the applicant to cover all the administrative costs associated with the vacation process upon ordering of the street vacation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the Public Hearing to receive all comments and evidence offered by persons interested in the street vacation and the proposed Negative Declaration. 2. Upon closure of the Public Hearing: (a) Find that there is no substantial evidence that the street vacation will have a significant effect on the environment, and approve the attached Negative Declaration and direct the staff to file the Notice Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 3 of Determination with the County Clerk's Office of the County of Los Angeles; and (b) Find that from all the evidence submitted that the subject street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, and adopt F esolution No. 6250 ordering the vacation of the portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the north City boundary. Approved: William R. Kelly City Manager TOK :pa Attachments: Location Map Initial Study and Negative Declaration Notice of Determination Resolution No. 6250 ''0*4 Apal �dEl.✓ NOT TO SCALE o� 4�j , ml I _Ohm, Wl 291:82' � of Way to be Vacated ATTACHMENT A File No. CITY OFARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Vacation of portion of Kardashian Avenue from Dearborn Street to North City Limit B. Location of Project: A fifty -foot (50') wide, two- hundred ninety -two foot (292') long street right of way located between the southerly right of way of State Street (northerly City boundary), the northerly right of Dearborn Street, and between lots 417, 660, 661 and Lot E east of the Chicago Park Tract. C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA. $1007 D. Finding: This right of way vacation will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study (Environmental Information Form and Environmental Checklist Form). E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None Date: f � O1 By: � � ����/'' " " Date Posted: July 27, 2001 Stan Scholl, CiJ Engineer Attachment "B" CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 File No. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1. Applicant's Name: City of Arcadia Address: 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA. 91007 2. Property Address (Location): Kardashian Avenue from Dearborn Street to the North City Limit Assessor's Number: N/A 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project Stan Scholl, City Engineer City of Arcadia Development Services Department/Engineering Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA. 91007 (626) 574 -5488 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies. The procedure of the right of way vacation shall be in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code of the State Hof California. The reservation of utility easements in the right of way is subject to approval of applicable City Departments and utility agencies. 5. Zone Classification: N/A 6. General Plan Designation: N/A % Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Upon vacationing of the right of way, the area will be used as part of the parking lot for a proposed building to be located on properties identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8532- 007 -003, 8532- 007 -004 and 8532- 007 -021 through 8532- 007 -027 inclusive. 8. Site size: 14,590 square feet (50' x 291.80') 9. Square footage per building: N/A There is no existing building in the alley 10. Number of floors of construction: N/A 11. Amount of off - street parking provided: N/A 12. Proposed scheduling of project: The Public 'Hearing and Council's adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation is tentatively scheduled for August 21, 2001. 13. Anticipated incremental development: Foothill Transit will build a parking lot for maintenance yard 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: N/A 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e., neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N/A 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A (Included in Foothill Transit's Initial Study) 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the projects: N/A (Included in Foothill Transit's Initial Study) 18. If the project involved a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). -3- YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial [ ] [ X ] alteration of ground contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential [ ] [ X ] areas or public lands or roads 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of [ ] [ X ] project, lands or roads 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter [ ] [ X ] 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity [ ] [ X ] 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or [ ] [ X ] alteration of existing drainage patterns 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels [ J [ X ] in the vicinity 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10% or more? [ ] [ X ] 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such [ ] [ X ] as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services [ ] [ X ] (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption [ ] [ X ] (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects [ ] [ X ] -3- Environmental Setting 31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.. See attachments #1 through #9 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animal, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set - backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. See attachments #1 through #6 Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Stanley Scholl, City Engineer -4- \ AIM•. Environmental Setting 31. The right of way to be vacated is raw land consisting of native shrub. The ground is flat with no known record of unstable soil. It is not known if there is any animals currently habitating the area to be vacated. The area is not subject to any cultural, historical, or scenic impacts. 32. The properties surrounding the right of way to be vacated is vacant land except for the property to the east. The property to the east is a non - working gravel mine now in the process of being filled with solid waste. Attachment #1 ;, I i 's:>: i I I �,:': ;� a f ;,�.; r 5„ ii N �' t ,.L � � ��r is jii A.J i/ 1H y �� y . � y�� +i �i�r�l A 1 fM � �k� �, i Y � c'�y��y,,,, w � 2 i'. 7 �7,�� i � � rY�B�.I� r � ,. �h �. nil��Rl.ei ` ��� Li: ��:.. �- �.ti�" y,, t� �.�•!. 1! WELI O NOT To SCALE \ U 4RChe� Q q c �oRN PA k\\\\�Right of Way to be Vacated ATTACHMENT # 3 .�+_ =.., dr l.., lad: 7...,: ..�.:� .;.,.,h til ,�.. �.,, :.frt.'h�t.,. .: �.:, ,. ,; + ?h �$.1'Yft� ?�1. ^= J�.... �r.w{f..l� hie_ �, .:.It t ul. :�.. :.•,�.; t I ... . i .._: 1i a ..:.. r ) t VS I I ) n / ! - _ ' n _ not r � �. tl It � J?S� �+��, £:�!! t f�; + h1�1 �, fiF ,� �r s � �� � , :� +��Y�'Lf �p Sa, {� � t � k�;,yn a�til w : �.�`� vS.� }��� 1 S: �� Y LL .,. 1 �y��s�v 00 v File No.: Y� F R� q CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE *cORponeTm� a ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Right of Way Vacation: The Vacation of Right of Way of Kardashian Avenue 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 3. Lead Agency Contact Person & Phone Number: Stan Scholl, City Engineer (626) 574 -5488 4. Project Location (address): Kardashian Avenue from Dearborn Street to North City Limit 5. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Phone Number: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA. 91007 (626) 574 -5411 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning Classification: N/A Form "J" -1- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: 8. Description of Project: This is a street right of way vacation project. Pursuant to and in accordance with provisions of Chapters 3 and 5 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et. Seq.), the procedure of this street vacation would include reservation of utility easements, public hearing,, City Council adoptions of Resolution of Intention to Vacate and Resolution of Ordering Vacation, and final recordation to the County Clerk. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: City Fire Department (for emergency access)/ City Maintenance Services Department (for utility easement and /or maintenance, street sweeping, trash collection)/ General Telephone (utility easement and /or maintenance)/ Pacific Bell (for utility easement and /or maintenance)/ Southern California Gas Co. (for utility easement and /pr maintenance)/ Southern California Edison Co. (for utility easement and /or maintenance)/ Adelphia Cable TV (for utility easement and /or maintenance)/ Los Angeles County Sanitation District (for utility easement and /or maintenance/ Los Angeles County Public Works Department (for utility easement and /or maintenance). 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 [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Agricultural Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Air Quality [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Public Services [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Geology / Soils [ ] Transportation / Traffic [ ] Hazards & iHazardous Materials [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Hydrology A Water Quality [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [ ] Land Use /i Planning Form "J" -2- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (] 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 applicant. 