CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL

CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA

225 Second Street

Claremont, CA 91711

City Council Chamber Tuesday

January 09, 2018

6:30 PM

COUNCILMEMBERS

LARRY SCHROEDERMAYOR

OPANYI K. NASIALI SAM PEDROZA COREY CALAYCAY JOSEPH M. LYONS

CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Introduction:

Frank Lopez, City Engineer

Presentation:

Earthquake Preparedness, by Janiele Maffei, Chief Mitigation Officer, California Earthquake

Authority

CITY MANAGER REPORT

PUBLIC COMMENT

This time has been set aside for persons in the audience to make comments on items within the

subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council that ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA.

Members of the audience will have the opportunity to address the City Council about ALL OTHER

ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA at the time those items are considered.

January 9, 2018 City Council Agenda

Public Comment will be taken for 30 minutes and will resume later in the agenda if there are

speakers who were not given an opportunity to speak because of the 30-minute time restriction.

Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from taking action on oral

requests but may refer the matter to staff or to a subsequent meeting. The City Council will

respond after public comment has been received. Please state your name. Each speaker will be

limited to four (4) continuous minutes.

CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by

one motion after public comment has been received. Most items have been previously considered

by the Council or one or more commissions and/or committees. Only City Councilmembers may

pull an item for discussion. Reading of resolutions and ordinances is waived and they will be

adopted and numbered. Now is the time for those in the audience who wish to speak to items

listed on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be limited to four (4) continuous minutes of

comment on the consent calendar as a whole.

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY WARRANT REGISTER1.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions allowing certain

claims and demands specifying the funds out of which the same are to be

paid, dated December 14, and December 28, 2017.

Resolution Approving City Warrant Register Dated December 14, 2017

Resolution Approving City Warrant Register Dated December 28, 2017

Attachment(s):

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 20172.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and file the special and

regular City Council meeting minutes of December 12, 2017.

Draft Special Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017

Draft Regular Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017

Attachment(s):

SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CLAREMONT

MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.82 RELATING TO RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR SEX

OFFENDERS

3.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and adopt an

ordinance amending Claremont Municipal Code Chapter 9.82 relating to

residency restrictions for sex offenders.

Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.82Attachment(s):


AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DUDEK ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES TO ASSIST IN THE CLARA OAKS DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE

#17-SP02)

4.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council:

A. Authorize the City Manager execute an agreement with Dudek

Environmental Planning to conduct environmental review and to review the

Specific Plan for the Clara Oaks development project (as described in the

scope of work), in the amount of $302,590; and

B. Authorize the City Manager to request that Dudek Environmental Planning

perform extra work not to exceed $75,000, if additional tasks are required.

Dudek Environmental Planning ProposalAttachment(s):

PLANNING COMMISSION 2017-18 WORK PLAN5.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Planning

Commission 2017-18 Work Plan.

11/7/17 Planning Commission Staff Report

11/7/17 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Attachment(s):

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017-18 WORK PLAN6.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Traffic and

Transportation Commission 2017-18 Work Plan.

10/26/17 Traffic and Transportation Commission Staff Report

10/26/17 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes

Attachment(s):

AGREEMENT WITH VIGILANT SOLUTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED

LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PACKAGE

7.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to

execute an agreement with Vigilant Solutions in the amount of $60,351 for the

purchase of seven Automated License Plate Reader cameras and associated

Vigilant service package.

AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CLAREMONT, LA VERNE, POMONA, AND SAN DIMAS

8.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to

execute an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for watershed

monitoring and management to change the Lead Agency from the City of

Claremont to the City of Pomona.


AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROMO

PLANNING GROUP

9.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend

the agreement with Romo Planning Group for professional planning services,

beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, increasing the not to

exceed amount to $150,000, and allowing a one-year term extension at the

request of the City.

Romo Planning Group QualificationsAttachment(s):

PUBLIC HEARING

Public Hearings will not begin before 7:00 p.m. All speakers will be limited to a total of four (4)

continuous minutes, which cannot be delegated.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVAL OF THE 2018-19

BUDGET

10.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the program budget for the

2018-19 Community Development Block Grant programs as proposed, and

authorize staff to proportionately increase or decrease each program budget

based on the final Community Development Block Grant allocation, if

necessary.

CDBG Program BackgroundAttachment(s):

ORDINANCES - None

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

CITY MANAGER TARA SCHULTZ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT11.

Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution appointing

Tara Schultz as City Manager effective February 5, 2018, and approve the

City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Claremont and

Tara Schultz.

Proposed ResolutionAttachment(s):


HOMELESS SERVICES UPDATE12.

Recommendation: Staff recommends:

A. That the City Council receive and file the Homeless Services Update; and

B. That the Mayor appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to examine homelessness in

Claremont, homeless prevention, and ways to engage further community

studies of the Collaborative Community Response to Claremont

Homelessness.

6/14/16 City Council Agenda Report

Resources for Persons in Need Brochure

Claremont Community Homeless Summit Flyer

Fact Sheet Infographic

Attachment(s):

CITY HALL TEMPORARY ART INSTALLATION13.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council:

A. Approve a temporary public art installation at City Hall;

B. Appropriate $15,000 from the Public Art Fund ($10,000 for the artist

agreement and $5,000 to prepare the site);

C. Direct staff to negotiate with the artist the length of the art loan (minimally

eighteen months); and

D. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Sijia Chen in

an amount not to exceed $10,000.

Request for Proposals

Excerpt from the 6/26/17 Public Art Committee Minutes

Sijia Chen Proposal

Excerpt from the 10/09/17 Public Art Committee Minutes

Attachment(s):

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

This time is reserved for those persons who were unable to speak earlier in the agenda because

of the 30-minute time restriction.


MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Council Item

APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS, THE

SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE, AND THE TRI CITY MENTAL HEALTH GOVERNING

BOARD

14.

Recommendation: The City Council Ad Hoc Selection Committee recommends that the City

Council make the following appointments and reappointments to City

commissions, committees, and boards, for the terms specified:

Police Commission

Appoint Frank Bedoya to a four-year term to fill a vacant position.

Traffic and Transportation Commission

Appoint Robert Miletich to a four-year term to fill a vacant position.

Sustainability Committee

Reappoint Freeman Allen to a one-year term commencing February 1, 2018.

Appoint Josh Galvin to a four-year term commencing February 1, 2018.

Reappoint Barnabus Path to a four-year term commencing February 1,

2018.

Tri City Mental Health Governing Board

Reappoint Ron Vera to a two-year term commencing January 1, 2018.

Council Assignment Reports

City Councilmembers may serve as representatives on regional organizations. This time is

allocated for reports about their activities.

COMMISSIONS - no vacancies

ADJOURNMENT

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON,

JANUARY 23, 2018 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 225 SECOND

STREET.

A LOOK AHEAD – Upcoming Meetings and Tentative Agenda Items

- Award of Contract for College Park Lighting Project

- Preliminary Review and Adoption of Planning Principles for the Village South Specific Plan

- Homeless Services Grant and MOU for Consultant


MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY

COUNCIL AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA, ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT 207 HARVARD AVENUE, CLAREMONT, MONDAY THROUGH

THURSDAY, 7 AM – 6 PM. SUBJECT MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY

WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - www.ci.claremont.ca.us. For more information, please call the

City Clerk’s Office at 909-399-5461.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 0F 1990, THIS AGENDA

WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO PERSONS

WITH DISABILITIES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRES A MODIFICATION

OR ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING SHOULD

CONTACT THE CITY CLERK AT 909-399-5461 “VOICE” OR 1-800-735-2929 “TT/TTY” AT

LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE.

I, SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY

CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING AGENDA WAS POSTED AT

CLAREMONT CITY HALL, 207 HARVARD AVENUE, ON JANUARY 4, 2018 PURSUANT TO

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2.

POST THROUGH: JANUARY 10, 2018

Claremont City Council

Agenda Report

225 Second StreetClaremont, CA 91711

File #: 2213 Item No: 1.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK

DATE: JANUARY 9, 2018Reviewed by:

City Manager: TR

Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY WARRANT REGISTER

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions allowing certain claims and demandsspecifying the funds out of which the same are to be paid, dated December 14, and December 28,2017.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies are available atthe City Hall public counter, the Youth Activity Center, the Alexander Hughes Community Center, theCity website, and the Claremont Public Library.

Submitted by:

Shelley DesautelsCity Clerk

Attachments:A - Resolution Approving City Warrant Register Dated December 14, 2017B - Resolution Approving City Warrant Register Dated December 28, 2017

CLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 1 of 1

powered by Legistar™

RESOLUTION NO. 2018-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. NOW THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. That the list of claims and demands dated December 14, 2017, totaling $1,276,985.79, has been audited as required by law. SECTION 2. That warrant numbers 3289 through 3303, 232740 through 232896, and 4824 through 4825 inclusive, are hereby allowed in the amounts and ordered paid out of the respective funds. SECTION 3. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2018.

________________________________ Mayor, City of Claremont

ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk, City of Claremont

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID. NOW THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. That the list of claims and demands dated December 28, 2017, totaling $1,284,045.45, has been audited as required by law. SECTION 2. That warrant numbers 3304 through 3316, and 232897 through 233026, inclusive, are hereby allowed in the amounts and ordered paid out of the respective funds. SECTION 3. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2018.

________________________________ Mayor, City of Claremont

ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk, City of Claremont

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B


Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2017

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council approve and file the special and regular City Council meetingminutes of December 12, 2017.



Submitted by: Prepared by:

Shelley Desautels Jamie CostanzaCity Clerk Deputy City Clerk

Attachments:A - Draft Special Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017B - Draft Regular Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017



CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, December 12, 2017 – 5:15 p.m.

City Council Chamber 225 Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schroeder called the meeting to order at 5:16 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT COUNCILMEMBER: CALAYCAY, LYONS, NASIALI, PEDROZA, SCHROEDER

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER: NONE

ALSO PRESENT Tony Ramos, City Manager; Jeff Oderman, Interim City Attorney; Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager; Shelley Desautels, City Clerk

Closed Session Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. There were no requests to speak. At 5:17 p.m., the City Council recessed to closed session:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

Agency Designated Representatives: Tony Ramos, City Manager Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager Employee Organizations: Claremont Employees’ Association Claremont Management Association Claremont Police Management Association Claremont Police Officers’ Association Claremont Professional Employees’ Association Claremont Administrative and Technical Support Employees’ Association

The City Council reconvened at 6:29 p.m. Closed Session Report Mayor Schroeder reported that direction was given to City staff, and there was no reportable action.

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 12, 2017 Page 2

ADJOURNMENT

At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Schroeder adjourned the meeting. ________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Deputy City Clerk

CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL/FINANCING AUTHORITY

MINUTES Tuesday, December 12, 2017 - 6:30 p.m.

City Council Chamber 225 Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schroeder called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Boy Scout Troop 407

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

PRESENT COUNCILMEMBER: CALAYCAY, LYONS, NASIALI, PEDROZA, SCHROEDER

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER: NONE

ALSO PRESENT Tony Ramos, City Manager; Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Oderman, Interim City Attorney; Adam Pirrie, Director of Finance; Roger Bradley, Director of Community Services; Brad Johnson, Director of Community Development; Shelly Vander Veen, Police Chief; Anne Turner, Director of Human Services; Shelley Desautels, City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

Mayor Schroeder reported that direction was given to City staff, and there was no reportable action.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

The City Council recognized Bonita Ramos, President, and Samuel Mowbray, Rotary Club of Claremont, for their support of the Joslyn and Blaisdell Patio Project.

CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Ramos reported on the Metrolink Community meeting held last night, the upcoming Metrolink meeting on January 17, City Hall holiday closures and trash collection delay, and overnight parking exemptions for the upcoming holidays.

PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. Amy Crow, Claremont Library Manager, highlighted the Library’s events held in 2017, and shared upcoming Library events. There were no other requests to speak.

CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Schroeder invited public comment on the Consent Calendar.

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B

City Council Minutes December 12, 2017 Page 2

There were no requests to speak. Routine Administrative Items 1. Adoption of Resolutions Approving City Warrant Register

Adopted Resolution No. 2017-70, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID, dated November 30, 2017.

2. City Council Minutes of November 28, 2017 (special and regular) and December 6, 2017 (special) Approved and filed.

3. Award of Contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc., to Conduct an Inventory of City-Owned Trees

and Provide Assessments of Potential Planting Sites Within the City’s Parks and Rights-of-Way

Authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., for a City-owned tree inventory and tree planting site assessment in an amount not to exceed $100,000.

4. Award of Contract to Plan-It Geo, LLC for Services to Create an Urban Forest Management

Plan A. Authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Plan-It Geo, LLC for the

development of an Urban Forest Management Plan in the amount of $80,600; and B. Authorized a project contingency of $19,400 to be used for additional community meetings

or for any project expenses not included within the scope of work, for a total project budget of $100,000; and

5. Agreement with Diamond Environmental Services to Provide Portable Restroom Services

Authorized the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Diamond Environmental Services for an amount not to exceed $25,237, with the option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year terms, with a 2.5% increase each year.

6. Appropriation for Payment of Legal Fees Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement with the

Golden State Water Company Appropriated $2,117,020 from the City's Operating and Environmental Emergency Reserve to fund the payments due by June 30, 2018 under the terms of the settlement agreement between the City of Claremont and the Golden State Water Company.

7. Acceptance of Evey Canyon Acreage from Pomona College Authorized the City Manager to sign the proper legal documents accepting the 463 acres of

certain real property and the certificate of acceptance.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to approve the Consent Calendar with

Councilmember Nasiali abstaining from voting on the November 28, 2017 minutes as he

was absent from that meeting, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a

vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Nasiali, Pedroza, Schroeder

NOES: Councilmember – None


As it was not yet 7:00 p.m., the time set aside for Public Hearings, Items No. 10 and 13 were heard next.

ORDINANCE

10. Amendment to Chapter 9.82 of the Claremont Municipal Code (Sex Offender Residency

Restrictions Chief Vander Veen highlighted the staff report, and responded to questions from the City

Council related to the requirements to register as a sex offender, and clarification on residency restrictions.

Mayor Schroeder invited public comment.

There were no requests to speak.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 9.82 of

the Claremont Municipal Code relating to residency restrictions for registered sex

offenders, place the ordinance on first reading, and refer it to the City Attorney for not

less than five days, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a vote as

follows:



ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 13. Resolution in Support of the Claremont Metrolink Station

Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager, highlighted the staff report, and responded to questions from the City Council related to the proposed locations of the Gold Line station and the Metrolink station, the Gold Line construction delay and how that will affect Metrolink.


Bob Wortiker, Claremont resident, questioned the proposed tunnel, and who will maintain and police the tunnel.

Mark VonWodtke asked the City Council to make sure there is access to the station from both the north and south side.

Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager, responded to Mr. Wortiker that the pedestrian access or tunnel will run under the first three tracks then offer an exit. The tunnel will then continue under the fourth track. The Gold Line Authority is currently looking at design options.

Matt Magilke inquired if the tunnel was for the Metrolink station or the Gold Line, and if the Gold Line will continue to Montclair.

Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager, responded to Mr. Magilke that the pedestrian access is for Metrolink, and the authority states the Gold Line will continue to Montclair. Jennifer Stark, Claremont resident, spoke in support of the proposed resolution.


There were no other requests to speak.

Councilmember Calaycay stated the length of the tunnel will be the distance needed to cross all tracks.

Councilmember Lyons clarified that San Bernardino County still needs to discuss funding that is necessary for the Gold Line to reach Montclair.

Councilmember Nasiali moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-73, A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE

CLAREMONT METROLINK STATION, seconded by Councilmember Pedroza.

Mayor Schroeder read the recitals listed in the resolution.

The motion carried on a roll call vote as follows:



PUBLIC HEARINGS

8. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 Hearing to Approve the Issuance of $55

Million in Tax Exempt Financing by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Benefit of Claremont Village Venture LP

Adam Pirrie, Finance Director, highlighted the staff report. Hai Nguyen, MRK Partners representing Claremont Village Venture LP, responded to a

question from the City Council related to property fencing and gate improvements at Claremont Village, and what will happen to the tenants when the improvements are being made.

Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. Jim Keith, Chair of the Safe and Healthy Housing Committee, asked that a camera system be

added to the Claremont Village. There were no other requests to speak. Mr. Nguyen confirmed that the new gate system is budgeted for at this time, but a camera

system is not budgeted at this time. If approval of the resolution is contingent on cameras, they will include a camera system in their budget.

Jeff Oderman, Interim City Attorney, explained that physical improvements or alterations of

the project has not been agendized for tonight’s meeting. It would be preferable to include the use of a camera system in a separate agreement submitted by the applicant to the City.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-71, A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE

ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY MULTIFAMILY

HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO

EXCEED $55,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE

ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF CLAREMONT


VILLAGE AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO, seconded by

Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a vote as follows:



9. Resolution Approving the Execution and Delivery of California Statewide Communities

Development Authority (CSDA) Transportation Revenue (Installment Sale) Certificates of Participation, Series 2018 in an Amount not to Exceed $4 Million to Finance Improvements to Foothill Boulevard Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan, and Authorizing the Execution of the Necessary Financing Documents

Adam Pirrie, Finance Director, highlighted the staff report, and responded to questions from the City Council about funds the City will receive from Measure M per year, the benefit of using this approach versus larger bonding agencies, Measure M funding options, and other sources of funding.