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 impact" 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 applicable 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, but because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that EARLIER EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. By: Mr. Stan Scholl, City Engineer For: City of Arcadia - Development Services Department 4, " - Date: y✓���o1 Signature Form "J" -3- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: 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 responses 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 like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside 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 wellyas project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "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 EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analyses," must be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: 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 which 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, uses or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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 etch issue should identify: a) The significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. I Form "J" -4- CEQA Checklist 4/99 (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department 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) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [ l [ ] [ ] [ X ] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [ l [ l [ ] [ x ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The subject property is not utilized for agricultural purposes and its vacation will not conflict, convert or change any agricultural uses.) III. AIR QUALITY — (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the proposal: r \ ,mile No.: Quality Plan? [ l [ ] [ ] [ X l b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to Less Than an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any Significant criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air Potentially With Less Than quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [ ] [ Significant Mitigation Significant No concentrations? [ ] [ Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: l [ ] [ X l a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [ X l b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [ l [ ] [ l [ X ] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [ ] [ ] [ l [ X l d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department 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) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [ l [ ] [ ] [ X ] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [ l [ l [ ] [ x ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The subject property is not utilized for agricultural purposes and its vacation will not conflict, convert or change any agricultural uses.) III. AIR QUALITY — (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the proposal: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? [ l [ ] [ ] [ X l b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] 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)? [ ] [ J [ ] [ x ] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [ ] [ l [ ] [ X ] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [ ] [ l [ ] [ X l Form "J" -5- CEQA Checklist 4/99 .— ile No.: Less Than Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ ] [ ] [ l [ x ] b) Have a substantial adverse effect 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 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ ] [ ] [ J [ x J 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [ ] [ ] [ ] ( x J e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x J (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x J b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] Form "J" -6- CEQA Checklist 4199 y&Ie No.: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) VI. 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). ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? [xJ [x] [x] [x] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] I I I [x] I I I [x] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [ ] [ ] ( ] ( x ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] 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? [ ] [ ] ( ] [ x ] 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 Form "J" -7- CEQA Checklist 4/99 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 wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? "lid 3.File No.: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [I [I [XI [l [l [I [XI [l [l [l [XI [I [I [l [XI (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [ I [ l [ l [ X 1 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including, through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,' in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? [ ] [ ] [ ] ( X ] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off - site? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] h) Place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] Form "J" -8- CEQA Checklist 4199 � ^H j n `x 9e No.: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) IX. LAND USE & PLANNING —Would, the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) X. 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XI. 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? [ ] [ j [ ] [ x ] b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] 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? [ l [ ] [ ] [ X ] Form "J" -9- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XII. POPULATION & 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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ( X ] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [ X ] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project 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 would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protectio ? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] b) Police protecti n? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] d) Parks? [ J [ ] [ ] [ X ] e) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XIV. 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC — 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 Form "J" -10- CEQA Checklist 4/99 trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? .;JZs: le No.: 1 Less khan Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [I [l [l [XI [I [I [I [Xl [X] [I [] [l [Xl [ ] [ l [ l [Xl [l [] [l [Xl [ l [ l [ I [Xl (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [ ] [ ] [ ] ( X ] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X j f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X j g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ] (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XVII. 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 Form "J" -11- CEQA Checklist 4/99 below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that. the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? File No.: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I [l I [XI [l [l [l [XI [l I [l [Xl (The proposal is to vacate right of way thus transferring underlying fee title to adjoining properties. In such, this proposal will not physically alter any environmental characteristics.) XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process to analyze any noted effects resulting from the process. Form "J" -12- CEQA Checklist 4/99 •cawl.�+1: CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: X County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles From: City of Arcadia Corporations Division, Room 101, Environmental Desk Development Services Dept. 12400 East Imperial Highway 240 West Huntington Dr. Norwalk, CA 90650 Arcadia, CA 91007 Office of Planning and Research (If the project requires State approval) 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Vacation of a portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the north City boundarv. Project Title Not Applicable Tim Kelleher (626) 574 -5484 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted by Clearinghouse) Lead Agency Contact Person Telephone Number East side of Peck Rd. South of Live Oak Ave. and north of Clark St in City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles. Project Location (include county) The vacation and abandonment of a public street. Project Description This is to certify that the Arcadia City Council approved the above described project (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) on Auqust 21, 2001 and made the following determinations: 1. The project [ ] will [X] will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. [ ] An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. [X] A Negative Declaration was adopted for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. [ ] A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. 