Councilmember Calaycay moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-72, A RESOLUTION

APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE

COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TRANSPORTATION REVENUE

(INSTALLMENT SALE) CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2018 (T.R.I.P. –

TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) PURSUANT TO A TRUST AGREEMENT,

AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A TRUST AGREEMENT,

CERTIFICATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND AN INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENT,

AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION

WITH THE OFFERING AND SALE OF SUCH CERTIFICATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE

FILING OF A VALIDATION ACTION AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO,

seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a vote as follows:



ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 11. Request for Authority to Advertise the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan Improvements Project Chris Veirs, Principal Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Chris Veirs, Principal Planner, and Tony Ramos, City Manager, responded to questions from the City Council related to the cost of the bioswales, if the plans were shown to the Mosquito District, bioswale design and potential for flooding, recycling the existing monument signs, MS4 compliance, sidewalk breaks, bicycle traffic, potential art pieces, Route 66 artwork, parking, if the plans had been approved by the Six Basins Water District, and opportunities for local businesses to apply for loans to improve facades.

Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. Bob Wortiker raised concern about the large amount of concrete being used, and suggested

the use of pavers.


Mark VonWodtke spoke in support of the project, especially the water percolation system. Eric Huison questioned the protective bike lane and who will keep the bike lane clean. There were no requests to speak. Chris Veirs, Principal Planner, responded to questions that were raised during the public

comment period about the use of pavers, and reported that the protected bike lanes will be cleaned by the City’s street sweeper.

All Councilmembers spoke in support of the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan Improvements

Project.

Councilmember Nasiali moved to approve the design, and authorize staff to advertise

the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan Improvements Project, seconded by

Councilmember Pedroza, and carried on a vote as follows:


NOES: Councilmember – None The City Council recessed at 8:44 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 12. Police Facility Public Outreach Results and Direction on Financing Mechanism and Election

Date

Shelly Vander Veen, Chief of Police, highlighted the staff report. Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. Eric Helland, Claremont McKenna College Chair of the Economic Department, shared his

concerns of the financing options, and suggested the City Council issue no call bonds. Matt Mciliguty, Claremont McKenna College Professor, suggested the City Council issue

bonds without call provisions, and appoint an oversight committee to monitor the costs of the project. He questioned the police facilities’ operating costs, and what would happen if the measure failed.

Jim Keith believes the City Council should place a general obligation bond on the June 2018

ballot. Sally Seven, Claremont resident, spoke in support of the comments made by Mr. Keith. Helaine Goldwater, Claremont resident, stated there was a need for a new police station 20

years ago. Now is the time for a decision to be made. Edgar Reece, Claremont resident, shared that he has heard from the community their support

for a new police facility. He believes the City Council must move forward with the new station as it is the future of the community and the future of the community’s quality of life.

There were no other requests to speak.


Adam Pirrie, Finance Director, and John Kim, Managing Director from Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, responded to questions received during the public comment period, and questions from the City Council related to the proposed financing options, examples of refinancing general obligation bonds, call vs. non-call bonds, average assessed home value in Claremont, and the City’s past experiences with a parcel tax. Councilmember Calaycay would feel more comfortable with placing a general obligation bond measure on the June 5, 2018 ballot.

Councilmember Pedroza spoke in support of placing a general obligation bond on a ballot but raised concern that staff may not have enough time to place the measure on the June 5, 2018 ballot.

Councilmember Nasiali spoke in support of placing a measure on the November 2018 ballot

as there is a need for a campaign from the community, and it will be a cost savings to the City. He is willing to consider a parcel tax based on improved square footage but would not support a General Obligation bond.

Councilmember Lyons spoke in favor of placing a general obligation bond measure on the

June 5, 2018 ballot with a no call feature. Mayor Schroeder spoke in support of a call feature and is flexible as to placing the ballot

measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot or the June 5, 2018 ballot.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to direct staff to prepare and bring back appropriate

documents to place a ballot measure before the Claremont voters on the June 5, 2018

ballot, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a roll call vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Pedroza, Schroeder

NOES: Councilmember – Nasiali

Councilmember Calaycay moved to direct staff to move forward with placing a general

obligation bond on the June 5, 2018 ballot for the Public Safety Facility project, and

upon passage of the general obligation bond ballot measure revisit the discussion of a

call option, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a roll call vote as

follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Pedroza, Schroeder

NOES: Councilmember – Nasiali

14. Appointment of Retired PERS Annuitant Anthony Ramos to the Position of Interim City

Manager Mayor Schroeder highlighted the staff report. Colin Tudor, Assistant City Manager, responded to a question from the City Council of

whether PERS allows for an overlap of the Interim City Manager and the City Manager. Jeff Oderman, Interim City Attorney, confirmed that PERS is okay with an overlap; however,

the title Interim City Manager may be inappropriate when there is a City Manager. City staff will evaluate further before any overlap occurs.




Councilmember Calaycay moved to adopt Resolution No. 2017-74, A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING

RETIRED PERS ANNUITANT ANTHONY RAMOS TO THE POSITION OF INTERIM CITY

MANAGER, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a roll call vote as

follows:



Council Item

15. Reappointment to the Claremont Hills Conservation Corporation Board of Directors Mayor Schroeder invited public comment. There were no requests to speak.

Councilmember Pedroza moved to reappoint Richard Weiner to a two-year term on the

Claremont Hills Conservation Corporation Board of Directors, seconded by

Councilmember Nasiali, and carried on a vote as follows:



ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Schroeder adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Claremont City Council will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the Claremont City Council Chamber, 225 Second Street, Claremont. Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk


Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CLAREMONTMUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.82 RELATING TO RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR SEXOFFENDERS

SUMMARY

Proposition 83 of 2006 (“Jessica’s Law”) was a statute enacted by voters, which amended CaliforniaPenal Code Section 3003.5 to prohibit registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of anypublic or private school or any park where children gather. Additionally, Proposition 83 authorizedmunicipal jurisdictions to enact ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sexoffender. Based on this authority, the City adopted Ordinance No 2010-01, codified in Municipal CodeChapter 9.82, which imposed further restrictions on sex offenders.

Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-01, case law has developed which limits its enforcement,and a Federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against the City challenging the constitutionality of theresidency restriction contained in Municipal Code Chapter 9.82.

On December 12, 2017, the City Council introduced an ordinance to amend Chapter 9.82 of theClaremont Municipal Code which specifically recommends removing “Residential Exclusion Zones,”removing the prohibition against multiple registered sex offenders from renting rooms in a hotel,removing the prohibition against multiple registered sex offenders from residing within a multi-familycomplex, and limiting the definition of “Registered Sex Offender” to those offenders who are requiredto register and who are currently on parole.

The proposed ordinance does not change the requirement for registered sex offenders to registerannually with the Police Department if they have permanent housing, or every thirty days if they aretransient or do not have a permanent address. Additionally, the provision restricting sex offendersfrom residing with other registered sex offenders will remain in effect.



RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council waive further reading and adopt an ordinance amendingClaremont Municipal Code Chapter 9.82 relating to residency restrictions for sex offenders.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

In addition to the recommendation, there is the following alternative:

· Do not adopt the ordinance.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare reports and administer this project is estimated at $2,472, and is included inthe operating budget of the Administrative Services Department and the Police Department.

ANALYSIS

Proposition 83, commonly known as “Jessica’s Law,” was passed in November 2006. Among otherthings, Jessica’s Law amended California law to impose statewide residency restrictions onregistered sex offenders. The resulting law, Penal Code § 3003.5, prohibited any registered sexoffender from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where childrenregularly gather, and allowed cities to adopt local ordinances further restricting residency ofregistered sex offenders.

Based on the authority granted within Penal Code § 3003.5(c), in January 2010, the City adopted anordinance, codified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.82 prohibiting registered sex offenders from rentingor otherwise occupying any dwelling within a residential exclusion zone. A “residential exclusionzone” is defined as any area located within two thousand (2,000) feet from the nearest property lineof the subject property to the nearest property line of a childcare center, public or private school(grades K through 12) and/or park. The adopted ordinance also restricted registered sex offendersfrom residing in or otherwise occupying a dwelling where another sex offender resided unless relatedby blood, marriage, or adoption.

Recent case law has called into question the constitutionality of various local restrictions on sexoffenders. In 2014, an appellate court in People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1168determined that local ordinances prohibiting sex offenders from being near certain property uses wasunconstitutional. Sex offender residency restrictions under Penal Code § 3003.5 have also comeunder attack.

In March 2015, the California Supreme Court decided In Re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1019, holdingthat California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) enforcement of the residencyrestrictions in Penal Code § 3003.5 against sex offender parolees in San Diego County wasunconstitutional. The Court found the residency restrictions, as applied and enforced in San DiegoCounty, "hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests ofpublic safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the State's legitimate goal ofprotecting children from sexual predators." This conclusion was based in part on studies and reportsreleased after the passage of Jessica’s Law indicating that such residency restrictions have notimproved public safety. The evidence presented to the court in that case suggests that residencyrestrictions have the unintended consequence of increasing homelessness among registered sexCLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 2 of 4


restrictions have the unintended consequence of increasing homelessness among registered sexoffenders, thereby actually threatening public safety. According to this evidence, convicted sexoffenders who are homeless are not only more difficult to supervise than those who have establishedresidences, they are also more likely to reoffend and less likely to receive critical rehabilitativeservices.

Due to the constitutional questions surrounding sex offender residency restrictions, the ClaremontPolice Department has not been enforcing the City’s sex offender ordinance. Attached is a relatedCalifornia Peace Officers Association Client Alert which announced Los Angeles Superior CourtJudge Peter Espinoza’s 2010 order placing a hold on the enforcement of “Jessica’s Law.” Despitethe fact that the residency restrictions were not being enforced, in August of 2017, the City wasserved with civil action by the Law Office of Janice Bellucci, challenging the City’s Municipal Codeproviding residency restrictions for sex offenders. The challenge was based on Supreme Court CaseIn re Taylor, which found residency restrictions exclude registrants from residing in most affordablehousing.

Based on the recent case law, staff recommends that the City Council amend its sex offenderresidency restrictions, specifically removing “Residential Exclusion Zones,” removing the prohibitionagainst multiple registered sex offenders from renting rooms in a hotel, removing the prohibitionagainst multiple registered sex offenders from residing within a multi-family complex, and limiting thedefinition of “Registered Sex Offender” to those offenders who are required to register and who arecurrently on parole. In the event the law changes to permit such restrictions again, staff would bringback an ordinance to implement such restrictions.

The law firm that filed the Federal suit against the City has filed or threatened to file similar casesagainst many other California cities with similar ordinances. Our neighboring cities of San Dimas, LaVerne, Arcadia, Pomona, Upland, and Covina have all repealed their ordinances. Based on the caselaw, and rulings from LA County Judges about these regulations and the fact that it is not currentlybeing enforced, staff and legal counsel anticipated that attempting to fight this lawsuit in court wouldbe difficult and expensive and have little impact on where sex offenders can reside in Claremont.

Despite the elimination of the residency location restrictions, the Municipal Code requirementsrestricting sex offenders from residing with other registered sex offenders will remain. Additionally,this ordinance does not change the requirement that registered sex offenders register each year ifthey have permanent housing or every thirty days if they are transient or do not have a permanentaddress.

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City’s strategic and visioning documentsand finds the following:

Council Priorities - This item does not apply to the Council Priorities.

Sustainability Plan - This item does not apply to the goals of Sustainability Plan.

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not apply to the Economic Sustainability Plan.

General Plan - This item does not apply to the General Plan.



2016-18 Budget - This item does not apply to the Police Department Work Plan Goals.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not relate to the Police Department objectives in theYouth and Family Master Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code,Sec. 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a director reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activityis not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Chapter 3. The Ordinance has no potential for resulting in a physical change to theenvironment, directly or indirectly, and it is not a “project” as that term is defined in Section 15378 ofthe CEQA Guidelines. Even if the Ordinance were a project, it would be subject to the CEQAexemption contained in CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certaintythat there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.



Submitted by:


Attachment:Proposed Ordinance



ORDINANCE NO. 2017-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT AMENDING CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.82 RELATING TO RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006 the voters of the State of California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, commonly referred to as “Jessica’s Law,” so as to better protect Californians, and, in particular, the children of this State from sex offenders; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 83, as codified in part in subsection (c) of California Penal Code Section 3003.5, authorized municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restricted the residency of any registered sex offender; and

WHEREAS, following the adoption of Proposition 83, the City of Claremont, adopted an ordinance that prohibits any registered sex offender from residing in certain locations within the City; and

WHEREAS, Studies conducted after the adoption of Proposition 83 indicate that the Proposition has not improved the protection of persons from registered sex offenders, and case law has called into question the constitutionality of enforcing Proposition 83. In its September 2011 Report entitled “Homelessness Among California’s Sex Offenders,” the California Sex Offender Management Board concluded that there is no evidence that residency restrictions prevent or deter sex crimes against children. In addition, the Board has presented evidence that residency restrictions actually have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of re-offense because the restrictions push the offenders into homelessness, and stable housing has been shown to be a key factor in reducing recidivism. Based on these facts, the California Supreme Court in In Re Taylor found Proposition 83 to violate the U.S. Constitution as applied against sex offender parolees in San Diego County; and

WHEREAS, In August of 2017, the City was served with civil action by the Law Office of Janice Bellucci challenging the City’s residency restrictions for sex offenders based on In re Taylor and a later appellate case titled People v. Lynch which held that residency restrictions can only be lawfully applied to sex offenders while they are on parole. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Claremont does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the foregoing recitals and the staff report presented herewith are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

sdesaute

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT

Ordinance No. 2017- Page 2

SECTION 2. Chapter 9.82 of the Claremont Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Chapter 9.82

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS

Sections: 9.82.010 Definitions 9.82.020 Reserved 9.82.030-9.82.035 Sex Offender violations 9.82.040-9.82.045 Responsible party violations 9.82.050 Eviction requirements 9.82.060 Exceptions 9.82.070 Offenses constituting nuisances 9.82.080 Enforcement and penalties

9.82.010 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the

meaning respectively ascribed to them by this section:

“Hotel” means any commercial establishment that rents guest rooms or suite to the public on a nightly, weekly, or monthly basis, and shall include a motel and an inn that operates in such capacity.

“Multifamily dwelling” means a residential structure designed for the permanent residency of two (2) or more individuals, groups of individuals, or families living independently. This definition shall include a duplex, apartment house, and a condominium complex, but shall not include a hotel.

“Owner’s authorized agent” means any natural person, firm, association, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, organization, club, company, corporation, business trust or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, office or employee authorized to act for the property owner.

“Permanent resident” means any person who, as of a given date, obtained the right to occupy a dwelling, including, but not limited to, a single-family dwelling, multifamily dwelling, duplex, hotel or motel for more than thirty (30) consecutive days.

“Property owner” means the owner of record of real property, as recorded in the office of the County Registrar Recorder/County Clerk, as well as any partial owner, joint owner, tenant, tenant-in-common, or joint tenant, of such real property.

“Registered sex offender” means any person who is required to register under Section 290 of the California Penal Code and who is currently on parole. For purposes


of this chapter, “registered sex offender” includes those who have failed to register pursuant to Section 290 of the California Penal Code.

“Responsible party” means a property owner and/or a property owner’s authorized agent.

“Single-family dwelling” means any lot designed for permanent residency and containing one and only one dwelling unit.

“Temporary resident” means any person who, for a period of thirty (30) days or less, obtained the legal right to occupy or reside in a single-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling, including, but not limited to, a hotel or motel.

9.82.020 Reserved.

9.82.030 Sex offender violation/single-family and multifamily dwellings.

A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying a single-family dwelling or a unit in a multifamily dwelling with another registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

9.82.035 Sex offender violation/hotels.

A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying the same guest room in a hotel with another registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

9.82.040 Responsible party violation/single-family and multifamily dwellings.

A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly renting a single-family dwelling or a unit in a multifamily dwelling to be rented or otherwise occupied by more than one registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

9.82.045 Responsible party violation/hotels.

A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing a guest room in a hotel to be rented or otherwise occupied by more than one registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption.


9.82.050 Eviction requirements.

If, in order to comply with this ordinance, a responsible party is required to

terminate a registered sex offender’s tenancy or other occupancy, the responsible party shall comply with all applicable State law procedures and requirements governing the eviction of tenants of real property. If, in accordance with these procedures and requirements, a court determines that such termination is improper, the responsible party shall not be in violation of this chapter by allowing the sex offender to remain as a tenant or other occupant.

9.82.060 Exceptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply in the following instances: A. Tenancies or other occupancies commenced prior to the effective date of

the ordinance codified in this chapter, or to the renewals of any such tenancy or occupancies.

B. The first sex offender to establish a lawful residency shall not be in violation of this chapter if another sex offender attempts to establish residency within the prohibited location.

C. The sex offender is confined within the City Jail.

9.82.070 Offenses constituting nuisances. A. Any single-family dwelling, multifamily dwelling, or hotel or motel operated

or maintained in a manner inconsistent with the occupancy requirements of this chapter is declared to be unlawful and is defined as and declared to be public nuisances per se that are injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare.

B. In any civil action or proceeding, administrative proceeding, or special

proceeding, including, but not limited to those brought to abate a public nuisance, the prevailing party will be entitled to recovery of all costs, attorney’s fees and expenses, provided that attorneys’ fees will only be available in those actions or proceedings in which the City has provided notice at the commencement of such action or proceeding that it intends to seek and recover its own attorneys’ fees. In no action or proceeding will an award of attorneys’ fees exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding.

C. Monies due to the City pursuant to this chapter may be recovered in an

appropriate civil action. Alternatively, such liability may be enforced by special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed, which proceedings must be conducted in a manner substantively similar to


proceedings prescribed in this Code relating to assessment for abatement of property nuisances.

9.82.080 Enforcement and penalties.

A. Notwithstanding any other penalty provided by this Code or otherwise by law, any person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, in addition, the City may enforce the violation by means of a civil enforcement process through a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or by any other means available by law.

B. Each day that a violation of this chapter exists shall be deemed a new and

separate offense.”

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that the approval of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, Sec. 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. The Ordinance has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the City Council finds the approval of this Ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA, and even if it were, it would be subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,

clause, or phrase added by this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest

and certify to the passage and adoption of it and, within fifteen (15) days, publish a summary of the Ordinance in the Claremont Courier, a semi-weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City of Claremont, and thirty (30) days thereafter it shall take effect and be in force.


PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of .

Mayor, City of Claremont

ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Claremont APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney


Agenda Report




FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR


City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DUDEK ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR PROFESSIONALSERVICES TO ASSIST IN THE CLARA OAKS DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE #17-SP02)

SUMMARY

Staff has recently completed a competitive selection process to hire a professional consultant toconduct an environmental review and review of the Specific Plan for the Clara Oaks developmentand Specific Plan project. The project consists of a proposed development of 47, single-family homeson approximately 50 acres of a 100-acre site, comprised of two parcels and located in theundeveloped hillside north of the Webb Schools, off Webb Canyon Road. The project will require theapproval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), a Tentative Tract Map (TTM), and a Specific Plan. It willalso likely require the preparation and approval of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The projectis located in the Hillside Overlay District, an undeveloped area of natural terrain next to theestablished Claremont Hills Wilderness Park. The project applicant will donate approximately 50acres of natural open space with public access to the existing trail system.

Environmental consultant services will include all environmental work necessary to satisfy theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and in this case, the final document will likely be anEIR. The consultant services also include a thorough review of the draft Specific Plan, which theapplicant will be preparing. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services was issued in October2017, and the City received three proposals. After evaluating the proposals, staff recommends thatthe City Council authorize the execution of an agreement with Dudek Environmental Planning, basedon their attached proposal, interview, portfolio of previous work, and positive references fromprevious clients.



RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:A. Authorize the City Manager execute an agreement with Dudek Environmental Planning to

conduct environmental review and to review the Specific Plan for the Clara Oaks developmentproject (as described in the scope of work), in the amount of $302,590; and

B. Authorize the City Manager to request that Dudek Environmental Planning perform extra worknot to exceed $75,000, if additional tasks are required.


In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives:

A. Continue the matter for additional information or discussion.B. Do not approve the proposed agreement with Dudek Environmental Planning, and provide

staff with direction on proceeding with the Clara Oaks development and Specific Plan.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The cost of the proposed agreement with Dudek Environmental Planning is $302,590. The applicantwill be responsible for the full contract amount and for the staff costs required to administer thecontract.

The agreement includes authorization for the City Manager to request that Dudek EnvironmentalPlanning perform extra work if necessary to complete the project. This could include additional tasksnot anticipated or additional time required to respond to public comments during the public reviewperiod. Authorization for such extra work would be limited to a cost of $75,000, and be borne by theapplicant.

A deposit will be collected from the applicant prior to commencement of the work outlined in thecontract. The deposit will be sufficient to cover the costs of the agreement, in addition to an estimateof staff costs required to complete the environmental review, as well as review of the Specific Plan.

ANALYSIS

Project Description

The project, comprised of two parcels, is the proposed development of 47 homes on an approximate100-acre site in the northwest portion of the City. The site is east of Webb Canyon Road, north of theWebb Schools, and west of the Claraboya subdivision. The single-family homes are planned for lotsof ¼ acre or larger, with lots being left in their natural state until the individual homes are built. Theywill be built to conform to the topography, and much of the natural landscaping will be preserved. Theproposed square footage of the homes ranges from 2,500 to 4,000 square feet. The applicantproposes to include a parking lot for trail uses, with access through the development into thenortheast portion of the project. This area, measuring approximately 50 acres, will be designated asopen space and donated to the City.

The project is located in a Hillside Residential Overlay Zone. The Hillside Residential Overlay ishillside land that has the gentlest slope, and is where residential homes may be constructed. OwnersCLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 2 of 6


hillside land that has the gentlest slope, and is where residential homes may be constructed. Ownersof land in this overlay zone may purchase transfer development credits from owners with hillsideproperty that does not qualify for construction. In this way, development occurs on the gentlest slopesand much of the steeper land is preserved as open space.

This project will require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Tentative Tract Map, and aSpecific Plan. The Specific Plan has not yet been submitted, but will dictate how the subdivision willbe developed, including specific guidelines and standards for: architecture, massing, height,landscaping, lighting, open space, fire reduction, storage, drainage, energy conservation, fences andwalls, parking, and other relevant topics.

Selection Process and Rationale for Selecting Dudek Environmental Planning

Selection of a qualified environmental firm for this project was of paramount importance to staff. Thishillside project, located as it is next to much cherished wilderness and park areas, requires detailedand comprehensive environmental analysis to ensure that all environmental issues are reviewed andthat the community’s concerns about this project’s potential impacts to the environment can beaddressed.

In response to the detailed RFP that was issued for this project, the City received three proposalsfrom consultant firms. Of these three, one was dismissed for lack of detail and specificity around theenvironmental issues, and lacked evidence of experience with Specific Plans. Of the two remainingCLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 3 of 6


environmental issues, and lacked evidence of experience with Specific Plans. Of the two remainingfirms, both having the same initial costs, staff selected Dudek Environmental Planning. Dudek iswidely recognized in the field, presented an excellent proposal, and was selected because it:

1. Demonstrated extensive knowledge, experience, and skills in environmental review forprojects such as this one;

2. Provided staff with specific expertise in fields such as: biological and wildlife resources,archaeology, hydrology and geology, air quality, fire prevention, and Specific Plans;

3. Demonstrated experience with hillside and environmentally sensitive settings;4. Provided a clear and thorough project management model;5. Demonstrated extensive public outreach expertise;6. Provided an experienced engineering firm to conduct traffic analysis; and7. Presented straightforward, clear responses to interview questions.

For these reasons, staff recommends that Dudek Environmental Planning be contracted to completethe environmental and Specific Plan work on this project.

Project Schedule

The following is a summary of the project schedule:

Community Input

The applicant held a community meeting for this project on May 1, 2017. There were 98 attendees,including the previous Community Development Director Brian Desatnik. The main concerns raisedat this community meeting were:

1. Developing in an area that is already high fire risk;2. Loss of natural environment given new roads and new homes;3. Impacts on biological resources - animal and plant habitats;4. Loss of views;5. Webb Canyon Road improvements;6. Adherence to Hillside Ordinance;7. Impacts to Webb Schools;8. Utility access to new development; and9. Wilderness Area Concerns such as:



a. Adverse impact to wilderness area.b. Location of access to wilderness area.c. Parking lot for public access to wilderness area.

d. Location and associated negative impacts.e. Increased volume of cars and people given new access and parking lot for wilderness

area.f. Increased need for Park Rangers.

Given the level of interest in this project from the community, the environmental firm will be expectedto provide detailed analyses on those topics required by CEQA.

FAQs Link

Staff has also prepared a dedicated webpage on the property on the City’s website. The link to thatpage is:

<http://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/living/development-projects/clara-oaks-housing-development>



Council Priorities - This item relates to the Quality of Life section of the Council Priority List, as acareful analysis of the environmental impacts of this project will ensure that all avoidableenvironmental impacts will be reduced or eliminated in the wilderness and park areas of the City.

Sustainable City Plan - This item complies with the Sustainable Development and Transportationsections of the Claremont Sustainable City Plan, as the project will result in adoption of newregulatory documents that will incorporate measures that will encourage sustainable builtdevelopment and environment, protect the natural environment, and help protect the natural openspace.

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item relates to the Economic Sustainability Plan, in the factthat this contract will not require the expenditure of any City monies.

General Plan - This item relates to the General Plan goals and policies such as:

Goal 5-1: Maintain unique and diverse open space resources throughout Claremont forpurposes of resource and habitat protection.

· Policy 5-1.1 Strive to acquire or otherwise protect open space areas that provide key wildlifecorridors, and provide connectivity between habitat areas.

· Policy 5-1.2 Work with state and federal agencies to protect areas containing rare orendangered species of plants and animals.

· Policy 5-1.3 Encourage new development to preserve, where possible, on-site naturalelements that contribute to the community’s aesthetic character.

· Policy 5-1.4 Develop and implement specific management programs for hillside propertiesand other natural areas acquired by the City. These programs should be based on soundecological principles and professionally accepted methods to protect and enhance sensitive



animal populations and their habitats.· Policy 5-1.5 Minimize disturbances and scarring of ridgelines and other distinctive landforms

in the hillsides.· Policy 5-1.6 Encourage the preservation of natural areas so that future generations will have

the opportunity to learn firsthand about the natural environment and its importance.

Goal 5-2: Preserve and manage open space areas in Claremont’s hillsides.· Policy 5-2.1 Actively pursue funding and other appropriate mechanisms to preserve and

acquire as much of the hillside area as possible.· Policy 5-2.2 Continue to implement/support the City’s 1981 hillside ordinance in consideration

of the landowners’ property rights.· Policy 5-2.3 Explore the use of bond issues, assessment districts, environmental partnerships,

grants, and other methods for purchasing and managing hillside areas.· Policy 5-2.4 Coordinate with other public agencies’ plans, and pursue partnerships with local

and regional environmental, and conservation organizations to locate, develop, and maintainhillside open space areas.

Goal 5-3: Maximize wilderness park areas within Claremont’s hillsides.· Policy 5-3.1 Pursue funding sources and programs to purchase privately owned hillside

properties for expansion of the wilderness parks.· Policy 5-3.2 Encourage hillside land owners to dedicate land to the City voluntarily for open

space purposes.· Policy 5-3.3 Provide access to public recreational lands in the hillsides.

· Policy 5-3.4 Provide adequate funding to manage the hillside wilderness parks.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Community Development Department Work Plan Goalsrelated to implementation of the General Plan.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not directly relate to the Youth and Family MasterPlan.

CEQA REVIEW

The Community Development Director anticipates that, given the potential impacts to theenvironment, an EIR will likely be required in accordance with Section 15060 of the CEQAGuidelines.




Brad Johnson Jennifer DavisCommunity Development Director Contract Planner

Attachment:Dudek Environmental Planning Proposal (Includes Project Scope and Budget)



DDDDUDEKUDEKUDEKUDEK 1 Revised 12-18-17

Clara Oaks Specific Plan Review & EIR

Approach to Completing Scope of Work

The approach of the Dudek project team is based on serving as a key element to anticipate controversial issues,

provide unbiased recommendations, devise solutions to potential impacts and/or other issues that may arise,

and provide expert planning and policy consultation. This proposal assumes minimal printing of reports and

memos. Most deliverables will be submitted in electronic format (Microsoft Word and/or Adobe Acrobat (PDF)).

This proposal assumes that City/applicant team comments will be provided via redlined track changes directly in

the WORD files. The following provides our scope of work for the review of the Specific Plan and preparation of

the associated EIR for the proposed project.

Planning Review Services

Task 1 Review and Analysis of Draft Specific Plan Dudek will conduct a thorough review and analyses of the Draft Specific Plan prepared by the applicant team and

document our findings in a Memorandum to City staff. Our review will ensure that: 1) the Specific Plan meets the

requirements outlined in the California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.; 2) the Specific Plan is consistent

with the City's goals and policies as outlined in the General Plan, specifically with regard to hillside development; 3)

the Specific Plan and associated graphics, maps, and diagrams are compliant with the City's Hillside District standards

and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Code; 4) the Specific Plan is clearly written, thorough, and user friendly;

and 5) the substance of the Specific Plan will result in a quality residential community that is responsive to community

concerns and mitigates environmental impacts to the extent possible. Our Memorandum will, as requested in the

Request for Proposals, outline in detail the areas of excellence and any deficiencies, and include recommendations for

how the Specific Plan can be revised to address the areas of deficiency and improve the overall document with

respect to the above topics, and any other topics the City sees fit to cover. Our comments and recommendations will

not only focus on the text of the document, but also on the graphics, maps, and diagrams contained within the Draft

Specific Plan.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of a Memorandum of Dudek's Review of Draft Specific Plan (PDF format)

Task 2 Review and Analysis of Revised Drafts of the Specific Plan Dudek will prepare a second and third Memorandum following the applicant's submittal of a Revised Draft Specific

Plan. This assumes two rounds of review of the Revised Draft Specific Plan. The Memorandums will methodically and

clearly document how the applicant has addressed each comment/recommendation from the first and second

Memorandums, respectively, and where the document falls short in addressing any comments/recommendations, as

appropriate. We will include additional recommendations, as necessary, for how the Revised Draft Specific Plan can

be further improved to thoroughly address all original comments and recommendations from Task 1.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of two Memorandums of Dudek's Review of Revised Draft Specific Plan (PDF

format)

cmartinez

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT


Task 3 Attendance of Meetings Dudek will attend in person or via conference call up to four (4) City-initiated meetings with the applicant team, as

well as attend in person up to three (3) public hearings and one (1) community meeting as part of the Specific Plan

review process. Dudek will attend other project meetings, as requested, on a time and materials basis. Dudek's role

in the City-initiated and community meetings process will be to take notes, provide meeting minutes to the City and

applicant team, and incorporate comments into the Memorandums prepared in as part of Tasks 1 and 2, above, as

appropriate.

List of Products • Participation in eight (8) meetings/hearings

• Submittal of one (1) electronic copy of minutes for eight (8) meetings/hearings (PDF format)

Environmental Review Services

The approach of the Dudek project team is based on meeting the following objectives:

• Serving as a key element of the project team to anticipate controversial issues, provide unbiased

recommendations, devise solutions to potential impacts and/or other issues that may arise, and provide expert

planning, policy, and environmental compliance consultation

• Committing senior management to the project to provide close coordination with, and accessibility to, the

project team to ensure technical accuracy, document objectivity, and legal defensibility

• Complying with CEQA, the current State CEQA Guidelines, as well as current case law, and serving as a public

educator of CEQA and the CEQA process

• Complying with all unique City processing requirements

• Responding to all significant issues of concern raised by the various governmental agencies, private entities,

individuals, and community groups

• Submitting all required deliverables within the mutually agreed upon time frames

Dudek will use any information provided about the project site and proposed project, as well as other available

information, to prepare environmental analyses in accordance with the current CEQA statute and guidelines, as

well as any guidelines put forth by the City. Other available information could include other CEQA documents

recently prepared for nearby projects (as applicable). Being able to rely on recent (applicable) information and

analyses included in previously prepared environmental documents will allow us to recognize time and cost

efficiencies. Dudek will take full responsibility for project initiation and organization, data compilation, impact

assessment, development of mitigation measures (as needed), report compilation, monitoring and review for

CEQA adequacy, attendance at public meetings, study sessions, and hearings, response to public comments,

coordination of the internal project team, and preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

(MMRP).

Report format and content will be in full compliance with CEQA (as amended through the date of submittal of

the draft environmental document), the State CEQA Guidelines (also as amended through the date of submittal

of the draft environmental document), and the City’s environmental guidelines and procedural requirements.

General organization of the environmental document will include a discussion of existing conditions, potential


direct and indirect/secondary environmental impacts, and the recommendation of mitigation measures (as

needed) for each affected issue area. To present information in a concise and easily understood format, text will

be supplemented with graphics, charts, maps and tables in an 8½ x 11inch size, unless a larger format is critical

to the readability of the document. All final work products will be submitted in electronic format and will be

prepared using Microsoft Word and other formats (i.e., PDF) that are compatible with the City’s software

applications. Additionally, in order to recognize cost efficiencies and save resources, there will be no printing of

draft work products and minimal printing of final work products. All documents and plans shall be the property

of the City of Claremont.

Task 1 Participate in Project Startup Activities

Subtask 1A Attend One Project Kick-Off Meeting Dudek will attend one project kick-off meeting (in-person or via conference call) with representatives from the City of

Claremont and the applicant team. The purpose of the kick-off meeting is to review the work program objectives,

tasks, and products; compile the relevant background data and reports; clearly define the proposed project for the

purposes of the environmental analysis; begin to compile a list of cumulative projects; discuss the preliminary project

schedule and important assumptions for achieving the schedule; identify all anticipated discretionary actions; establish

early communication among various project team members, as well as the protocols for ongoing communication;

and familiarize the Dudek project team with the issues and concerns that the project team determines to be

important issues for analysis in the EIR. Based on the discussions and issues raised during the kick-off meeting, the

Dudek project manager will refine the scope of work, schedule, and budget, as necessary.