3. Mitigation measures (] were [X] were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ] was [X] was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings [X] were [ ] were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedingsfor the Final EIR (with comments and responses) or Negative Declaration are specified as follows: Custodian: Development Services Department Location: Arcadia City Hall — 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 9100 7 f /H Dan Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer Julv 16, 2001 Sign re f ' / Print Name Title Date Date Received for Filing By Los Angeles County: (County Clerk Stamp Here) Attachment "C" Name of Los Angeles County Staffperson Title Revised April 2000 .doo. A01 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title and Location (including city and county): The Vacation of a portion of Kardashian Avenue North of Dearborn Street and south of the north City Boundary City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Project Applicant, Address and Telephone Number: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5484 Project Description: The vacation and abandonment of a street easement Findings of Exemption: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was conducted for this Project by the City of Arcadia Development Services, Engineering Division. Said Initial Study did not disclose any individual or cumulative adverse effect on wildlife resources. When considering the Project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed Project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this Project. Certification: I hereby certify that the City of Arcadia has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the Initial Study and hearing record, the Project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Signature: Name:. Dan Lazo Lead Agency: City of Arcadia Date: July 16, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 6250 Aft Z s� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE VACATION OF KARDASHIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF DEARBORN STREET AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERLY CITY BOUNDARY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Arcadia, on July 17, 2001, adopted Resolution No. 6246 declaring the intention of the City Council to vacate and abandon that portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and South of the northerly City boundary in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California. The location of that portion of the street is more particularly shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. Notices of said Resolution No. 6246 were duly published and posted in the manner and form and at the time required by the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, Sections 8322 and 8323. SECTION 3. A Public Hearing was duly held on- August 21, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, at which time the Arcadia City Council received all comments and evidence offered by persons interested in the proposed street vacation. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Government Code 65402(a), the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, during its regular meeting on June 26, 2001 determined that the proposed vacation is consistent 1 Attachment "D" /o'° .elk with the General Plan of the City of Arcadia. SECTION S. The City Council of the City of Arcadia does find that the vacation of the street is being made in accordance with Chapters 3 and 5 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (Streets and Highways Code Section 8320, et seq.) SECTION 6. Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the City of Arcadia finds on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the street vacation will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Arcadia, on August 21, 2001 adopted the Negative Declaration for the vacation of that portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the northerly City boundary and directed staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 7. Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Sections 8340 and 8341, the City Council of the City of Arcadia finds that the public convenience and necessity do not require any reservation and exception of easements from the vacation. SECTION 8. Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Section 8324, the City Council of the City of Arcadia finds from all evidence submitted that that certain portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the northerly City boundary 2 /k, Avftk is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, and therefore, it is ordered that that certain portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the northerly City boundary be vacated.subject to the following conditions: (a) Upon adoption and prior to the recordation of this Resolution, the adjacent property owner and applicant for this street vacation, Foothill Transit, shall reimburse the City of Arcadia the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for all the administrative costs associated with this street vacation, as authorized by the City Council of the City of Arcadia at its July 17, 2001 meeting. SECTION 9. The City Clerk of the City of Arcadia shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified copy thereof to be recorded without acknowledgement, certificate of acknowledgement, or further proof in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County after the aforementioned conditions have been satisfied. SECTION 10. From and after the date this Resolution No. 6250 is recorded, the vacated portion of Kardashian Avenue north of Dearborn Street and south of the northerly City boundary will no longer constitute a public street. SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 3 /ok Odftk Passed, approved, and adopted this day of 2001. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Arcadia City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney of the City of Arcadia 4 BASIS OF BEARINGS s rq rF s " REF w mm Vf IMo Z W'w WI f{Ill Tw YLItIMK K PU m 11%, \ � T AS o f 7E N m OF a W RECORDER, w m T LDS ANGLES, OF SURVEI"5 � CAl cND WE OF ava / q/�CgOjg4F. I \ BOUNDARY LEGEND [ l M=PMW=0FM0MWllWMPaa / WS A�LLGINfS.. ZTE W CNIUM Q / O� ZP2 GCS I r� 4p• � Z � ry C1,� /Cqo i �I ?, o PG c G w, ; G V� �o e.. V3 h CyC7 41 LS 7439 � exp 2 cj OF N 6 vRep °O' l cRN s � • J 7 i \ \ � c�gRk � Win, o �` • . ,� _ SCALE F-40' LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. Lmd rr� Cioa �a & , , '. I Se,oua 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 600 SKETCH OF EXHIBIT "A" Pasadena, Ca 91101 00073-201 (626) 578 -7000 f"ftat No. EXHIBIT "A" L� THAT PORTION OF KARDASHIAN AVENUE (FORMERLY MYRTLE AVENUE) 50 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE CHICAGO PARK TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 30 PAGE 100 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY, BOUNDED SOUTHWESTERLY BY THE CENTERLINE OF DEARBORN STREET 50 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID CHICAGO PARK TRACT, AND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF STATE STREET 50 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID CHICAGO PARK TRACT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ,Y,ASON VANCUREN, L. S. 7439 R Ve'l•r;� LS 7,4N �,`• y�� 1' `t ta,� J`i erp % /l• COT .� n. e v 3yo_�o Wd, y- 0�3o -7U ~cORtORATSO'vo' STAFF REPORT CITY LIBRARY August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Janet Sporleder, City Librarian SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH POST ALARM TO_PROVIDE SECURITY PERSONNEL SUMMARY: In an effort to provide a reasonably quiet environment and to monitor the facility for potential problems with miscreants, the Arcadia Public Library requires the assistance of security personnel. On September 19, 2000, the City Council approved a one -year Professional Services Agreement with Post Alarm to provide unarmed guard services at the Library from September 20, 2000 to June 22, 2001. The Agreement provides an option to renew on a year -by -year basis for a maximum of three years. This is the first requested extension and, if approved, will be effective from September 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. The service provided by Post Alarm has been satisfactory. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a one -year extension of the Agreement with Post Alarm for unarmed security services at the Library from September 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. DISCUSSION: The Library is located within walking distance of one elementary school, two middle schools and the high school. During the time that school is in session the Library is seriously impacted by the large number of students using the facility in the afternoons and evenings. In order to maintain an orderly atmosphere where quiet study is possible, the Library requires a monitor who will circulate throughout the building, encouraging patrons to conduct their business in a manner that does not intrude on others. The service provided by Post Alarm in the past has been of high quality. They have provided replacements whenever the regularly assigned guard was unable to work so that. there were very few interruptions in service: The guards provided have worked well with LASER IMAGED the public, including the children, and have shown themselves to be capable of controlling the crowds in a variety of circumstances. The security monitor will be on duty at the Library from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday; and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of providing the services as described is approximately $2,500 a month. Sufficient funds are available in the Library Budget for the-1001-2002 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to extend a professional services agreement with Post Alarm to provide security personnel for the Library from September 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Approved by: , UTA William R. Kelly, City Manager O 5_7ZG TO ,p °Of►o8aT19.0o STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dir for Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analys SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY'S REFUSE AND RECYCLING PROGRAM L`i�lk JILTiIAI_ V.& On June 19, 2001, the City Council directed staff to open discussions with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) and look into the feasibility of implementing additional refuse programs. These programs are inclusive of automated greenwaste collection, a waste - to- energy program for the multi - family waste stream, and variable rate program for single - family residents. Over the past month and one -half, staff has met with WMI to discuss implementing these programs and the various costs associated with them. These three (3) programs are discussed in more detail under the discussion section of this report. Staff has also been working with the Waste Management Board related to inert debris disposal and with the commercial haulers on reducing the commercial refuse stream. Each of these issues will be discussed in further detail under "other items" later in this report. City Council has also directed staff to increase public education and informational programs. As a result of these and other comprehensive issues related to Solid Waste and AB 939 issues, staff is recommending the addition of a Management Aide to assist in the administration of the waste management program. DISCUSSION: Over the last five years, the City of Arcadia's diversion rate has decreased from a high of 45% in 1995 to 24% in 1999. Last June, the City Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility of implementing new programs, which will help the City of Arcadia improve our refuse diversion numbers. The following are three (3) specific programs mentioned: 1. Automated greenwaste collection for single - family residents 2. Waste -to- energy for multi - family waste stream 3. Variable rate structure for single - family residents Each of these programs have a cost associated with them. However, if they are successfully implemented, the City of Arcadia will move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939. The following is a brief description of each program. LASER 1IVAGED ss Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 2 Automated Greenwaste Program The current Refuse Collection Agreement with WMI states that greenwaste is to be placed curbside in customer provided standard refuse containers, or as bundled brush. Residents and WMI have suggested that the City could collect more greenwaste, while providing additional convenience, if 96- gallon automated carts were distributed to single - family residents. WMI staff believe that implementation of a fully automated system will conservatively improve our diversion rates by another 2 %. Beyond this objective, staff has been asked by several residents about the automated program. Should the City Council direct the implementation of this additional collection service, standard 96- gallon collection rates would increase $2.00 a month (i.e., from $11.58 to $13.58). For this service, WMI would provide two (2) green 96- gallon collection containers to each resident. In the event additional containers were requested by individual residents, WMI has agreed to work with them to add containers at no additional cost for the first 90 day period. Additionally, implementation of this program would also require the existing Agreement (currently expiring on 6/30/04) to be extended an additional five (5) years to keep monthly rates low, as well as allow WMI to amortize the cost of additional collection vehicles and new automated containers required to implement this program. Multi- Family Refuse and Recycling Program Currently, multi - family residents generate approximately 13,000 tons of refuse and only 2 -3% is being diverted from local landfills. City staff and WMI (previously Newco) have worked with approximately 600 multi - family residents and created recycling programs within their complexes to increase diversion. Staff realizes a small numbed� of residents may wish to recycle the "traditional" way, but the "transformation" process, nAAthe ability to divert 100% of the multi - family solid waste. Traditional recycling programs in Multi - Family Units have proven to be unsuccessful, primarily due to limited space for recycling containers and to the property, owner /manager not residing at the address to ensure the program is being followed. Diversion rates for Multi - Family Units are averaging about 2 -3 percent. AB 939 allows each jurisdiction to "transform" up to 10% of its total refuse generation and allocate the tonnage as diverted refuse. This is a viable program for multi - family complexes and if the initial program is partially implemented, it would increase our total diversion for multi family units from about 3% to 50% for the next year. This would in turn increase total annual diversion from 24% to approximately 28 %. To begin this program, staff and WMI recommend transforming 50% of the waste stream from multi- family refuse to (6,600 tons) the Commerce Refuse -to- Energy Facility (CREF), "transforming" the solid waste to energy and the by product into ash. The ash would then be mixed with water and concrete and used for roadways for existing local area landfills. The remaining refuse would continue to be sent to the local landfill. Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 3 Staff and WMI believe that this would be the best approach to this new diversion program. The partial program will allow WMI to gear up for the program and allow staff to monitor the progress of the program to ensure that it is accomplishing what it is intended to do. Because this is a new program, other agencies may not be aware of the projected success. This could become a problem in the future if the waste stream to CREF increases beyond their capacity to handle. Staff would like to monitor the program for a period of time before recommending full diversion to CREF. The downside to this program is the cost. CREF programs are double the cost of normal collection. Current tipping fees at Puente Hills landfill are $18.05 a ton versus transformation fees of $36.00 per ton. This equates to an increase of 100 - percent or approximately $119,000 in annual disposal costs. However, re- implementing the recycling fee can offset most of this cost. The Refuse contract allows the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi- family complexes greater than 6 units. WMI is currently only assessing this fee at units with a recycling program, approximately 600 of the City's 6,750 multi - family doors. Staff recommends assessing all multi - family units the recycling fee. This would generate approximately $113,000 for the program requiring that the City subsidize the program for the remaining $6,000 from the Solid Waste Fund. Variable Rate Program: Also referred to as "pay -as -you- throw," this program has been implemented in many surrounding cities to give residents an incentive to reduce waste by offering 35, 64, or 96- gallon refuse carts. Staff believes that this is a last ditch program designed to strongly encourage residents to recycle. This is not a cost savings program, but actually increases the cost for larger containers with the smaller black trash containers remaining at the existing 64 to 96 gallon rate. This would be the hammer intended to cause residents to recycle. Additionally, since Arcadia's current Agreement only provides for a 64 or 96- gallon container for refuse, staff calculated the implementation costs for a smaller container. If implemented, rates would have to increase for like services because of the cost to purchase new containers that would replace the larger containers and to strongly encourage residents to use the smaller trash containers. In this case, additional blue containers or larger containers would be exchanged at the same time small black units are delivered. It is important to note that Arcadia has been able to provide refuse collection and recycling services to its residents while keeping rates among the lowest in Los Angeles County (see Exhibit "A "). As such, staff is not recommending the implementation of this program at this time. This may be considered in the future should our efforts to educate the public fail and our diversion rates remain low. Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 4 Other Issues Inert Debris Disaosal: oszo- sa There are three (3) Mine Reclamation Facilities located in Los Angeles County (i.e., Nu- Way Live Oak Landfill, Calmat Reliance Pit #2, and Peck Road Gravel Pit) that have solid waste facilities permits. Since these facilities have a solid waste facility permit, clean, inert materials (i.e., soil, brick, dirt, rock, concrete, and asphalt) are being counted as disposal for the purposes of measuring compliance with the State waste reduction mandate (AB 939). Other similar mine reclamation sites throughout the State are not required to have solid waste facility permits. As such, the tonnages deposited at these other sites are not reported as disposal. For several years, the City of Arcadia has brought this matter to the State's attention by submitting two (2) AB 939 Annual Reports — one (1) excluding inert materials and one (1) including inert materials and at several Waste Management Board meetings. Tours of both types of reclamation facilities have been conducted for the chair of the Board and interested Board members. The Mayor recently sent a letter to the Chair of the Board stating our position that the material at local land reclamation facilities should not be counted as disposal. The City of Arcadia's 1999 diversion rate included the tonnages from these facilities and realized a 24% diversion rate, instead of 40% diversion that staff feels is the correct number. Staff continues to work with WMI and surrounding cities to have inert materials removed from the Disposal Reporting System. Waste Generation Study: P z o - s The collective diversion rate for the commercial sector is 2 -3% of the waste collected by permitted commercial haulers. This low diversion rate is in violation of Section 5130.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In June 2000, all five (5) permitted commercial refuse haulers were placed on notice for not achieving the required 50% diversion rate. After receiving the violation notice, the commercial refuse haulers indicated to staff that they are complying with the requirement through other methods. To prove or confirm their position, they hired a consulting firm recognized by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to: a. Compile a waste characterization study b. Document existing diversion by businesses c. Promote recycling services within the business community. d. Calculate an actual diversion rate for the year 2000 The consultant analyzed the refuse stream of the City's 200 largest businesses including Westfield Shopping Mall, Methodist Hospital, Arcadia School District, and Santa Anita Race Track. This study is nearing completion and staff is scheduled to meet with the consultant and WMI to discuss their findings. However, the results of this analysis will not be available in time to include in this report. Staff will verbally present the results of this study and the impact on our diversion rate at the study session. Mayor and City Councii August 21, 2001 Page 5 Additional staffing: To properly monitor all facets of the Solid Waste Program, an additional staff person will azzU_„ be required. The current Management Analyst responsible for the program divides his time between solid waste, preparing the City's 5 -year capital improvement plan, monitoring the Department's budget, implementing the final stages of the Department's maintenance management information system (MMIS), writing staff reports, and other special projects. The addition of a Management Aide will allow the Department to: • Begin regular monitoring of the waste stream into the landfills • Identify illegal haulers in the City of Arcadia • Initiate action to remove them from operating in the City. • Identify others that are improperly reporting refuse as Arcadia's. • Expand our efforts and coordinate public education activities and information resources including presentations to: • Neighborhoods, through neighborhood watch programs • Homeowners associations • Community Service Clubs • Special events • Local schools To effectively implement these programs and move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939 it would be necessary to provide additional staff to n 8 za _2o help monitor and manage these efforts. This new position would also perform A, 93 increasingly responsible administrative and technical duties in the development, A 9 implementation and monitoring of the City's recycling programs and waste reduction activities for compliance with state - mandated recycling goals. This position would be budgeted solely from the Solid Waste Fund and will not have an impact on the General Fund or other Restricted Funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Residential refuse and recycling collection service rates are a fee - for - service that is paid directly to the contractor by the residential customer. The proposed rates for the Automated Greenwaste and the Waste to Energy Programs will not impact the City's Budget. The salary cost to add a Management Aide position to the Solid Waste Program would be $42,048 per year including benefits. Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to implement an Automated Greenwaste Collection Program for single - family residents -e�c#e xisting Residential and Rec cling Agreement for an additional five (5) years �P- �� -°-t •-�-= 2. Direct staff to implement a Multi- Family Waste -To- Energy Refuse and Recycling Program and allow the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi - family complexes greater than 6 units. "'�aj 3. Appropriate $32,000.00 to the Solid Waste Budget for a Management Aide Position (this amount equates to 9 months of wages for FY 2001 - 2002). 4. Direct staff to prepare a job description for the position of Management Aide and bring back to the City Council following review and approval of the Human Resources Commission. PM:CL :dw Exhibit Approved by: �� 8K William R. Kelly, City Mahbger EXHIBIT "A" Solid Waste Survey - August 2001 Residential Rates Rank City Monthly Rate Franchise Fee Other Fees Total Monthly Rate 1 Rosemead $9.85 $0.00 $0.00 $9.85 2 Monrovia $9.54 $1.06 $0.00 $10.60 3 Arcadia (current rate) $10.50 $0.00 $1.08 $11.58 4 Duarte $11.79 $0.72 $0.00 $12.51 5 Bradbury $11.87 $0.89 $0.00 $12.76 6 Arcadia (proposed rate) $12.50 $0.00 $1.08 $13.58 7 La Verne $13.30 $0.00 $1.35 $14.65 8 Alhambra $14.70 $0.00 $0.00 $14.70 9 Covina $12.98 $0.58 $1.22 $14.78 10 La Puente $13.82 $1.20 $0.00 $15.02 11 Pasadena $15.15 $0.00 $0.00 $15.15 12 Pomona $15.44 $0.00 $0.00 $15.44 13 Azusa $13.46 $1.54 $0.45 $15.45 14 Montebello $14.49 $0.00 $1.45 $15.94 15 El Monte $14.00 $1.56 $0.42 $15.98 16 Monterey Park $12.85 $0.00 $3.63 $16.48 17 Walnut $13.77 $2.56 $0.20 $16.53 18 San Dimas $14.01 $2.59 $0.00 $16.60 19 West Covina $16.15 $1.37 $0.14 $17.66 20 Sierra Madre $14.80 $2.88 $0.00 $17.68 21 Claremont $16.13 $1.79 $0.00 $17.92 22 South Pasadena $25.97 $2.28 $0.73 $28.98 40LSi9 ` - STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORDS SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dir for Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyse SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY'S REFUSE AND RECYCLING PROGRAM SUMMARY: On June 19, 2001, the City Council directed staff to open discussions with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) and look into the feasibility of implementing additional refuse programs. These programs are inclusive of automated greenwaste collection, a waste - to- energy program for the multi - family waste stream, and variable rate program for single - family residents. Over the past month and one -half, staff has met with WMI to discuss implementing these programs and the various costs associated with them. These three (3) programs are discussed in more detail under the discussion section of this report. Staff has also been working with the Waste Management Board related to inert debris disposal and with the commercial haulers on reducing the commercial refuse stream. Each of these issues will be discussed in further detail under "other items" later in this report. City Council has also directed staff to increase public education and informational programs. As a result of these and other comprehensive issues related to Solid Waste and AB 939 issues, staff is recommending the addition of a Management Aide to assist in the administration of the waste management program. DISCUSSION: Over the last five years, the City of Arcadia's diversion rate has decreased from a high of 45% in 1995 to 24% in 1999. Last June, the City Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility of implementing new programs, which will help the City of Arcadia improve our refuse diversion numbers. The following are three (3) specific programs mentioned: 1. Automated greenwaste collection for single - family residents 2. Waste -to- energy for multi - family waste stream 3. Variable rate structure for single - family residents Each of these programs have a cost associated with them. However, if they are successfully implemented, the City of Arcadia will move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939. The following is a brief description of each program. Lri �n It'r,nGE �s� Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 2 pazc_Lu Automated Greenwaste Program The current Refuse Collection Agreement with WMI states that greenwaste is to be placed curbside in customer provided standard refuse containers, or as bundled brush. Residents and WMI have suggested that the City could collect more greenwaste, while providing additional convenience, if 96- gallon automated carts were distributed to single - family residents. WMI