List of Products • Participate in one (1) kick-off meeting

• Submit one (1) written request for additional information, if necessary

Task 2 Conduct Third-Party Review of Applicant-Prepared Technical

Analyses

Subtask 2A Conduct Third-Party Review of Applicant-Prepared Technical Analyses Detailed technical studies and plans are often relied on by lead agencies to provide evidence for the conclusions

of CEQA documents. These technical studies and plans require specific expertise in various areas to determine

their adequacy. As per the City’s request, Dudek will assist the City with verifying information provided in up to

five technical studies and plans being prepared for the proposed project by the applicant team. We understand

that the applicant’s team will prepare a hydrology/drainage study and a soils study to support the CEQA review

process. These analyses will be peer reviewed, summarized in the EIR, and provided as separate technical

studies in an appendix to the EIR, as deemed appropriate. By conducting the peer review early in the

environmental review process, the overall project schedule will benefit from identifying any potentially significant

impacts early in the process.

Dudek staff scientists and/or specialists will review the information provided to independently verify the accuracy of

the data and to determine whether or not it would be useful (in whole or in part) for purposes of preparing the EIR.

Dudek has the in-house expertise (i.e., certified/licensed biologists, arborists, geologists, hydrologists, water

quality/stormwater specialists, and engineers) to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the technical

studies and plans prepared for the proposed project. Our services will range from answering technical questions on

documents and providing additional measures to prevent environmental impacts to reviewing technical studies and

plans and providing feedback and edits for correction. Our team of scientists, planners, economists, and engineers

(registered and certified in their fields), with expertise in all 19 CEQA issue areas, demonstrates our ability to help City


staff ensure their CEQA documentation is comprehensive, technically accurate, and legally defensible. It is assumed

that Dudek would review one version of the technical studies, data, or information, and will provide comments to the

project team, if required. If necessary and approved by the City, we would be available to discuss our questions

and/or comments with the City’s technical representatives via conference call.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of a Memorandum summarizing the results of the review of up to five (5) technical

studies (PDF format)

Task 3 Conduct Preliminary Technical Analyses

Subtask 3A Prepare Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analyses Dudek will prepare an assessment of the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the proposed

project utilizing the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the South Coast Air Quality

Management District’s (SCAQMD) emissions-based thresholds. Details of the analysis (e.g., emission calculations) will

be included in a technical appendix. After reviewing all available project materials, Dudek will prepare a request for

any outstanding data needed to conduct the analysis. If precise information on a particular factor is not available from

the applicant or its representatives, Dudek will make every effort to quantify these items using the best available

information for comparable data sources, but in all cases will consult first with the City and applicant regarding the

information needed.

Air Quality Assessment. The air quality section of the EIR will include a discussion of local and regional climate,

meteorology, and topography as they affect the accumulation or dispersal of air pollutants will be presented in the air

quality assessment. Current air quality conditions and recent trends in the South Coast Air Basin, where the project is

located, will be described on the basis of California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) annual air quality monitoring data summaries. Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies responsible

for air quality management will be identified, and applicable federal, state, and local air quality policies, regulations,

and standards will be summarized, including a discussion of the SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

Dudek will estimate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the construction of the 47 single family residential

homes using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The analysis of short-term construction emissions

will be based on scheduling information (e.g., overall construction duration, phasing and phase timing) and probable

construction activities (e.g., construction equipment type and quantity, workers, and haul trucks) developed by the

applicant and/or standardized approaches. As noted in the RFP, the project’s phasing is not typical; therefore, Dudek

will work with the City develop a reasonable worst-case scenario of project construction activities and emissions.

Dudek will then evaluate the significance of the emissions based on the SCAQMD significance criteria.

Dudek will also assess the project’s potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of ambient air quality

standards at sensitive receptors near the proposed project activities (i.e., residences and the Webb School) using

the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs). For projects with a total site area of 5 acres or fewer, the

assessment may use a simple look-up table approach provided by the SCAQMD. While the project development

area is approximately 50 acres, for budgetary purposes, we have assumed that the maximum area of daily

disturbance will be fewer than 5 acres, so conformance with the LSTs can be determined using the look-up tables

and construction emissions estimated using CalEEMod. If the maximum daily area of site disturbance is greater

than 5 acres or the estimated on-site construction emissions exceed the screening LSTs, then dispersion modeling

would be required per SCAQMD guidance. If required, an LST analysis using dispersion modeling could be

provided under a supplemental request for additional funds.

The proposed project may result in a short-term increase in toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions related to

construction, specifically diesel particulate matter. To evaluate the potential health risk to nearby sensitive receptors


(including residences and the Webb School) associated with project construction, a health risk assessment using a

dispersion model is proposed as an optional task is discussed below.

CalEEMod will also be used to estimate project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions associated with

mobile, energy, and area sources. Estimated mobile emissions will be based on emissions based on the data

presented in the traffic study prepared for the project. Additionally, energy and area source emissions (e.g., natural

gas combustion and consumer products) will be estimated using the information provided by the applicant and/or

default values in CalEEMod for single family residential. The estimated operational emissions will be compared to the

significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

Dudek will evaluate whether traffic associated with the project could lead to potential exposure of sensitive receptors

(i.e., residences and the Webb School) to substantial concentrations of air emissions based on the traffic study

prepared for the proposed project. Dudek will base its assessment on the screening criteria recommended by the

SCAQMD. If the traffic study indicates that these screening criteria have been exceeded at any study intersection after

mitigation, Dudek can conduct CALINE4 modeling to evaluate the potential for CO hotspots to result due to project

traffic. For the purpose of providing a cost estimate, however, Dudek assumes that this refined analysis will not be

necessary.

The other Appendix G thresholds will also be evaluated in the air quality assessment including the potential to cause

objectionable odors or to impede attainment of air quality goals of the current SCAQMD Air Quality Management

Plan.

Construction Health Risk Assessment: As previously discussed above, the project may result in short-term increase

in TAC emissions, specifically diesel particulate matter, related to construction. Dudek will evaluate the project’s

potential health risks associated with construction activities using an appropriate exposure period to evaluate short-

term emissions increases. The dispersion of diesel particulate matter and rick calculations will be modeled using the

American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion model

and the CARB Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2), along with meteorological data

provided by the SCAQMD for the project area. HARP2 performs health impact calculations based on the Office of

Environmental Health Hazards Assessment’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of

Health Risk Assessments (Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual). The results will be compared to the SCAQMD

thresholds for impacts resulting from TAC emissions in the air quality section of the environmental document. The

health risk assessment would be included as an appendix to the technical report and a summary of the methodology

and results would be provided in the air quality section of the EIR.

GHG Emissions Assessment. The GHG emissions assessment of the EIR will include a setting and background

discussion consisting of a summary of the greenhouse effect and global climate change, potential changes to the

global climate system and to California, and emission inventories at the national, state, and local levels. It will also

include a summary of the key federal, state, and local regulatory actions and programs to reduce GHG emissions.

Dudek will estimate the GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project using CalEEMod

and based on the same construction scenario utilized in the air quality analysis. Project-generated operational GHG

emissions that will be estimated may include those associated with mobile sources, natural gas usage, electrical

generation, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste disposal. When project details are not available, CalEEMod

default values will be used to calculate direct and indirect source GHG emissions. Our budget assumes that

quantification of emission reductions associated with project design features will be done using CalEEMod.

The impact analysis will reflect Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines; specifically, whether a project would (1)

generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and (2)

conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The


SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group has proposed options lead agencies can select from to

screen thresholds of significance for GHG emissions in residential and commercial projects; however, no thresholds

have been formally adopted. The SCAQMD has identified an efficiency target that can used for CEQA GHG emissions

assessments: a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2E per year per service population for project-level analyses and

6.6 MT CO2E per year per service population for plan-level analyses and relative to the 2035 target date, an efficiency

target of 3.0 MT CO2E for project-level analyses and 4.1 MT CO2E for plan-level analyses. Because the project will be

built out after 2020, we will work with the City to determine the appropriate threshold for evaluating the project’s

GHG emissions. Our budget assumes that a simple plan-level efficiency threshold can be used. Under this approach,

and per the SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions will be amortized over 30 years and added to the operational

emissions before comparing total project emissions to thresholds.

The City of Claremont adopted the Sustainable City Plan (SCP) in 2013 under the Energy Efficient Plan Project (EEFP)

and provides objectives, and strategies for the City to meet its energy reduction goals and GHG reduction targets.

The GHG assessment will include a discussion of the project’s consistency with the local community actions in the

City’s SCP. Dudek will also provide a discussion how the project complies with other local regulations (Los Angeles

County Green Building Program), state regulations (AB 32); General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that help the

City contribute to regional GHG reduction efforts; and applicable development standards that would increase energy

efficiency, such as the California Building Code. In addition, Dudek will provide a qualitative post-2020 analysis that will

evaluate whether or not the project-generated GHG emissions would impede the attainment of the 2030 and 2050

reduction goals identified in Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, respectively. Because the City has not

adopted a numeric post-2020 threshold or provided guidance for demonstrating that a project will not impede the

implementation of State’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals, a qualitative assessment is assumed to be sufficient.

The results of air quality and GHG impact analyses will be summarized in the EIR, with supporting data included as an

appendix.

Subtask 3B Prepare Noise Impact Analysis Dudek will conduct a technical noise and vibration assessment for the proposed project. The analysis will address

potential noise impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project at nearby noise-sensitive receivers.

Residences exist to the east and west of the project site, and educational uses (Webb School) exist to the south. These

land uses could experience short-term and long-term noise impacts resulting from implementation of the project.

Additionally, proposed future residential or other land uses associated with the project could experience noise

impacts from adjacent land uses such as noise from roadway traffic.

A field noise study will be conducted to measure existing on- and off-site noise conditions. Sound-level data will be

collected over 10- to 15-minute periods at three or more on-site locations, as well as at nearby noise-sensitive land

uses. Potential impacts at nearby noise-sensitive land uses from demolition, grading, and construction noise/vibration

will be evaluated based on typical construction activities associated with similar development projects and noise

modeling methods developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). On-site operational noise from the

proposed land uses at noise-sensitive land uses will also be addressed. If noise impacts are identified, mitigation

measures will be developed and recommended to comply with the City’s noise ordinance.

Long-term (operational) noise effects from project-related traffic on the local roadways will be evaluated using the

project’s traffic impacts analysis and the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM version 2.5).

The significance of noise and vibration impacts will be assessed based on the relevant City of Claremont, state, and

federal thresholds. If significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures to reduce impacts will be recommended.

The noise study methodology, regulatory background, existing conditions, noise impacts, and mitigation measures

will be summarized in the noise section of the EIR, with supporting data included as an appendix.


Subtask 3C Prepare Traffic Impact Analysis Dudek is pleased to have LLG join our team for preparation of the traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA will be

prepared in accordance with the City’s analysis methodology and significance criteria and comply with the

requirements of CEQA.

Part A: Traffic Impact Study

Task 1: Prepare Memorandum of Understanding

1.1 Confirm the development description with the project team, work schedule, and assumptions to be

utilized in the TIA. Obtain and analyze the current project site plan (preferably in electronic format), which

illustrates the access scheme to the project site in both hard copy and digital formats.

1.2 Contact City staff to discuss the proposed project and analysis criteria, confirm the study approach,

identify pertinent traffic issues and concerns, and formalize the Scope of Work for the traffic impact study.

As the project site is situated adjacent to the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, we will

coordinate with staff from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, if authorized by the

City.

1.3 In consultation with City staff, prepare a Memorandum of Understanding detailing the assumptions and

parameters of the TIA and submit to City staff.

Task 2: Collect Data and Perform Research

2.1 Visit the project study area to confirm existing conditions with respect to existing development, site access,

and areas of congestion in order to verify our overall understanding of traffic conditions in the area, which

might affect this project.

2.2 In conjunction with Task 2.1, confirm the existing roadway striping, traffic control measures, curbside

parking restrictions, adjacent intersection configurations, and other pertinent roadway features.

2.3 Coordinate with City staff to obtain copies of the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon

(4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period manual turning movement counts for up to six (6) study intersections. For

purposes of this proposal, it is assumed that new manual AM and PM peak period traffic counts will be

required for the six (6) study intersections to be identified for analysis. The number and location of the

study intersections will be verified with City staff prior to commencing the analysis. Should City staff

request analysis at additional intersections (i.e., more than six [6] study intersections), an amendment to

our contract will be necessary. Please note that the manual traffic counts would need to be completed

when local schools are in session during a week void of any holidays.

2.4 Research data on file at the Cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and County of Los Angeles, as well as

recent traffic studies prepared for developments in the project vicinity, regarding the status of other proposed

developments (related projects) in the area that may contribute cumulative impacts to the adjacent street

system and study locations in the vicinity of the proposed project. The compiled list of related projects will be

forwarded for review and approval by City staff.

2.5 Research and identify existing transit routes and stops in the project vicinity.

Task 3: Prepare Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment

3.1 Prepare trip generation forecasts for the proposed project for a typical weekday over a 24-hour period, as

well as for the commuter AM and PM peak hours. The trip generation forecasts will be derived from trip

rates listed in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

(ITE) in 2017. Should changes occur in the project description after completion of Task 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 3.1,


an amendment to this contract may be required. The project trip generation forecast will be submitted for

review and approval by City staff prior to finalization.

3.2 Assign the forecast AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the proposed project to

the study intersections based on existing and anticipated traffic patterns to and from the project site.

3.3 Prepare trip generation forecasts for the related projects for a typical weekday over a 24-hour period, as well

as for the commuter AM and PM peak hours utilizing the ITE Trip Generation Manual publication. The AM and

PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the related projects will be distributed and assigned to the

local street system.

3.4 In addition to related projects, consider utilization of an ambient traffic growth factor for purposes of

assessing the trips generated by related projects that are currently unknown and/or are located outside

the study area. The ambient growth factor to be utilized in the calculations will be confirmed with City

staff prior to commencement of the analysis.

Task 4: Evaluate Project and Identify Mitigation Measures

4.1 Prepare weekday AM and PM peak hour Level of Service calculations at the study intersections for

existing conditions, as well as future conditions with and without the proposed project traffic to determine

the potential impacts of the project. Prior to initiation of the analysis, we will confirm the traffic analysis

conditions with City staff.

4.2 Utilize City-approved capacity analysis methodologies (i.e., Intersection Capacity Utilization method or

Highway Capacity Manual method) for the Level of Service calculations.

4.3 Assess the impact of the project based on the results of peak hour intersection analyses and application

of the City of Claremont significance criteria pursuant to the City’s General Plan. Based on this

assessment, determine which intersections (if any) will require improvements to mitigate potential traffic

impacts associated with the proposed development to less-than-significant levels.

4.4 Coordinate with City staff to identify potential roadway improvement measures available to reduce any

forecast significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on this coordination, provide

recommended mitigation measures, which may include intersection and/or signalization improvements,

striping modifications, the addition of auxiliary turn lanes, traffic control/limitations at site access points,

improvements to Webb Canyon Bridge, etc. The recommended mitigation measures will be described

within the text of the TIA report.

Task 5: Perform Site Access and Circulation Evaluation

5.1 Review the proposed site plan and provide recommendations to address any potential City concerns

regarding site access and internal circulation.

5.2 Provide recommendations regarding the location of entry/exit to the residential tract, as well as the

single-family home driveways, potential turn restrictions, and connectivity with the internal circulation

system.

5.3 Review the need and feasibility for the installation of site access enhancing measures (e.g., installation of

left-turn pockets/lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, median installation, etc.).

5.4 Prepare an emergency access and evacuation review for the proposed project at full buildout.

Coordinate with appropriate staff from the City of Claremont and the County of Los Angeles to obtain

the current disaster/emergency plan for the area, if available. Estimate the clearing time needed to

evacuate the area in the event of a major incident.


Task 6: Prepare a Parking Analysis

6.1 Determine the parking requirements for the site based on the City’s Municipal Code. Determine the

surplus or deficiency in the on-site parking supply as compared to the Code parking requirements.

Task 7: Conduct Congestion Management Program Roadway Impact Analysis

7.1 Prepare an analysis of potential impacts at monitoring location(s) identified in the 2010 Congestion

Management Program manual, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, October

2010. The Congestion Management Program impact thresholds will be reviewed to determine if an

analysis is required and, as needed, an evaluation will be prepared of the potential project impacts on the

Congestion Management Program system.

7.2 Prepare an analysis of potential impacts to public transit consistent with procedures outlined in the

Congestion Management Program manual.

Task 8: Prepare Qualitative Discussion of Senate Bill (SB) 743

8.1 It is recognized that the City may not have adopted any specific metric changes as it relates to the

evaluation of transportation impacts due to SB 743 and the subsequent guidance document released by

the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in January 2016. As such, the TIA will

include a qualitative discussion to address the current status of SB 743. However, detailed vehicle miles

traveled calculations are not assumed to be required or included as part of this scope of work.