staff believe that implementation of a fully automated system will conservatively improve our diversion rates by another 2 %. Beyond this objective, staff has been asked by several residents about the automated program. Should the City Council direct the implementation of this additional collection service, standard 96- gallon collection rates would increase $2.00 a month (i.e., from $11.58 to $13.58). For this service, WMI would provide two (2) green 96- gallon collection containers to each resident. In the event additional containers were requested by individual residents, WMI has agreed to work with them to add containers at no additional cost for the first 90 day period. Additionally, implementation of this program would also require the existing Agreement (currently expiring on 6/30/04) to be extended an additional five (5) years to keep monthly rates low, as well as allow WMI to amortize the cost of additional collection vehicles and new automated containers required to implement this program. Multi - Family Refuse and Recycling Program Currently, multi - family residents generate approximately 13,000 tons of refuse and only 2 -3% is being diverted from local landfills. City staff and WMI (previously Newco) have worked with approximately 600 multi - family residents and created recycling programs within their complexes to increase diversion. Staff realizes a small numbe of residents may wish to recycle the "traditional" way, but the "transformation" process,Ws the ability to divert 100% of the multi - family solid waste. Traditional recycling programs in Multi - Family Units have proven to be unsuccessful, primarily due to limited space for recycling containers and to the property, owner /manager not residing at the address to ensure the program is being followed. Diversion rates for Multi - Family Units are averaging about 2 -3 percent. AB 939 allows each jurisdiction to "transform" up to 10% of its total refuse generation and allocate the tonnage as diverted refuse. This is a viable program for multi - family complexes and if the initial program is partially implemented, it would increase our total diversion for multi family units from about 3% to 50% for the next year. This would in turn increase total annual diversion from 24% to approximately 28 %. To begin this program, staff and WMI recommend transforming 50% of the waste stream from multi- family refuse to (6,600 tons) the Commerce Refuse -to- Energy Facility (CREF), "transforming" the solid waste to energy and the by product into ash. The ash would then be mixed with water and concrete and used for roadways for existing local area landfills. The remaining refuse would continue to be sent to the local landfill. Mayor and City Couny. August 21, 2001 Page 3 Staff and WMI believe that this would be the best approach to this new diversion program. The partial program will allow WMI to gear up for the program and allow staff to monitor the progress of the program to ensure that it is accomplishing what it is intended to do. Because this is a new program, other agencies may not be aware of the projected success. This could become a problem in the future if the waste stream to CREF increases beyond their capacity to handle. Staff would like to monitor the program for a period of time before recommending full diversion to CREF. The downside to this program is the cost. CREF programs are double the cost of normal collection. Current tipping fees at Puente Hills landfill are $18.05 a ton versus transformation fees of $36.00 per ton. This equates to an increase of 100 - percent or approximately $119,000 in annual disposal costs. However, re- implementing the recycling fee can offset most of this cost. The Refuse contract allows the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi - family complexes greater than 6 units. WMI is currently only assessing this fee at units with a recycling program, approximately 600 of the City's 6,750 multi - family doors. Staff recommends assessing all multi - family units the recycling fee. This would generate approximately $113,000 for the program requiring that the City subsidize the program for the remaining $6,000 from the Solid Waste Fund. Variable Rate Program: Also referred to as "pay -as -you- throw," this program has been implemented in many surrounding cities to give residents an incentive to reduce waste by offering 35, 64, or 96- gallon refuse carts. Staff believes that this is a last ditch program designed to strongly encourage residents to recycle. This is not a cost savings program, but actually increases the cost for larger containers with the smaller black trash containers remaining at the existing 64 to 96 gallon rate. This would be the hammer intended to cause residents to recycle. Additionally, since Arcadia's current Agreement only provides for a 64 or 96- gallon container for refuse, staff calculated the implementation costs for a smaller container. If implemented, rates would have to increase for like services because of the cost to purchase new containers that would replace the larger containers and to strongly encourage residents to use the smaller trash containers. In this case, additional blue containers or larger containers would be exchanged at the same time small black units are delivered. It is important to note that Arcadia has been able to provide refuse collection and recycling services to its residents while keeping rates among the lowest in Los Angeles County (see Exhibit "A "). As such, staff is not recommending the implementation of this program at this time. This may be considered in the future should our efforts to educate the public fail and our diversion rates remain low. Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 4 Other Issues Inert Debris Disposal: There are three (3) Mine Reclamation Facilities located in Los Angeles County (i.e., Nu- Way Live Oak Landfill, Calmat Reliance Pit #2, and Peck Road Gravel Pit) that have solid waste facilities permits. Since these facilities have a solid waste facility permit, clean, inert materials (i.e., soil, brick, dirt, rock, concrete, and asphalt) are being counted as disposal for the purposes of measuring compliance with the State waste reduction mandate (AB 939). Other similar mine reclamation sites throughout the State are not required to have solid waste facility permits. As such, the tonnages deposited at these other sites are not reported as disposal. For several years, the City of Arcadia has brought this matter to the State's attention by submitting two (2) AB 939 Annual Reports — one (1) excluding inert materials and one (1) including inert materials and at several Waste Management Board meetings. Tours of both types of reclamation facilities have been conducted for the chair of the Board and interested Board members. The Mayor recently sent a letter to the Chair of the Board stating our position that the material at local land reclamation facilities should not be counted as disposal. The City of Arcadia's 1999 diversion rate included the tonnages from these facilities and realized a 24% diversion rate, instead of 40% diversion that staff feels is the correct number. Staff continues to work with WMI and surrounding cities to have inert materials removed from the Disposal Reporting System. Waste Generation Study: The collective diversion rate for the commercial sector is 2 -3% of the waste collected by permitted commercial haulers. This low diversion rate is in violation of Section 5130.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In June 2000, all five (5) permitted commercial refuse haulers were placed on notice for not achieving the required 50% diversion rate. After receiving the violation notice, the commercial refuse haulers indicated to staff that they are complying with the requirement through other methods. To prove or confirm their position, they hired a consulting firm recognized by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to: a. Compile a waste characterization study b. Document existing diversion by businesses c. Promote recycling services within the business community. d. Calculate an actual diversion rate for the year 2000 The consultant analyzed the refuse stream of the City's 200 largest businesses including Westfield Shopping Mall, Methodist Hospital, Arcadia School District, and Santa Anita Race Track. This study is nearing completion and staff is scheduled to meet with the consultant and WMI to discuss their findings. However, the results of this analysis will not be available in time to include in this report. Staff will verbally present the results of this study and the impact on our diversion rate at the study session. Mayor and City Counc. August 21, 2001 Page 5 Additional staffing: To properly monitor all facets of the Solid Waste Program, an additional staff person will be required. The current Management Analyst responsible for the program divides his time between solid waste, preparing the City's 5 -year capital improvement plan, monitoring the Department's budget, implementing the final stages of the Department's maintenance management information system (MMIS), writing staff reports, and other special projects. The addition of a Management Aide will allow the Department to: ■ Begin regular monitoring of the waste stream into the landfills • Identify illegal haulers in the City of Arcadia • Initiate action to remove them from operating in the City. • Identify others that are improperly reporting refuse as Arcadia's. • Expand our efforts and coordinate public education activities and information resources including presentations to: • Neighborhoods, through neighborhood watch programs • Homeowners associations • Community Service Clubs • Special events • Local schools To effectively implement these programs and move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939 it would be necessary to provide additional staff to help monitor and manage these efforts. This new position would also perform increasingly responsible administrative and technical duties in the development, implementation and monitoring of the City's recycling programs and waste reduction activities for compliance with state - mandated recycling goals. This position would be budgeted solely from the Solid Waste Fund and will not have an impact on the General Fund or other Restricted Funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Residential refuse and recycling collection service rates are a fee - for - service that is paid directly to the contractor by the residential customer. The proposed rates for the Automated Greenwaste and the Waste to Energy Programs will not impact the City's Budget. The salary cost to add a Management Aide position to the Solid Waste Program would be $42,048 per year including benefits. Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to implement an Automated Greenwaste Collection Program for single - family residentstan xisting Residential and Recycling Agreement for an additional five (5) years 2. Direct staff to implement a Multi - Family Waste -To- Energy Refuse and Recycling Program and allow the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi - family complexes greater than 6 units. 3. Appropriate $32,000.00 to the Solid Waste Budget for a Management Aide Position (this amount equates to 9 months of wages for FY 2001 - 2002). 4. Direct staff to prepare a job description for the position of Management Aide and bring back to the City Council following review and approval of the Human Resources Commission. PM:CL:dw Exhibit Approved by: $K William R. Kelly, City Mahager EXHIBIT "A" Solid Waste Survey - August 2001 Residential Rates Rank City Monthly Rate Franchise Fee Other Fees Total Monthly Rate 1 Rosemead $9.85 $0.00 $0.00 $9.85 2 Monrovia $9.54 $1.06 $0.00 $10.60 3 Arcadia (current rate) $10.50 $0.00 $1.08 $11.58 4 Duarte $11.79 $0.72 $0.00 $12.51 5 Bradbury $11.87 $0.89 $0.00 $12.76 6 Arcadia (proposed rate) $12.50 $0.00 $1.08 $13.58 7 La Verne $13.30 $0.00 $1.35 $14.65 8 Alhambra $14.70 $0.00 $0.00 $14.70 9 Covina $12.98 $0.58 $1.22 $14.78 10 La Puente $13.82 $1.20 $0.00 $15.02 11 Pasadena $15.15 $0.00 $0.00 $15.15 12 Pomona $15.44 $0.00 $0.00 $15.44 13 Azusa $13.46 $1.54 $0.45 $15.45 14 Montebello $14.49 $0.00 $1.45 $15.94 15 El Monte $14.00 $1.56 $0.42 $15.98 16 Monterey Park $12.85 $0.00 $3.63 $16.48 17 Walnut $13.77 $2.56 $0.20 $16.53 18 San Dimas $14.01 $2.59 $0.00 $16.60 19 West Covina $16.15 $1.37 $0.14 $17.66 20 Sierra Madre $14.80 $2.88 $0.00 $17.68 21 Claremont $16.13 $1.79 $0.00 $17.92 22 South Pasadena $25.97 $2.28 $0.73 $28.98 ORA,,,. G " STAFF REPO1RT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 21, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dir for Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management tor SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY'S REFUSE AND RECYCLING PROGRAM SUMMARY: On June 19, 2001, the City Council directed staff to open discussions with Waste Management Inc. (WMI) and look into the feasibility of implementing additional- refuse programs. These programs are inclusive -of automated greenwaste collection, a waste - to- energy program for the multi - family waste stream, and variable rate .program for single - family residents. Over the past month and one -half, staff has met with WMI to discuss implementing these programs and the various costs associated with them. These three (3) programs are discussed in more detail under the discussion section of this report. Staff has also been working with the Waste Management Board related to inert debris disposal and with the commercial haulers on reducing the commercial refuse stream. Each of these issues will be discussed in further detail under "other items" later in this report. City Council has also. directed staff to increase public education and informational programs. As a result of these and other comprehensive issues related to Solid Waste and AB 939 issues, staff is recommending_ the addition of a Management Aide to assist in the administration of the waste management program. DISCUSSION: Over the last five years, the City of Arcadia's diversion rate has decreased from a high of 45% in 1995 to 24% in 1999. Last June, the City Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility of ,implementing new programs,, which will help the City of Arcadia improve our refuse diversion numbers. The following are three (3) specific programs mentioned: 1. Automated greenwaste collection for single - family residents 2. Waste -to- energy for multi- family waste stream 3. Variable rate structure for single - family residents Each of these programs have a cost associated with them. However, if they are successfully implemented, the City of Arcadia will move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939. The following is a brief description of each program. LA UR: IMAGED l_ / Ss Mayor and City Council August 21, 2001 Page 2 oFrzo_ta Automated Greenwaste Program The current Refuse Collection Agreement with WMI states that greenwaste is to be placed curbside in customer provided standard refuse containers, or as bundled brush. Residents and WMI have suggested that the City could collect more greenwaste, while providing additional convenience, if 96- gallon automated carts were distributed to single - family residents. WMI staff believe that implementation of a fully automated system will conservatively improve our diversion rates by another 2 %. Beyond this objective, staff- has been asked by several residents about the automated program. Should the City Council direct the implementation of this additional collection service, standard 96- gallon collection .rates_ would increase $2.00 a month (i.e., from $11.58 to $13.58). For this service, WMI would provide two (2) green 96- gallon collection containers to each resident. In the event additional containers were requested by individual residents, WMI has agreed to work with them to add containers at no additional cost for the first 90 day period. Additionally, implementation of this program would also require the existing Agreement (currently expiring on 6/30/04) to be extended an additional five (5) years to keep monthly rates low, as well as allow WMI to amortize the cost of additional collection vehicles and new automated containers required to implement this program. Multi - Family Refuse and Recycling Program Currently, multi - family residents generate approximately 13,000 tons of refuse and only 2 -3% is being diverted from local landfills. City staff and WMI (previously Newco) have worked with approximately 600 multi- family residents and created recycling programs within their complexes to increase diversion. Staff realizes a small number of residents may wish to recycle -the "traditional' way, but the "transformation" process as the ability to divert 100% of the multi- family solid waste. Traditional recycling programs in Multi- Family Units have proven to be unsuccessful, primarily due to limited space for recycling containers and to the property, owner /manager not residing at the address to ensure the program is being followed. Diversion rates for Multi - Family Units are averaging about 2 -3 percent. AB 939 allows each jurisdiction to "transform" up to 10% of its total refuse generation and allocate the tonnage as diverted refuse. This is a viable program for multi - family complexes and if the initial program is partially implemented, it would' increase our total diversion for multi family units from about 3% to 50% for the next year. This would in turn increase total annual diversion from 24% to approximately 28 %. To begin this program, staff and WMI recommend transforming 50% of the waste stream from multi- family refuse to (6,600 -tons) the Commerce Refuse -to- Energy Facility (CREF), "transforming" the solid waste to energy and the by product into ash. The ash would then be mixed with water and concrete and used for roadways for existing local area landfills. The remaining refuse would continue to be sent to the local landfill. Mayor and City Count`.. - -" August 21, 2001 Page 3 Staff and WMI believe that this would be the best approach to this new diversion program. The partial program will allow WMI to gear up for the program and allow staff to monitor the progress of the program to ensure that it is accomplishing what it is intended to do. Because this is a new program, other agencies may not be aware of the projected success. This could become a problem in the future if the waste stream to CREF increases beyond their capacity to handle. Staff would like to monitor the program for a period of time before recommending full diversion ,to CREF. The downside to this 'program. is the cost. CREF programs are double the cost of