Task 9: Prepare Recreational Trail Impact Analysis

9.1 We understand that the proposed Clara Oaks Specific Plan will include public access and a surface

parking lot associated with a new low impact two-mile trail system that will connect with the existing

Claremont Hills Wilderness Park (CHWP) trail system. As such, LLG will conduct a review of existing

conditions and the CHWP Final Draft Master Plan and Implementation Plan, in order to assess the

forecast trip generation and parking impacts associated with the recreational trail component of the

proposed project.

9.2 Data Collection and Research. In this task, we will collect the data necessary to familiarize ourselves with

the existing conditions as it relates to the CHWP trailheads and parking lots. Obtain and review the

CHWP Final Draft Master Plan (May 2016) and the CHWP Final Draft Implementation Plan (May 2016) as

it relates to parking and future projected visitor figures. Visit up to three (3) existing CHWP trailhead

locations to confirm existing conditions with respect to existing trail/park development, trailhead access,

parking use, and areas of congestion in order to verify our overall understanding of traffic and parking

conditions in the area, which might affect this project.

9.3 Confirm the existing parking conditions including any curbside parking restrictions in the vicinity of the

parking lots. An inventory of the existing parking including the number of parking spaces by type (i.e.,

standard, compact, handicap accessible, time-restricted, permit only, etc.) will be conducted at up to

three (3) existing parking lots for the CHWP.

9.4 Conduct two (2) days of parking accumulation surveys to determine the existing weekday and weekend

day parking accumulation characteristics and current usage patterns for up to three (3) surface parking

lots to be identified. It is recommended that the parking accumulation surveys be conducted on one

typical mid-week day and one weekend day (i.e., on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday and Saturday

or Sunday), tentatively between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The parking accumulation counts will detail the

number of occupied parking spaces at one-hour intervals. The survey sites, days and time periods for

the parking accumulation observations will be verified with the project team and City staff prior to


commencement of the analysis. Should additional parking accumulation survey days or hours (i.e., more

than 13 hours on each day or more than two survey days) or other survey sites (i.e., more than three

existing parking lots), an amendment to our contract will be necessary.

9.5 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Prepare trip generation forecasts associated with the

proposed trail connection to the CHWP and the new parking lot as part of the project for a typical

weekday and a typical weekend day over a 24-hour period, as well as for a the weekday AM and PM

commuter peak hours and weekend peak period. If applicable, the trip generation forecasts will be

derived from trip rates listed in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of

Transportation Engineers in 2012 and/or information provided in the CHWP Final Master Plan and

Implementation Plan. Conversely, LLG can develop inbound and outbound forecasts based on

anticipated usage, existing observations and application of appropriate average vehicle occupancy

numbers and mode split estimates.

9.6 Parking, Site Access and Circulation Review. Work with the project team to provide input with respect to

the location and supply of the proposed trail parking lot to support the future trail services and uses.

Provide recommendations regarding the location of the site access driveways, the number of driveways,

potential turn restrictions, and connectivity with the overall circulation system.

9.7 Tabulate the observed existing hourly parking accumulation data and summarize it accordingly.

Determine the existing peak parking demand and availability of the parking areas during the peak time

periods. Compare the existing parking demand at the surveyed locations to the existing parking supply

and identify any surplus or deficiency.

9.8 Develop a weekday and weekend parking demand forecast associated with the proposed trail parking lot

component of the project. The forecast parking generation factors will be based on the parking

accumulation counts conducted and/or supplemented with information provided in the CHWP Final

Draft Master Plan and Implementation Plan. Compare the parking demand forecast associated with

proposed trail connection within the project site to the proposed parking supply and identify any surplus

or deficiency.

Task 10: Prepare Traffic Impact Analysis Report

10.1 Prepare a draft TIA in report format, which details all of the above-mentioned items, including the

analysis, findings and conclusions. The draft study will be suitably documented with tabular, graphic, and

appendix material. The draft TIA will be submitted for review by appropriate members of the City/project

team.

10.2 Coordinate with City staff regarding questions and comments on the draft TIA report. Prepare a final

report incorporating comments and edits from City staff, in both hard copy and digital formats.

Task 11: Attend One Project Meeting

11.1 Preparation for and attendance by LLG at one (1) project meeting, which may include a public workshop

or project team meeting with City staff. It is envisioned that the ongoing team coordination will be

handled via conference calls, emails, and/or fax transmittals.


Part B: EIR/Public Review Consultation

Task 12: Review and Provide Input on Draft EIR Project Alternatives

12.1 Review the project alternatives and provide input with respect to the potential trip generation. This task

assumes that a qualitative analysis of the project alternatives will be required and that no formal intersection

level of service analysis will be required. Should a full, quantitative analysis be required for the project

alternatives, an amendment would be prepared. This proposal assumes up to three (3) project alternatives,

including the “No Project” alternative, will be required.

Task 13: Review and Comment on Draft EIR Transportation/Traffic Section

13.1 Review the Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation Section and provide comments to the project team. This task

includes one complete review of the Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation Section (i.e., the initial draft).

Task 14: Respond to Comments on the Draft EIR and Provide Final EIR Support

14.1 Coordinate with Dudek in obtaining a response to comments template.

14.2 Review the comment letters and individual comments associated with traffic and transportation issues.

Prepare written responses to those comments included in the traffic and transportation discipline and

forward to the project team for incorporation into the Final EIR. Should the number of comments be

extensive and require additional consultation, an amendment to our contract will be necessary.

Task 15: Attend Two Public Hearings

15.1 This proposal includes preparation for and attendance by LLG at up to two (2) public hearings and/or

community meetings. We would be pleased to provide additional public hearing representation, if

requested. An amendment to our contract would be provided for your approval prior to providing any

additional meeting/hearing support.

OPTIONAL TASK Part C: Caltrans Traffic Analysis

Task 16: Perform Caltrans Impact Analysis

16.1 Utilize existing freeway mainline traffic volumes from Caltrans’ latest 2015 Traffic Volumes on the

California State Highway System document for segments in the vicinity of the project site. No traffic count

data on the freeway mainline segments will need to be collected. If Caltrans comments on the project,

LLG will coordinate with Caltrans to prepare the impact analysis (only if needed).

16.2 Assign the forecast weekday AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by the project to the

identified mainline freeway segments and ramp intersections based on existing and anticipated traffic

patterns to and from the project site. This proposal assumes analysis of up to two (2) freeway mainline

segments and two (2) ramp intersections.

16.3 Prepare a freeway mainline analysis (for up to two freeway mainline segments) based on the Highway

Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis methodologies pursuant to the Caltrans’ Guide for the

Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002.

Please note that as the extent of potential analyses associated with other freeway facilities (i.e., weaving

analysis, merge/diverge analysis, ramp intersection analysis, ramp queuing analysis, etc.) cannot be

determined at this time, additional analyses, which may ultimately be requested by Caltrans will be

handled through a contract amendment.


16.4 Prepare Caltrans ramp intersection analyses (for analyses of up to two ramp intersections) for the

weekday AM and PM peak hours based on the HCM operational analysis methodologies pursuant to the

Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

16.5 Prepare Caltrans off-ramp vehicle queuing analyses for up to two (2) ramp intersections for the weekday

AM and PM peak hours based on the HCM operational analysis methodologies. This task includes a

review of the corresponding off-ramp storage areas (as measured from aerial maps). An assessment will

be provided to determine if adequate storage areas (i.e., 85th percentile storage) are available to

accommodate the maximum forecast back of queue (i.e., 95th percentile queue).

The results of the TIA will be summarized in the EIR, with the TIA report included as an appendix.

OPTIONAL TASK Subtask 3D Conduct California Gnatcatcher Survey Based on aerial interpretation, available mapping, and data from the California

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), it appears that suitable gnatcatcher habitat

could exist on the proposed project site. Therefore, if needed, a directed survey

for the California gnatcatcher (a federally threatened species) will be performed in

suitable habitat within the study area. Dudek biologists holding federal permits to

conduct gnatcatcher surveys will perform these surveys according to the

guidelines adopted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The

USFWS guidelines specify that habitat within non-Natural Community

Conservation Plan-enrolled areas potentially supporting gnatcatchers be surveyed a minimum of six times at a

minimum interval of seven days during the breeding season, to obtain an adequate determination of presence or

absence. Surveys conducted outside the breeding season require nine visits at 14-day intervals. Regardless, only 80

acres of habitat is allowed to be surveyed per biologist per day. As specified in the USFWS guidelines, Dudek will

not conduct surveys when the air temperatures are below 55°F or above 95°F, or if winds are stronger than 15

miles per hour, as bird activity (and consequently, detectability) typically declines during these adverse weather

conditions.

Data will be collected on the number of individual gnatcatchers and habitat characteristics, including slope,

elevation, dominant vegetation types, and habitat disturbances. The locations of any observed gnatcatchers will be

mapped on the aerial photograph overlaid onto topographic mapping, and then digitized using ArcGIS. For the

purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that only six surveys will be required and that less than 80 acres of

habitat are present. Within 45 days following the study, a focused survey letter report documenting the methods

and results of this survey will be prepared in accordance with the USFWS requirements.

Subtask 3E Conduct Least Bell’s Vireo & Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Based on a review of County maps and aerial photography, it appears that there

are small bands of suitable habitat for Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher adjacent to the proposed project site. Therefore, a focused survey is

recommended. The simultaneous survey effort includes determining the

presence/absence of these species. The official USFWS-approved survey

protocols for the Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher will be

followed (Sogge et al. 1997; USFWS 2000; USFWS 2001; USFWS 2004). Dudek will

conduct focused surveys for both species in riparian habitat within the study area.

The surveys will be conducted during the breeding season for these migratory

bird species according to USFWS survey protocols.

For the Least Bell’s Vireo, a recovery permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) is not

SCHEDULING

CONSIDERATION

• Surveys extend from March 15–June 30

• Six surveys are required

during this period

SCHEDULING

CONSIDERATION

• Vireo Surveys extend from April 10–July 31

• Eight surveys are required

• Flycatcher Surveys extend from May 15 through July 17

• Five surveys are required


required to conduct presence/absence surveys, provided that the January 19, 2001 survey protocol is followed and

vocalization tapes are not used. A total of eight site visits to areas of suitable habitat will be conducted with 10-day

intervals between each visit. A qualified Dudek biologist familiar with Least Bell’s Vireo songs, calls, and plumage

will conduct surveys between April 10 and July 31, between dawn and 11:00 a.m.

For the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, a recovery permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) is required to conduct

presence/absence surveys due to the use of recording to entice responses. A total of five site visits to areas of

suitable habitat will be conducted with varying intervals between each visit. Surveys are required to occur between

May 15 and July 17.

Dudek will combine the survey efforts for the two species to the maximize extent feasible. This task also includes

the preparation of a report to be submitted to the USFWS within 45 days of survey completion per the permit

conditions. It is assumed that only one person day will be required per survey visit.

Subtask 3F Conduct Special-Status Plant Species Surveys Dudek botanists will conduct focused surveys for special-status plant

species potentially present within the approximately 99-acre site,

comprised of two parcels (Parcel 1: 4.67 acres, 8669-012-004; and Parcel

2: 98.08 acres, 8669-012-005). Based on an initial review of the plant

species recorded in the vicinity, as well as regional vegetation mapping,

soils, and topography, Dudek recommends conducting one survey pass in

April 2018 and one survey pass in June 2018 for special-status plants that

have the potential to occur on the proposed project site. Depending on

the observed soils and conditions, a possible third survey pass may be required in August. If required, this will be

conducted under an amendment to the contracted scope of work included herein. Exact timing of rare plant surveys

will be determined through observation of conditions of plant phenology at unrelated project sites throughout the

region, with additional weight being given to sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Prior to the start of

surveys, Dudek botanists will perform reference population checks for federal- and state-listed species. This task

includes reference population checks and two special-status plant species survey passes (one in April 2018 and one in

June 2018).

Focused plant surveys will conform to California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001);

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG

2009); and USFWS General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). The plant species encountered during the

field surveys will be identified to subspecies or variety, if applicable, to determine sensitivity status. Latin and common

names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR; formerly CNPS List) will follow the California Native

Plant Society On-Line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2017). For plant

species without a CRPR, Latin names will follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native

and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2017), and common names will follow the List of Vegetation

Alliances and Associations (CDFW 2010) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources

Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2017).

Survey emphasis will be placed on determining the presence, or potential for occurrence, of federal- and state-listed,

CNPS CRPR Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 species. Additionally, CRPR 3 and 4 species will be recorded when observed. Identified

special-status plant species individuals or groupings of these species will be mapped and field personnel will

demarcate the outer boundary of the occurrence or the point location using our integrated mobile data collection

database tracking system. The data collected will include, at a minimum, species name, number, or range of

SCHEDULING

CONSIDERATION

• Survey Pass 1 in April 2018

• Survey Pass 2 in June 2018

• 40 acres per day per biologist survey rate


individuals for each occurrence, and the botanist collecting the data. Results of the 2018 special-status plant surveys

would be incorporated within the Biological Technical Report.

CNPS methods require that biologists cover no more than 40 acres per day. The total cost for this task estimates one

day for reference population checks, 8 person field days (four person days per survey pass), hours for data

compilation and GIS mapping services, and incorporating the survey methods and results into the EIR.

Subtask 3G Prepare Fire Response Time Analysis Task 1: Data Acquisition and Data ConveTask 1: Data Acquisition and Data ConveTask 1: Data Acquisition and Data ConveTask 1: Data Acquisition and Data Conversion. rsion. rsion. rsion. This task will include acquiring and standardizing digital data required

for the project. Digital road data in GIS format will be utilized for this project. Other required data includes existing

fire station locations (to be digitized based on address). We will require a CAD or GIS file of your project’s roadways in

order to complete this task.

Task 2: Modeling Fire Response Scenarios. Task 2: Modeling Fire Response Scenarios. Task 2: Modeling Fire Response Scenarios. Task 2: Modeling Fire Response Scenarios. Dudek will run emergency response analyses for the project using the

tools available in ESRI’s ArcGIS Network Analyst extension. The analysis will include a determination of shortest

response time from four existing nearby fire station locations to the most remote structure in the project. Travel

speeds for this analysis will be based on road segment speed limits, ISO standard (35 mph), or other speed criteria

identified by the fire authority. Dudek will also prepare a brief report describing our modeling methods, inputs, and

results.

Task 3: Fire Response Scenario/Project Maps. Task 3: Fire Response Scenario/Project Maps. Task 3: Fire Response Scenario/Project Maps. Task 3: Fire Response Scenario/Project Maps. Dudek will create a set of project maps depicting the results of the GIS

analyses outlined in Task 2. The maps will depict, in graphical format, the response routes, times, and distances from

each of the modeled fire station locations to the remote project structure(s). Up to three hard copies and one digital

copy of each map shall be provided upon completion.

Task 4: Call Volume Calculation Estimates. Task 4: Call Volume Calculation Estimates. Task 4: Call Volume Calculation Estimates. Task 4: Call Volume Calculation Estimates. Dudek will analyze the existing call volume from the two closest fire

stations to determine their daily call responses and whether they are normal, busy, or underutilized stations. We will

also calculate the estimated call volume associated with the project build out. We will provide the call volume

projections by phase and cumulatively and analyze whether existing stations could provide satisfactory response for a

period of time until an on-site trigger is reached.

Task 5: Summary Letter Report.Task 5: Summary Letter Report.Task 5: Summary Letter Report.Task 5: Summary Letter Report. Dudek will prepare a summary report identifying our methods, results, and

recommendations. Ultimately, the report will provide information that can be used to help identify appropriate

mitigations that may be appropriate.

Task 4 Prepare Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) and Attend

Scoping Meeting

Subtask 4A Prepare IS/NOP Dudek will prepare an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for the proposed project that is consistent with the

procedural and substantive provisions of Sections 15063 and 15082 and Appendices C, G, I and F of the State CEQA

Guidelines and would be used to narrow the focus of the environmental issues addressed in the EIR. Dudek would be

responsible for preparing the Notice of Completion (NOC) for the proposed project as well.

The Initial Study will be prepared in conformance with a City-approved Initial Study checklist format. Based upon

review and comment by the project team, Dudek will revise the IS/NOP, as appropriate. It is anticipated that at a

minimum, the following CEQA issue areas will be sufficiently analyzed in the Initial Study to allow them to be scoped

out from further analysis in the EIR:


• Agriculture/Forestry Resources

• Mineral Resources

Since project details and community interest in the project are not yet confirmed, we have assumed a worst case

scenario of analyzing the remaining nineteen CEQA issue areas in the EIR. However, if during the CEQA process, it is

determined that additional CEQA issue areas can also be scoped out in the Initial Study, we will revise this proposal’s

scope of work and budget accordingly to remove analyses of these issue areas. Similarly, if during the CEQA process,

it is determined that additional CEQA issue areas could not be scoped out in the Initial Study, we will revise this

proposal’s scope of work and budget accordingly to add analyses of these issue areas.

All mitigation measures included in the Initial Study would be incorporated into the MMRP. All appropriate mitigation

measures identified in the Initial Study would be provided in an appendix of the EIR to consolidate all mitigation

measures required of the project (from both the Initial Study and EIR) for ease in public reading and understanding.