normal collection. Current tipping fees at Puente Hills landfill are $18.05 a ton versus transformation fees of $36.00 per ton. This equates to an increase of 100 - percent or approximately $119,000 in annual disposal costs. However, re- implementing the recycling fee can offset most of this cost. The Refuse contract allows the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi - family complexes greater than 6 units.. WMI is currently only assessing this fee at units with a recycling program, approximately 600 of the City's 6,750 multi - family doors. Staff recommends assessing all multi - family units the recycling fee. This would generate approximately $113,000 for the program requiring that the City subsidize the program for the remaining $6,000 from the Solid Waste Fund. Variable Rate Program: Also referred to as "pay -as -you- throw," this program has been implemented in many surrounding cities to give residents an incentive to reduce waste by offering 35, 64, or 96- gallon refuse. carts. Staff believes that this is a last ditch program designed to strongly encourage residents to recycle. This is not a cost savings program, but actually increases the cost for larger containers with the smaller black trash containers remaining at the existing 64 to 96 gallon rate. This would be the hammer intended to cause residents to recycle. Additionally, since Arcadia's current Agreement only_, provides for a 64 or 96- gallon container for refuse, staff calculated the implementation costs for a smaller container. If implemented, rates would have to increase for like services because of the cost to purchase new containers that would replace the larger containers and to strongly encourage residents to use the smaller trash containers. In this case, additional blue containers or larger containers would be exchanged at the same time small black units are delivered. It is important to note that Arcadia has been able to provide refuse collection and recycling services to its residents while keeping rates among the lowest in Los Angeles County (see Exhibit "A "). As such, staff is not recommending the implementation of this program at this time. This may be considered in the future should our efforts to educate the public fail and our diversion rates remain low. Mayor and City Council, -- August 21, 2001 Page 4 Other Issues Inert Debris Disposal: ouzo- s.o There are three (3) Mine Reclamation Facilities located in Los Angeles County (i.e., Nu- Way Live Oak Landfill, Calmat Reliance Pit #2, and Peck Road Gravel Pit) that have solid waste, facilities. permits. Since these facilities have a solid waste facility permit, clean, inert materials (i.e., soil, brick, dirt, rock, concrete, and asphalt) are being counted as disposal for the . purposes of measuring compliance with the State waste reduction mandate (AB 939). Other similar mine reclamation sites throughout the State are not required to have solid waste facility permits. As such, the tonnages deposited at these other sites are not reported as disposal. For several years, the City of Arcadia has brought this matter to the State's attention by submitting two (2) AB 939 Annual Reports — one (1) excluding inert materials and one (1) including inert materials and at several Waste Management Board meetings. Tours of both types of reclamation facilities have been conducted for the chair of the Board and interested Board members. The Mayor recently sent a letter to the Chair of the Board stating our position that the material at local land reclamation facilities should not be counted as disposal. The City of Arcadia's 1999, diversion rate included the tonnages from these facilities and realized a 24% diversion rate, instead of 40% diversion that staff feels is the correct number. Staff continues to work with WMI and surrounding cities to have inert materials removed from the Disposal Reporting System. Waste Generation Study: G p _ z s The collective diversion rate for the commercial sector is 2 -3% of the waste collected by permitted commercial haulers. This low diversion rate is in violation of Section 5130.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In June 2000, all five (5) permitted commercial refuse haulers were placed on notice for not achieving the required 50% diversion rate. After receiving the violation notice, the commercial refuse haulers indicated to staff that they are complying with the requirement through other methods. To prove or confirm their position, they hired a consulting firm recognized by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to: a. Compile a waste characterization study b. Document existing diversion by businesses c. Promote recycling services within the business community. d. Calculate an actual diversion rate for the year 2000 The consultant analyzed the refuse stream of the City's 200 largest businesses including Westfield Shopping Mall, Methodist Hospital, Arcadia School District, and Santa Anita Race Track. This study is nearing completion and staff is scheduled to meet with the consultant and WMI to discuss their findings. However, the results of this analysis will not be available in time to include in this report. Staff will verbally present the results of this study and the impact on our diversion rate at the study session. Mayor and City Councik, August 21, 2001 Page 5 Additional staffing: To properly monitor all facets of the Solid Waste Program, an additional staff person will ai to be required. The current Management Analyst responsible for the program divides his time between solid waste, preparing the City's 5 -year capital improvement plan, monitoring the Department's budget, implementing the final stages of the Department's maintenance management information system (MMIS), writing staff reports, and other special projects. The addition of a Management Aide will allow the Department to: • Begin regular monitoring of the waste stream into the landfills • Identify illegal haulers in the City of Arcadia ■ Initiate action to remove them from operating in the City. ■ Identify others that are improperly reporting refuse as Arcadia's. ■ Expand our efforts and coordinate public education activities and information resources including presentations to: • Neighborhoods, through neighborhood watch programs • Homeowners associations • Community Service Clubs • Special events • Local schools To effectively implement these programs and move closer to achieving the 50- percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939 it would be necessary to provide additional staff to ?, ?®_zO help monitor and manage these efforts. This new position would also perform R P> 93 y increasingly responsible administrative and technical duties in the development, implementation and monitoring of the City's recycling programs and waste reduction activities for compliance with state - mandated recycling goals. This position would be budgeted solely from the Solid Waste Fund and will not have an impact on the General Fund or other Restricted Funds. ISCAL IMPACT: Residential refuse and recycling collection service rates are a fee - for - service- that is paid directly to the contractor by the residential customer. The proposed rates for the Automated Greenwaste and the Waste to Energy Programs will not impact the City's Budget. The salary cost to add a Management Aide position to the Solid Waste Program would be $42,048 per year including benefits. Mayor and City Council -- August 21., 2001 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to implement an Automated Greenwaste Collection Program for single - family residents /anr� AY +any + xistinpg, Residential and Rec cling Agreement for an additional five (5) years 2. Direct staff to implement a Multi- Family Waste -To- Energy Refuse and Recycling Program and allow the hauler to assess a monthly recycling fee of $1.00 a door for multi - family complexes with 2 -6 units and $1.50 a door for multi - family complexes greater than 6 units.u,F 3. Appropriate $32,000.00 to the Solid Waste Budget for a Management Aide Position (this amount equates to 9 months of wages for FY 2001 - 2002). 4. Direct staff to - prepare a job description for the position of Management Aide and bring back to the City Council following review and approval of the Human Resources Commission. PM:CL:dw Exhibit - , Approved by: — $K William R. Kelly, City Ma Wager EXHIBIT "A" Solid Waste Survey - August 2001 Residential Rates Rank City Monthly Rate Franchise Fee Other Fees Total Monthly Rate 1 Rosemead $9.85 $0.00 $0.00 $9.85 2 Monrovia $9.54 $1.06 _ $0.00 $10.60 3 Arcadia (current rate) $10.50 $0.00 $1.08 $11.58 4 Duarte $11.79 $0.72 $0.00 $12.51 5 Bradbury $11.87 $0.89 $0.00 $12.76 6 Arcadia (proposed rate) $12.50 $0.00 $1.08 $13.58 7 La Verne $13.30 $0.00 $1.35 $14.65 8 Alhambra $14.70 $0.00 $0.00 $14.70 9 Covina $12.98 $0.58 $1.22 _ $14.78 10 La Puente $13,82 $1.20 $0.00 $15.02 11 Pasadena $15.15 $0.00 $0.00 $15.15 12 Pomona $15.44 $0.00 $0.00 $15.44 13 Azusa $13.46 $1.54 $0.45 $15.45 14 Montebello $14.49 $0.00 $1.45 $15.94 15 El Monte $14.00 $1.56 $0.42 $15.98 16 Monterey Park $12.85 $0.00 $3.63 $16.48 17 Walnut $13.77 $2.56 $0.20 $16.53 18 San Dimas $14.01 $2.59 $0.00 $16.60 19 West Covina $16.15 $1.37 $0.14 $17.66 20 Sierra Madre $14.80 $2.88 • $0.00 $17.68 21 Claremont $16.13 $1.79 $0.00 $17.92 22* South Pasadena $25.97 $2.28 $0.73 $28.98 -