Once completed, Dudek will submit to the project team for internal review an electronic copy of the Administrative

Draft IS/NOP. Once comments on the Administrative Draft IS/NOP have been received from the project team, Dudek

will incorporate all comments and submit (electronically only) a Screencheck Draft IS/ NOP to the project team for

final review before preparing the Final IS/NOP for public review. It is anticipated that comments received on the

Screencheck Draft IS/NOP would be minimal and mostly editorial in nature. Substantive comments requiring a

second round of substantial edits would require an amendment to the budget proposed. A Final Print-Ready Copy of

the IS/NOP in electronic format (Microsoft Word and PDF) will be submitted to the project team for final review

before printing.

Dudek will prepare and distribute fifteen (15) printed bound copies of the Draft IS/NOP (with technical appendices on

a CD), one (1) electronic copy in Microsoft Word format, and one (1) electronic copy in PDF format. As appropriate,

to save paper and other resources, appendices will be provided on CD when hard copies of the IS/NOP are printed.

Dudek will distribute the IS/NOP and NOC to the State Clearinghouse. Additionally, Dudek would be responsible for

distribution of the IS/NOP to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and any other interested parties pursuant to the

City’s mailing list. Dudek would be responsible for any applicable filing fees and transmittal of the NOP to the County

Clerk of Los Angeles. It is assumed that the City would be responsible for preparing and processing public notices for

newspaper publishing and mailing, as required.

Subtask 4B Attend One Scoping Meeting Members of the Dudek team will attend a scoping meeting for the proposed project. As pre the Request for

Proposals, the City would organize the scoping meeting with representation from the City, the consultant team, and

other interested parties and stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting is to collect comments from responsible

agencies and stakeholders regarding the environmental topics to be analyzed in the EIR. It is assumed that oversized

presentation materials describing or illustrating the proposed project will be provided by the applicant. Dudek would

prepare the meeting presentation, be available to present the purpose of the scoping meeting, provide an overview

of the CEQA process, and answer questions raised by the public regarding the CEQA process and/or general

questions regarding technical and analytic methods, as needed.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft IS/NOP (Microsoft Word (WORD) and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft IS/NOP (WORD and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Print-Ready Final IS/NOP (including the technical appendices on CD or via Dudek’s FTP site; the PDF shall be indexed and searchable by chapter (WORD and PDF formats)


• Fifteen (15) printed hard copies of the Final IS/NOP (with technical appendices on a CD in the back pocket)

• One (1) electronic copy and one (1) printed copy of the NOC (WORD and PDF formats)

• Participation in, and assistance with, one (1) Scoping Meeting

Task 5 Prepare Administrative Draft EIR and Screencheck Draft EIR

Subtask 5A Prepare Administrative Draft EIR and Screencheck Draft EIR The objective of this task is to prepare a comprehensive, accurate, and objective project-level EIR for development of

the proposed project that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (both as amended throughout

submittal of the Draft EIR) and all applicable guidance and procedures established by the City for the purpose of

environmental review.

The main purpose of the Draft EIR will be to thoroughly and accurately analyze the environmental impacts of

developing the proposed project with respect to resources for which impacts have not been scoped out in the

IS/NOP. The document will be as free as possible of jargon so that the information it contains is accessible to the

project team and the public. The methodology and criteria used for determining the impacts of the project will be

clearly and explicitly described in each section of the EIR, including any assumptions, models, or modeling techniques

used in the analysis. The text will be supported by tables and figures, as deemed necessary.

The Draft EIR will include the following sections:

• Contents

• Introduction

• Executive Summary, including a comprehensive summary table of impacts and mitigation measures,

areas of controversy, issues to be resolved, and a summary discussion of the proposed project and its alternatives

• Project Description, including project objectives, project location(s), project characteristics, and required

approvals

• Introduction to the Analysis

• Environmental Analysis

o Environmental Setting

o Regulatory Framework (applicable federal, State, local, plans, policies, and standards)

o Thresholds of Significance

o Project Environmental Impacts (short-term, long-term, direct, and indirect)

o Mitigation Measures (for potentially significant environmental issues)

o Level of Significance after Mitigation

o Cumulative Environmental Impacts (short-term, long-term, direct, and indirect)

• Alternatives

• Long-Term Implications (including growth-inducing impacts, a summary of project-related and

cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes or commitments of resources)

• List of EIR Preparers

• References

• Technical Appendices


It is assumed that key construction and operational features of the project would be available at the beginning of work on the EIR such that an accurate, finite, and stable project description could be prepared

prior to beginning substantial work on the EIR. This approach has proven to result in the most expeditious preparation and processing of an EIR.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts will be specified in the individual environmental issue areas of the EIR. The cumulative analysis will be qualitative in nature and will be based upon known projects, either approved, proposed (applications on file), or reasonably foreseeable, within a defined area around the proposed project, as

determined by the factors relevant to each environmental issue area and identified in the traffic impact analyses prepared by LLG. The cumulative impact assessment will be based on potential development projects that may, in combination with the proposed project, create cumulatively considerable

environmental impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the latest State CEQA Guidelines. Dudek will review and finalize the list of cumulative projects to be used as part of the cumulative impacts analysis during the kick-off meeting; we will discuss including projects outside Claremont as part of this list.

Other CEQA Sections

Summary. This section will be in tabular format and will briefly describe the impacts of the proposed project, the level of significance of impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of

significance after the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.

Long-Term Implications. The EIR will discuss all significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The EIR will discuss any potential growth-inducing and irreversible impacts of the proposed project. Potential sources of

growth inducement and their corresponding impacts, such as removal of obstacles to growth will be qualitatively analyzed, to the extent that they are applicable.

Alternatives. In order to accurately define alternatives, Dudek will work with the project team to first

clearly articulate project objectives. The EIR can then most effectively assess alternatives in light of CEQA’s mandate to reduce significant project-related impacts while meeting the project’s basic objectives. Dudek proposes a two-tiered approach to the alternatives analysis, which is to (1) describe the alternatives

screening process and (2) describe and analyze those alternatives selected for detailed study. This will allow the EIR to demonstrate the consideration given to a sufficiently broad range of alternatives.

The alternatives screening process will provide an opportunity for the EIR to describe the process used to

identify alternatives. The section will describe a range of alternatives initially considered, including their ability to meet “screening criteria.” Alternatives not carried forward for detailed analysis will be identified, and the reason for rejection of these alternatives will be specified.

For those alternatives described in detail, the EIR will qualitatively address the anticipated environmental impacts, focusing on the environmental issue areas fully analyzed in the body of the EIR but also considering all nineteen environmental issues areas as the alternative may result in impacts to issue areas

that they project did not. Dudek will work closely with the project team to develop a maximum of three alternatives to the proposed project including the No Project scenario, as required by CEQA. Potential alternatives to the proposed project could include a smaller development/reduced density.

The alternatives will be provided in a sufficient level of detail for comparison with the proposed project. Each alternative will be evaluated with respect to each key impact category. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons for rejecting or recommending the alternative will also

be discussed and the environmentally superior alternative will be identified. We will provide a matrix


summarizing the comparative merits of each alternative as recommended by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d). During the course of the environmental analysis, minor variations to the proposed project that

could have the effect of reducing or eliminating environmental concerns may become apparent. These variations will be recommended, where feasible.

Appendices. All technical studies, survey results, data, and public and agency comments will be included

as appendix material to the Draft EIR.

All appropriate mitigation measures identified for these resources in both the Initial Study and the Draft EIR would be provided in an appendix of the Draft EIR to consolidate all mitigation measures required of the

project (from both the Initial Study and EIR) for ease in public reading and understanding. Any mitigation measures included in the Initial Study would be incorporated into the MMRP.

Only electronic copies of the Administrative Draft EIR will be provided to the project team in an effort to cut

down on printing costs. Once comments on the Administrative Draft EIR have been received from the project team, Dudek will incorporate all comments and submit (electronically only) a Screencheck Draft EIR to the project team for final review before preparing the Draft EIR for public review. It is anticipated that

comments received on the Screencheck Draft EIR would be minimal and mostly editorial in nature. Substantive comments requiring a second round of substantial edits would require an amendment to the budget proposed. A Final Print-Ready Copy of the Draft EIR in electronic format (Microsoft Word and PDF)

will be submitted to the project team for final review before printing.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Draft EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Print-Ready Draft EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

Task 6 Prepare Public Review Draft EIR and Attend Public Meeting on

Draft EIR

Subtask 6A Prepare Public Review Draft EIR Dudek will prepare a Draft EIR for a minimum 45-day public review period (as per the Request for Proposals) that

incorporates all of the comments on the Administrative Draft EIR and Screencheck Draft EIR. Dudek will prepare

fifteen (15) printed bound copies of the Draft EIR (with technical appendices on a CD), fifteen (15) CD copies of the

Draft EIR, one (1) electronic copy in WORD format, and one (1) electronic copy in PDF format. As appropriate, to save

paper and other resources, appendices will be provided on CD when hard copies of the Draft EIR are printed.

Additionally, Dudek will prepare fifteen (15) printed stapled copies of the Executive Summary, one (1) electronic copy

in Microsoft Word format, and one (1) electronic copy in PDF format.

Dudek will distribute the Draft EIR (on CD), its Executive Summary (printed), and the NOC to the State Clearinghouse.

Dudek would be responsible for distribution of the Draft EIR responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and any other

interested parties pursuant to the City’s mailing list. Additionally, Dudek would be responsible for any applicable filing

fees and transmittal of the Draft EIR and NOA to the County Clerk of Los Angeles. It is also assumed that the City

would be responsible for preparing and processing public notices for newspaper publishing and mailing, as required.

It is assumed that the City would be responsible for preparing public notices for newspaper publishing and mailing, as

required. During the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR, Dudek will begin preparation of the Final EIR in

order to reduce the overall project schedule.


Subtask 6B Attend One Public Meeting on Draft EIR Dudek staff will attend and participate in a public meeting for the Draft EIR. It is assumed that the City of Claremont

would coordinate and facilitate the public meeting and that presentation materials describing or illustrating the

proposed project will be provided by the applicant. Dudek would prepare the meeting presentation and take detailed

notes regarding the issues raised by commenting individuals that should be addressed in the Final EIR. In addition,

Dudek would be available to provide an overview of the CEQA process and answer questions raised by the public

regarding the CEQA process and/or questions regarding the analysis in the EIR.

List of Products • Fifteen (15) printed hard copies of the Draft EIR (with technical appendices on a CD in the back pocket

of the Draft EIR)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Draft EIR and Executive Summary on CD or via Dudek’s FTP site (WORD and PDF formats); the PDF shall be indexed and searchable by chapter

• Fifteen (15) electronic copies of the Draft EIR on CD for the State Clearinghouse

• Fifteen (15) printed stapled copies of the Executive Summary for the State Clearinghouse

• One (1) electronic copy and one (1) printed copy of the NOC (WORD and PDF formats)

• Participation in, and assistance with, one (1) public meeting on the Draft EIR

Task 7 Prepare Administrative Final EIR, Screencheck Final EIR, and

MMRP

Subtask 7A Prepare Administrative Final EIR, Screencheck Final EIR, and MMRP The Response to Comments volume of the Final EIR will include all comments received, responses to those

comments, and standard introductory material. The MMRP would be provided separately, but prepared concurrently

with the Final EIR. All comments will be numbered (to indicate comment letter and comment number), and the

responses to those comments will be similarly numbered to allow easy correlation. In addition, where the text of the

Draft EIR must be revised, the text will be isolated as “text changes” in the Response to Comments volume, indicating

deleted text by strikeout and inserted text by double-underline. The text of the Draft EIR will not be revised. The Final

EIR will collectively consist of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments document, and the technical appendices.

It is assumed that the Final EIR would be provided at least 10 days prior to consideration for certification by the

City to any commenting public agency and any member of the public who has requested the document.

Further, the MMRP will be designed to ensure compliance with all adopted mitigation measures during project

implementation. The MMRP will be in table format and will specify project-specific mitigation measures, as well

as standard conditions of approval that are applicable to the project. Mitigation timing and responsible parties

will also be identified. The objective of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with Public Resources Code

Section 21081.6, as mandated by Assembly Bill 3180 (Cortese 1988), which requires that a lead agency adopt an

MMRP at the time an EIR is certified.

All appropriate mitigation measures identified for these resources in both the Initial Study and the Draft EIR

would be provided in an appendix of the Draft EIR to consolidate all mitigation measures required of the project

(from both the Initial Study and EIR) for ease in public reading and understanding. Any mitigation measures

included in the Initial Study would be incorporated into the MMRP.


An estimated budget has been prepared for the responses to comments effort. While the actual scope and

extent of public comments (in either written or oral format) cannot be definitively determined at this time, we

have tried to provide a conservative, yet realistic, estimate of the scope of work that would be required for this

project, in order to avoid the need for a contract amendment.

Only electronic copies of the Administrative Final EIR will be provided to the project team in an effort to cut down on

printing costs. Once comments on the Administrative Final EIR and MMRP have been received from the project team,

Dudek will incorporate all comments and submit (electronically only) a Screencheck Final EIR and MMRP to the

project team for final review before preparing the Final EIR and MMRP for public review. It is anticipated that

comments received on the Screencheck Final EIR and MMRP would be minimal and mostly editorial in nature.

Substantive comments requiring a second round of substantial edits would require an amendment to the budget

proposed. A Print-Ready Copy of the Final EIR in electronic format (Microsoft Word and PDF) will be submitted to the

project team for final review before printing.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of the Administrative Final EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Screencheck Final EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

• One (1) electronic copy of the Print-Ready Final EIR (WORD and PDF formats)

Task 8 Prepare Final EIR for Public Review and File NOD

Subtask 8A Prepare Final EIR for Public Review and File NOD Dudek will prepare a Final EIR and MMRP that incorporates all of the comments on the Administrative Final EIR,

Screencheck Final EIR and MMRP. Dudek will provide the project team with fifteen (15) printed bound copies of the

Final EIR and MMRP, one (1) electronic copy of the Final EIR and MMRP in Microsoft Word format, and one (1)

electronic copy of the Final EIR and MMRP in PDF format, and five (5) CD copies of the Final EIR and MMRP. For

public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR, they would be provided with a CD copy of the Final EIR at least ten

days prior to the meeting during which the City would consider certification of the EIR.

The Draft EIR will not be printed again as part of the Final EIR process. Dudek will distribute the Final EIR (on CD) and

the Notice of Determination (NOD) to the State Clearinghouse. Dudek would be responsible for distribution of the

Final EIR to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and any other interested parties pursuant to the City’s mailing list.

Additionally, Dudek would be responsible for any applicable filing fees and transmittal of the Final EIR and NOD to

the County Clerk of Los Angeles.

List of Products • Fifteen (15) printed hard copies of the Final EIR (with technical appendices on a CD in the back pocket)

and MMRP

• One (1) electronic copy of the Final EIR and MMRP on CD or via Dudek’s FTP site (WORD and PDF

formats)

• Five (5) CD copies of the Final EIR and MMRP

• One (1) electronic copy and one (1) printed copy of the NOD (WORD and PDF formats)

Task 9 Prepare Certification Documents

Subtask 9A Prepare Certification Documents Dudek will prepare draft Findings of Fact for each significant effect identified in the EIR and prepare a Statement of

Overriding Considerations, if unavoidable significant impacts occur. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, one of


three findings must be made for each significant effect and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The Statement of Overriding Considerations will rely on input from the project team regarding the benefits of the

project. Dudek will consult with the project team to review and finalize the Findings and Statement of Overriding

Considerations for the City’s ultimate adoption.

List of Products • One (1) electronic copy of the Draft Certification Documents (WORD and PDF formats)

• Five (5) printed copies of the Final Certification Documents

• One (1) electronic copy of the Final Certification Documents (WORD and PDF formats)

Task 10 Attend Public Hearings

Subtask 10A Attend Public Hearings As per the City’s response to questions on the Request for Proposals, Dudek will attend three (3) public hearing for

the proposed project, during which approval adoption of the Specific Plan, certification of the EIR, and approval of the

Zoning and General Plan Amendments would be considered. It is assumed that the City will coordinate and facilitate

the hearings and that oversized presentation materials describing or illustrating the proposed project will be provided

by the applicant, as needed. Dudek would be available to answer questions raised concerning the CEQA process

and/or technical questions regarding the analysis contained in the EIR. We would also address any substantive

comments submitted during the public comment period.

List of Products • Attend, and participate in, a total of three (3) public hearings

Task 11 Attend Additional Project Meetings

Subtask 11A Attend Additional Project Meetings In addition to the meetings identified above, Dudek will attend one (1) community meeting as per the City’s response

to questions on the Request for Proposals. If required, Dudek will also attend a maximum of three (3) project progress

or community meetings for the proposed project during preparation of the EIR. In addition, we would be available to

consult with the City via teleconference, as needed.

List of Products • Attendance at up to a total of four (4) project progress or community meetings, as required

Task 12 Project Management and General Coordination

Subtask 12A Project Management and General Coordination The purpose of this task is to manage the Dudek project team, manage the EIR preparation effort, and maintain

constant, close communication between the City, applicant, and consultant team. This task is also intended to ensure

that the project will be completed on time and within budget, and that all work products are of the highest quality.

Dudek will coordinate the team’s work for the communication of issues, transmittal of comments, financial

management, and other project management matters.

Table 2

Proposed Budget for the Clara Oaks Specific Plan Project

Planning and Environmental Review Services

Project

Manager

Project

Manager/Senior

Analyst

Junior Analyst

General

Administration

(Word

Processing)

Graphics/GIS

Principal

Environmental

Specialist/

Planner V

Environmental

Analyst II

Technical

Editor I

Assistant

Designer

$240.00 $175.00 $105.00 $115.00 $135.00

$30,800

1 Review and Analysis of Draft Specific Plan 80 80 $14,000

2 Review and Analysis of Revised Drafts of the Specific Plan 60 60 $10,500

3 Attendance at Meetings (8) 36 36 $6,300

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES1 Participate in Project Startup Activities $830

1A Attend One (1) Project Kick-Off Meeting 2 2 4 $830

2 Conduct Third-Party Review of Applicant-Prepared Technical Analyses $7,740

2A Conduct Third-Party Review of Applicant-Prepared Technical Analyses 6 36 42 $7,740

3 Conduct Preliminary Technical Analyses $120,840

3A Prepare Air Quality and GHG Emissions Analyses 8 80 18 6 112 $18,500

Construction Health Risk Assessment 2 40 10 1 53 $8,645

3B Prepare Noise Impact Analysis 6 44 12 6 68 $11,090

3C Prepare Traffic Impact Analysis

3E Conduct Least Bell’s Vireo & Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey 18 16 42 6 82 $12,340

3F Conduct Special-Status Plant Species Surveys 20 36 80 16 152 $21,660

3G Prepare Fire Response Time Analysis 8 16 17 41 $6,505

4 Prepare IS/NOP and Attend Scoping Meeting $13,740

4A Prepare IS/NOP 16 8 4 28 $5,300

Project Description 8 8 $840

Aesthetics 1 1 $105

Agriculture/Forestry Resources 1 1 $105

Air Quality 1 1 $105

Biological Resources 1 1 $105

Cultural Resources 1 1 $105

Energy 1 1 $105

Geology/Soils 1 1 $105

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 1 $105

Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 $105

Hydrology/Water Quality 1 1 $105

Land Use/Planning 1 1 $105

Mineral Resources 1 1 $105

Noise 1 1 $105

Population & Housing 1 1 $105

Public Services 1 1 $105

Recreation 1 1 $105

Traffic/Transportation 1 1 $105

Tribal Cultural Resources 1 1 $105

Utilities/Service Systems 1 1 $105

Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 1 $105

Screencheck Draft IS/NOP 8 12 4 2 26 $3,910

4B Attend One (1) Scoping Meeting (Includes preparation for meeting) 4 6 10 $1,590

5 Prepare Administrative Draft EIR* and Screencheck Draft EIR $79,180

5A Prepare Administrative Draft EIR* and Screencheck Draft EIR 32 16 8 56 $10,600

Introduction 2 2 $210

Executive Summary 12 12 $1,260

Project Description 12 12 $1,260

Introduction to the Analysis 2 2 $210

Effects Not Found to Be Significant 4 4 $420

Aesthetics 2 32 34 $3,710

Air Quality (summarizing the results of Subtask 3A) 4 4 $420

Biological Resources 8 32 40 $4,760

Cultural Resources 28 28 $4,900

Energy 24 24 $2,520

Geology/Soils 16 16 $2,800

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (summarizing the results of Subtask 3A) 4 4 $420

Hazards/Hazardous Materials 2 24 26 $2,870

Hydrology/Water Quality 16 16 $2,800

Land Use/Planning 32 32 $3,360

Noise (summarizing the results of Task 3B) 4 4 $420

Population & Housing 32 32 $3,360

Public Services 36 36 $3,780

Recreation 24 24 $2,520

Transportation/Traffic (summarizing the results of Task 3C) 24 24 $4,200

Tribal Cultural Resources 16 16 $2,800

Utilities/Service Systems 16 16 $2,800

Alternatives (assumes three alternatives) 44 44 $4,620

Growth Inducing Impacts 8 8 $840

Other CEQA Considerations 8 8 $840

EIR Preparers/References 4 4 $420

Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR 16 8 32 8 4 68 $10,060

6 Prepare Public Review Draft EIR and Attend Public Meeting on Draft EIR $6,850

6A Prepare Public Review Draft EIR 8 4 16 6 2 36 $5,260

6B Attend One (1) Public Meeting on Draft EIR (includes preparation for meeting) 4 6 10 $1,590

7 Prepare Administrative Final EIR,** Screencheck Final EIR, and MMRP $9,940

7A Prepare Administrative Final EIR,** Screencheck Final EIR, and MMRP 12 8 40 8 4 72 $9,940

8 Prepare Final EIR for Public Review and File NOD $5,390

8A Prepare Final EIR for Public Review and File NOD 6 4 24 4 2 40 $5,390

9 Prepare Certification Documents $3,960

9A Prepare Certification Documents 6 24 30 $3,960

10 Attend Public Hearings $4,140

10A Attend Public Hearings (3); 4-hour hearings 12 12 24 $4,140

11 Attend Additional Project Meetings $2,760

11A Attend Additional Project Meetings (4); 2-hour meetings 8 8 16 $2,760

12 Project Management and General Coordination $10,320

12A Project Management and General Coordination 36 16 52 $10,320

Total Hours 238 598 747 67 48 1,698

TOTAL PLANNING AND EIR LABOR $57,120 $104,650 $78,435 $7,705 $6,480 $296,531

DIRECT COSTS/EXPENSESEstimated EIR Direct Costs/Expenses

Reproduction

15 copies of the Final IS/NOP at a maximum of $50/copy $750

15 copies of the Draft EIR at a maximum of $85/copy $1,275

15 copies of the Final EIR at a maximum of $95/copy $1,425

Miscellaneous reproduction (Executive Summary, Certification Documents, NOA, NOCs, NOD, CDs, hearing materials, etc.) $750

Mileage $800

Subtotal Direct Costs $5,000

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS/EXPENSES $5,000

Estimated Subconsultant & Vendor Costs/Expenses

Cultural Resources Records Checks $1,100

Subtotal Subconsultants $1,100

TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT & VENDOR COSTS/EXPENSES $1,100

TOTAL PLANNING REVIEW AND EIR BUDGET $302,590

OPTIONAL TASK: Caltrans Traffic Analysis

OPTIONAL TASK 3D: Conduct California Gnatcatcher Survey 16 24 18 4 62 $10,470

** The Administrative Final EIR budget is based on receiving no more than 50 comments (not comment letters) on the Draft EIR. Responding to additional comments would require an amendment to the proposed budget.

HOURS COST

$296,490

* The budget proposed for preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR assumes that the 17 CEQA issue areas identified will be fully analyzed as part of the EIR. If any additional CEQA issue areas are required to be studied in the EIR, an

amendment to the proposed budget may be requested. Similarly if additional CEQA issue areas are scoped out of the EIR during the Initial Study process, this budget can be revised accordingly.

TASK Subtotal: Hours

Subtotal: Dollars

TOTAL

PLANNING REVIEW SERVICES

To Be Prepared by LLG $42,100

To Be Prepared by LLG $4,900

OPTIONAL TASKS (ONLY IF REQUIRED)


Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

PLANNING COMMISSION 2017-18 WORK PLAN

SUMMARY

The Planning Commission requested a list of work plan items for the upcoming year. In addition tothe items listed in this report, staff anticipates similar development activity as the previous year forConditional Use Permits, Variances, Subdivision Maps, and current development projects. Staff willalso be overseeing the preparation of environmental compliance documents for various developmentprojects that will be presented to the Commission with project proposals over the next twelve totwenty-four months.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Planning Commission 2017-18 WorkPlan.



A. Remove items from the list of the recommended Work Plan that may be cost prohibitive orrequire staff resources beyond the capacity available at this time.

B. Continue this item to provide additional time to research planning consultant costs related tovarious requests by the Commission.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this program is estimated at $995, and is includedin the operating budget of the Community Development Department.



ANALYSIS

Work Plan items outlined in the Work Plan below represent those items currently identified for futurereview, discussion, or consideration by the Planning Commission. The Work Plan does not includeitems that may arise during the course of the year through City Council or citizen requests, orgenerated through staff or development applications.

Certain Work Plan projects outlined below may require City Attorney hours beyond the retainer feesbudgeted for annual legal services. These types of unique projects may require approval from theCity Council to appropriate or identify additional funding to a Work Plan activity. Other activities listedmay require staff hours outside of the current capacity of the Planning Division. Planning consultantservices may need to be procured to provide minimum staffing resources to adequately cover topicalareas of interest to the Commission.

Planning Commission 2017-2018 Work Plan

· Update of Annual CEQA Local Guidelines (completed)

· Further discussion on the adoption of CEQA Local Thresholds of Significance (separate WorkPlan outline required)*

· Settlement Agreement City Obligation on Lawsuits - Pomona College Museum of Art (PCMA),includes development of General Plan policies, Zoning Code provisions, and HistoricResource Guidelines for Historic Resource Preservation (April 10, 2018 deadline to beginpublic discussions)

· Settlement Agreement City Obligation on PCMA Lawsuits - Civic Engagement Academy(limited role, January 6, 2018 deadline to begin public discussions)

· Discussion of Tree Preservation Ordinance*

· Village South Specific Plan Adoption

· Discussion & Potential Code Amendments to address recent Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)State Law Revisions

· Gold Line/Metrolink Impacts and Update Issues

· Metrolink Station Potential Removal Updates

· Potential updates to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO)

· Design Guidelines revisions to Claremont Village Design Plan*

· Design Guidelines Citywide*

· Commissioner Training Opportunities (Workshops/Seminars)

* Timeline & Cost Forwarded to City Council for Approval

Council-Appointed Design Guidelines/Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee

The City Council held a priority setting workshop on May 20, 2017, which led to a motion to create anAd Hoc Committee to consider commercial and residential design standards and guidelines, historicpreservation in the context of neighborhoods, including curbs, gutters, and landscaping. The motionincluded direction for this Ad Hoc Committee to consider whether this amount of work could becompleted by the Committee without the use of planning consultant firms.



On December 19, 2017, the Mayor made the appointments to the Ad Hoc Committee, which includestwo members each of the following: City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Commission,and Claremont Heritage. Staff anticipates coordinating the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee bymid-January, 2018.

Several of the items listed in the Work Plan recommended by the Planning Commission are similar torelated activities that were outlined in the City Council motion which created the Committee. Theserelated items could include:


· Discussion of Tree Preservation Ordinance

· Design Guidelines Revisions to Claremont Village Design Plan

· Design Guidelines Citywide

Once the Ad Hoc Committee is convened and completes their work, recommendations will beforwarded to the Planning Commission, for their consideration. Ultimately, the City Council will needto provide direction to staff on any required ordinances, resolutions, or code amendments to add ormodify zoning regulations.



Council Priorities - This item addresses the Council Priority, Quality of Life Issues.

Sustainability Plan - This item does not apply to the Sustainability Plan.


General Plan - This item addresses Measures 1-3 (Architectural Review of New Construction), 1-5(Architectural Review of Historic Resources), 1-6 (Historic Properties), Measure 1-7 (ClaremontRegister of Structures of Historic and Architectural Merit), 1-21 (Claremont Village Expansion AreaSpecific Plan), 1-24 (Tree Policies & Guidelines Manual), Measure 1-67 (Commission Training),relating to the Land Use, Community Character, and Heritage Preservation Element of the GeneralPlan and furthers the goals and policies outlined related to land use planning that values qualitydesign, celebrates our heritage, preserves our neighborhoods and environment, and creates placesthat benefit us all.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the following Community Development Department Work PlanGoal:CD-1: Provide guidance for public and private development consistent with the community’s highstandards.

Goal CD-2: Continue implementation of the General Plan.



Goal CD-7: Ensure that new development is attractive and compatible with its surroundings.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the objectives in the Youth and FamilyMaster Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

This activity is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment).

Even if this activity were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the Planning Commission’s anticipated review of items will have asignificant effect on the environment. On its own, the Planning Commission Work Plan will not resultin, or lead to, a physical change to the environment.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REVIEW

The Planning Commission reviewed the Annual Planning Commission Work Plan on November 7,2017. The staff report and meeting minutes are included as Attachments A and B, respectively.



Submitted by:

Brad JohnsonCommunity Development Director

Attachments:A - November 7, 2017 Planning Commission Staff ReportB - November 7, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes



Claremont Planning Commission

Agenda Report



TO: PLANNING COMMISSION


DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2017Reviewed by:

Finance Director: N/A

SUBJECT:

PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN: 2017-18

SUMMARY

Staff is providing a list of items anticipated for Planning Commission’s consideration in the upcomingyear. Staff anticipates similar development activity type as the previous year for Conditional UsePermits, Variances, Subdivision Maps, and current Planning development projects. Staff will beoverseeing the preparation of environmental compliance documents for various development projectsthat will be presented to the Commission with project proposals over the next 12 to 24 months.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input on the Commission’s 2017-18 WorkPlan and recommend forwarding the Work Plan to the City Council for direction.

ANALYSIS

There are a number of upcoming items that are scheduled to be reviewed by the PlanningCommission, some of which will incorporate the need for a recommendation to the City Council.

It should be noted that items shown in the Work Plan below represent those items currently identifiedfor future review, discussion, or consideration by the Planning Commission. The Work Plan does notinclude items that may arise during the course of the year through City Council or citizen requests, orgenerated through staff or development applications.

Certain Work Plan projects outlined below may require City Attorney hours beyond the retainer feesbudgeted for annual legal services. These types of unique projects may require approval from theCity Council to re-appropriate or identify additional funding to a Work Plan activity. Other activitieslisted may require staff hours outside of the current capacity of Planning Division staffing levels.Potentially Planning consultant firms may need to be procured to provide minimum staffing resources



cmartinez

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

Potentially Planning consultant firms may need to be procured to provide minimum staffing resourcesto adequately cover topical areas of interest to the Commission.

Planning Commission 2017-2018 Work Plan

· Update of Annual CEQA Local Guidelines (completed)

· Further discussion on adoption of CEQA Local Thresholds of Significance (separate WorkPlan outline required*)


· Settlement Agreement City Obligation on PCMA Lawsuits - Civic Engagement Academy(limited role, January 6, 2018 deadline to begin public discussions)

· Discussion of Tree Preservation Ordinance*

· Village South Specific Plan Adoption

· Discussion & Potential Code Amendments to address recent Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)State Law Revisions

· Gold Line/Metrolink Impacts and Update Issues

· Metrolink Station Potential Removal Updates

· Potential updates to the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO)

· Design Guidelines revisions to Claremont Village Design Plan*

· Design Guidelines Citywide*


* Timeline & Cost Forwarded to City Council for Approval

CEQA REVIEW

The Community Development Director has determined that the review of the Planning CommissionWork Plan is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant the Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines. The review by the Commission will not have a significant effect on theenvironment as it will not result in, or lead to, a physical change to the environment. Therefore, noadditional environmental review is needed.





Submitted and Prepared by:




PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, November 7, 2017 – 7 p.m. City Council Chamber

225 W. Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER Chair Rosenbluth called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commissioners - Emerson, Jackson, Jones, Lyon, Rosenbluth ABSENT: Commissioners - Curtis, Reed ALSO PRESENT Community Development Director Brad Johnson; Assistant Planner

Elaine Yang; Planning Intern Brittney Mesa; Planning Intern Vincent Gillespie; and, Senior Administrative Assistant Kim Wolfinbarger

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no ceremonial matters, presentations, or announcements.

PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Rosenbluth invited public comment. Michelle Boland stated that she did not receive notice of the meeting in which the Meat Cellar’s application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was approved. While only one neighbor attended the meeting to express concerns, there are several that are uncomfortable with the proposed plan. Ms. Boland expressed concern regarding: a) daytime parking congestion; b) potential customer parking on her street; c) an inadequate amount of parking available in the business parking lot; and, d) the Meat Cellar’s application to serve on-site hard alcohol as late as midnight. Ms. Boland asked the Commission to consider: a) limiting the Meat Cellar’s hours of operation; b) enforcing parking parameter; and c) designating Residential Permit Parking for residents adjacent to the business. David Lindley agreed with Ms. Boland’s statement and added additional comments; residents who are kept up late at night will have difficulty functioning early in the morning; on-site alcohol consumption is not a good idea due to noise issues; and, live entertainment is problematic due to noise issues. Matthew Adams also agreed with the comments made by previous speakers’, and, urged the Commission to look at additional parking solutions for the business.

cmartinez

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B

Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 2 Steve Boland added to the previous speakers’ comments in expressing surprise that he was not informed of the proposed CUP. Mr. Boland noted that he has spoken with an attorney regarding this issue, and urged the Commission to consider additional parking solutions. Seeing no other requests to speak, public comment was closed. Director Johnson addressed Commissioner questions regarding public comment including: a) assuring the Commission that the noticing was sent to everyone within 300 feet of the property, and signs were posted in a visible manner on the property; b) the City is currently drafting agreements to make sure the deficient spaces required are met; and, c) further resident questions and comments can be directed to the Community Development Department. CONSENT CALENDAR

Written Communications There we no written communications received. Routine Administrative Item

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017 Commissioner Lyon noted the following changes to the minutes that were given to staff prior to the meeting: Page 2, seventh paragraph, “Commissioner Lyon expressed that what seemed………….. He is still wondering why an Initial Study Checklist question could not be added which addresses the Village, for example, and the Village Design Plan, a document already invoked by both the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Only one part of the town that is covered by its own design plan could not be reviewed favorably.” Page 6, first paragraph, “Commissioner Lyon said a comment has been made earlier about what CEQA is all about, and he read an excerpt from Section 15064 of the California Code of Regulations which clarifies the full scope of CEQA.” Chair Rosenbluth opened public comment. Seeing no requests to speak, public comment was closed. Commissioner Lyon moved approval of the minutes of October 3, 2017, with minor corrections listed above; seconded by Commissioner Emerson, and carried on a vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Curtis, Emerson, Jackson, Lyon, Reed, Rosenbluth NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners - Curtis, Reed ABSTAIN: Commissioner - Jones

Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit (File #17-C04), Request to Allow for the Operation of a

New Massage Therapy Business, Located at 220 South Indian Hill Boulevard, Suite H. Applicant – Ying Yang (Quiet Oasis)

Planning Intern Mesa presented a PowerPoint, and addressed Commissioner questions regarding: a) door entering waiting area; b) wash basins; c) tenant improvements; d) police department inspections; and, e) the number of parking spaces. Chair Rosenbluth asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Luat Gao, presenting on behalf of Ying Yang, addressed Commissioner questions regarding: a) wash basins; and, b) parking spaces. Chair Rosenbluth opened public comment. Seeing no request to speak, public comment was closed. Commissioner Jackson stated that it is important that the applicant follows the Municipal Code. Commissioner Jones said she appreciates a new business opening in Claremont, and indicated that she would like to add a condition regarding requiring a police inspection of the business prior to the business operating. Commissioner Emerson expressed concern that all of the requirements be met under the Municipal Code, and agreed that the Commission should add a condition regarding requiring a police inspection of the business prior to the business operating. Commissioner Lyon suggested the applicant meet with staff before going forward. Chair Rosenbluth stated that it is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the police department for an inspection of the business prior to the business operating. Commissioner Emerson moved that the Planning Commission adopt, with the addition that the applicant contact the police department to ensure that it is in compliance prior to opening, the draft resolution approving Conditional Use Permit #17-C04 for a massage therapy business at 220 South Indian Hill Boulevard, subject to the findings set forth in Section 16.303.040 of the CMC, and conditions listed in the draft resolution; seconded by Commissioner Jones, and carried on the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Emerson, Jackson, Jones, Lyon, Rosenbluth NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners - Curtis, Reed This item can be appealed within ten calendar days.

Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 4 3. Conditional Use Permit (File #17-C05), Request to Allow for an Indoor Amusement Business (Containment! Escape Games) at 936 West Foothill Boulevard, Applicant – Kyle Carpenter Planning Intern Gillespie gave a PowerPoint about the project, and addressed a Commissioner question regarding supervision of those in attendance. Chair Rosenbluth asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Kyle Carpenter, applicant, answered Commissioner questions regarding: a) patrons under the age of 18 needing an adult with them; b) the room constantly being surveyed by staff; c) live scan for staff; and, d) an indoor waiting area. Chair Rosenbluth opened public comment. Seeing no one wishing to speak, public comment was closed. Commissioner Lyon stated that the business sounded like a nice addition to the complex. Commissioner Emerson expressed the need for an additional condition requiring that all staff be required to have a live scan prior to being hired. Commissioner Jones said she is not in favor of adding a condition regarding live scan; she feels that it will require other businesses that work with children to have live scan requirements for all staff. Commissioner Jackson expressed concern regarding putting a live scan restriction on only one business. Chair Rosenbluth stated that he would not be in favor having a live scan requirement. Commissioner Jones moved that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution approving CUP #17-C05, for an indoor amusement business (escape room) located at 936 West Foothill Boulevard, subject to the findings set forth in Section 16.303.040 of the CMC, and conditions listed in the draft resolution; seconded by Commissioner Jackson, and carried on the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Emerson, Jackson, Jones, Lyon, Rosenbluth NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners - Curtis, Reed This item can be appealed within ten calendar days. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 4. Planning Commission Work Plan: 2017-18

Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 5 Community Development Director Johnson discussed the 2017-18 Planning Commission Work Plan, and addressed Commissioner questions regarding: a) a revision to outdoor displays and a sign ordinance; and, b) an ad-hoc committee to work on the Village Design Plan and Design Guidelines Citywide. Chair Rosenbluth invited public comment. Seeing no requests to speak, public comment was closed. Commissioner Lyon moved that, after providing input to staff, the 2017-18 Planning Commission Work Plan be forwarded to the City Council for direction with the suggestion of developing an ad-hoc committee to work on the Village Design Plan and Design Guidelines Citywide; seconded by Commissioner Jones, and carried on a vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Emerson, Jackson, Jones, Lyon, Rosenbluth NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners - Curtis, Reed REPORTS

Commission Mayor/Chair Meeting Chair Rosenbluth reported on items of interest from the last meeting including the Golden State Water settlement, the change in the City Attorney firm, and, the recruitment for a new City Manager. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Jackson requested staff provide periodic reports on projects that have been approved by the Commission. Staff Briefing on Council Meetings Director Johnson reported on items of interest from the October 10 and 24 City Council meetings. Briefings on Other Items Director Johnson updated the Commission on projects in the City. Upcoming Agendas and Events

Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2017 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT

Chair Rosenbluth adjourned the meeting at 8:39 pm. _________________________ Richard Rosenbluth Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kim Wolfinbarger Senior Administrative Assistant


Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017-18 WORK PLAN

SUMMARY

The Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) has requested a list of work plan items for theupcoming year. Also included is a summary of the items reviewed by the TTC this past year.

Staff anticipates a full range of items to come before the TTC, ranging from the Gold Line Bridgedesign updates, Metrolink Station updates, Complete Streets Policy, Ciclavia, and the Gold Line LightRail Transit issues, among other routine matters.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Traffic and Transportation Commission2017-18 Work Plan.



A. Remove items from the list of recommended work plan topics that may be cost prohibitive orrequire staff resources beyond the capacity available at this time.

B. Continue this item to provide additional time to research planning consultant costs related tovarious requests by the Commission.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this program is estimated at $724, and is includedin the operating budget of the Community Development Department.



ANALYSIS

Work Plan items outlined below represent those items currently identified for future review,discussion, or consideration by the Traffic and Transportation Commission. The Work Plan does notinclude items that may arise during the course of the year through City Council or citizen requests, orgenerated through staff or development applications.

This past year (2016-2017), the TTC has reviewed and made recommendations to the City Councilon a number of items. These items have far-reaching impacts on the community, by addressing trafficsafety issues (traffic calming, traffic studies, and pedestrian crossings), traffic circulation design(Foothill Boulevard Master Plan), and quality of life issues (Quiet Zones). These items include thefollowing:

Traffic and Transportation Commission 2016-2017: Items Reviewed

· Quiet Zones

· Gold Line Updates

· Request for Residential Permit Parking: Mountain Avenue, Via Santa Catarina, Via MonteVideo, Via Santo Tomas, and Via San Simon

· Keck Graduate Institute Traffic Impact Analysis

· Foothill Boulevard Master Plan Improvements

· Oxford Avenue Speed Survey

· Claremont Dial-A-Ride Assessment

· Bus Stop Shelter Conceptual Design

· Metrolink Railroad Gate Operation

· Foothill Gold Line

· Complete Streets Study Session

There are a number of upcoming items that are scheduled to be reviewed by the TTC, many of whichwill incorporate the need for a recommendation to the City Council.

It should be noted that items shown in the Work Plan below represent those items currently identifiedfor future review by the TTC. The Work Plan does not account for items that may arise during thecourse of the year through City Council or citizen requests, or as generated through staff or the TTC.

Traffic and Transportation Commission 2017-2018 Work Plan

· Gold Line Issues (construction detours, traffic studies, quiet zones)

· Gold Line Bridge Design Updates

· Metrolink Station Updates

· Complete Streets Policy

· Ciclavia Updates

· Proposed Development Traffic Studies

· Traffic Calming Policy Revisions

· Potential Residential Permit Parking Requests






Council Priorities - This item addresses the Council Priority “Infrastructure and Transportation.”

Sustainability Plan - This item addresses Goal Area 3 of the Claremont Sustainability“Transportation”, Goals 3.1 Transportation Conservation, 3.2 Pedestrian Enhancements, 3.3 BicycleEnhancements & Education, 3.4 Congestion Management, 3.5 Transit/Cleaner Mode Infrastructure.


General Plan - This item addresses Measures VI-10 (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), VI-11(Claremont Transit Center), VI-14 (Southern California Regional Rail Authority Metrolink), VI-15(Metro Gold Line Construction Authority), relating to the Community Mobility Element of the GeneralPlan and furthers the goals and policies outlined related to developing an effective circulation systemthat improves mobility and sustains the environmental quality of the community and region.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Community Development Department Work Plan Goal CD-6:Administer the City’s transportation planning efforts.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the objectives in the Youth and FamilyMaster Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

This activity is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment).

Even if this activity were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the TTC’s review of items will have a significant effect on the environment.On its own, TTC review will not result in, or lead to, a physical change to the environment.


The Traffic & Transportation Commission reviewed the annual Commission Work Plan on October26, 2017. The staff report and meeting minutes are included as Attachment A and Attachment B,respectively.





Submitted by:


Attachments:A - TTC Staff Report of October 26, 2017B - TTC Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2017



Claremont Traffic and TransportationCommission

Agenda Report



TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2017Reviewed by:

Finance Director: N/A

SUBJECT:

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN: 2107-18

SUMMARY

Staff is providing a summary of the items reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission(TTC) this past year, as well as the items anticipated for the upcoming year. Staff anticipated a fullrange of items to come before the TTC, ranging from the Gold Line Bridge design updates, theMetrolink Station updates, Complete Streets Policy, Ciclavia, and Gold Line issues, among otheritems.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission provide input on the Commission’s2017-18 Work Plan, and receive and file the staff report.

ANALYSIS

This past year (2016-2017) the TTC has reviewed and made recommendations to the City Council ona number of items. These items have far-reaching impacts on the community, by addressing trafficsafety issues (traffic calming, traffic studies, and pedestrian crossings), traffic circulation design(Foothill Master Plan), and quality of life issues (Quiet Zones). These items include the following:

Traffic and Transportation Commission 2016-2017: Items Reviewed

· Quiet Zones

· Gold Line Updates

· Request for Residential Permit Parking: Mountain Avenue, Via Santa Catarina, Via Monte



cmartinez

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

Video, Via Santo Tomas and Via San Simon

· Keck Graduate Institute Traffic Impact Analysis

· Foothill Boulevard Master Plan Improvements

· Oxford Avenue Speed Survey

· Claremont Dial-A-Ride Assessment

· Bus Stop Shelter Conceptual Design

· Metrolink Railroad Gate Operation

· Foothill Gold Line

· Complete Streets Study Session

There are a number of upcoming items that are scheduled to be reviewed by the TTC, many of whichwill incorporate the need for a recommendation to the City Council.

It should be noted that items shown in the work plan below represent those items currently identifiedfor future review by the TTC. The work plan does not account for items that may arise during thecourse of the year through City Council or citizen requests, or as generated through staff or the TTC.

Traffic and Transportation Commission 2017 - 2018 Work Plan

· Gold Line Issues (construction detours, traffic studies, quiet zones)

· Gold Line Bridge Design Updates

· Metrolink Station Updates

· Complete Streets Policy

· Ciclavia Updates

· Proposed Developments Traffic Studies

· Traffic Calming Policy Revisions

· Potential Residential Permit Parking Requests


CEQA REVIEW

The Community Development Director has determined that the review of the Traffic andTransportation Commission work plan is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant the Section 15061 (b)(3) of the Guidelines. The review by the Commission will not have aCLAREMONT Printed on 10/19/2017Page 2 of 3


pursuant the Section 15061 (b)(3) of the Guidelines. The review by the Commission will not have asignificant effect on the environment as it will not result in, or lead to, a physical change to theenvironment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed.




Brad Johnson Maria B. TippingCommunity Development Director Senior Civil Engineer



cmartinez

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B


Agenda Report




FROM: SHELLY VANDER VEEN, POLICE CHIEF


City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

AGREEMENT WITH VIGILANT SOLUTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED LICENSEPLATE READER (ALPR) EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PACKAGE

SUMMARY

The Police Department implemented an Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program in 2011.This original 35 camera system has reached the end of its useful life and is no longer warrantied orserviceable. A replacement plan has been developed with seven cameras to be replaced using thefunding allocated in the Police Department’s current operating budget. With the completion of thispurchase and installation, 15 of the original 35 cameras will have been replaced.

The cost of the ALPR cameras exceeds $25,000; therefore, City Council approval of the purchase isrequired.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement withVigilant Solutions in the amount of $60,351 for the purchase of seven Automated License PlateReader cameras and associated Vigilant service package.



A. Reject the recommendation.B. Delay the recommendation and request additional information.



FINANCIAL REVIEW

The funding for this purchase is included in the Police Department’s current operating budget.

Staff recommends that Vigilant Solutions be awarded this project as a sole source vendor. Theirproprietary software/hardware system’s ability to share data with other Vigilant users is one of themost significant and beneficial elements of this project. Claremont Municipal Code Section 3.15.090(Using alternative purchasing procedures) allows for this sole source purchase under theProfessional Services, Computers and Computer software, and Best Interests sub-sections. CMCSection 3.15.090 reads as follows:

3.15.090 Using alternative purchasing proceduresFor non-public projects and other situations provided in this section, an alternative purchasingprocedure which results in a negotiated contract, force account, purchase order or any otherprocedure determined by the authorized contracting party to be in the best interests of the City and incompliance with the City’s policies and procedures may be used.

B. Professional Services. When purchasing professional services.

C. Computers. When purchasing computer software, hardware maintenance services or softwaremaintenance services.

H. Best Interests of the City. When the City Council, on recommendation of the City Manager,determines that an alternative procedure will be in the best interests of the City and the policiesset forth in this chapter.

The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this program is estimated at $2,500 and isincluded in the operating budget of the Police Department.

ANALYSIS

An ALPR system is a computer-based system that utilizes special cameras to capture a color image,as well as an infrared image, of a license plate from a passing vehicle. The images are converted toa text file utilizing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology. The text file is automaticallycompared against law enforcement databases for review against stolen vehicles, wanted persons,missing persons, and public safety related files.

ALPR technology can be deployed in either a fixed or mobile environment. A fixed camera may bemounted on a roadside pole, bridge overpass, or building structure. A mobile system may reside ona patrol vehicle, an unmarked vehicle, or parking enforcement vehicle.

Whether mobile or fixed, the cameras are basically the same, consisting of infrared (IR) light emittingdiode (LED) illumination, an infrared camera, and a color camera. These cameras are capable ofproviding effective license plate image captures during the day or at night, and eliminate thevariability of plate backgrounds and colors by providing a clear monochrome image of the licenseplate.

Since the implementation of the ALPR program in Claremont in April of 2011, the system has beendirectly responsible for the identification and arrest of nearly 700 persons for driving stolen vehicles,having outstanding warrants, or committing other crimes. The system has also been responsible for



having outstanding warrants, or committing other crimes. The system has also been responsible forthe recovery of over 400 stolen vehicles that have entered the City.

In 2011, the Police Department purchased the Automated License Plate Reader system from PIPSTechnology, a Federal Signal Company. The originally purchased system is now over five years oldand no longer serviceable. In 2013, 3M acquired the PIPS Technology business. Since that changeof ownership, our new and replacement cameras have been purchased through Vigilant Solutions,the leading provider of advanced analytic solutions for law enforcement.

Vigilant Solutions offers an ALPR data and hosting application, LEARN, for law enforcement use only,which is currently being used to manage the City’s ALPR data. Vigilant Solutions cameras uploaddirectly to LEARN. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of this equipmentfrom Vigilant Solutions to maintain consistency and interoperability with our existing ALPR systemand to maintain the continuous integration of ALPR detections into the LEARN software.

This purchase exceeds the City Manager’s purchasing authority; therefore, City Council approval isrequired. Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreementwith Vigilant Solutions in the amount of $60,351 for the purchase of seven Automated License PlateReader (ALPR) cameras and related Vigilant service package.



Council Priorities - This item applies to the following goals/objectives Council Priority Plan:

• Utilize technology and crime analysis to impact crime.


Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not apply to the recommendations outlined in theEconomic Sustainability Plan.

General Plan - This item applies to the following goals/objectives in the General Plan:

Goal 6.1: Work to promote a safe community in which residents can live, work, and play.

Goal 6.9.8: Initiate proactive crime suppression and prevention strategies throughout the community.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the following Police Department Work Plan Goals:

PS-3: Maintain a safe community, in which citizens can reside, work, and visit.

PS-11: Initiate proactive investigations to identify and arrest those persons with outstanding arrestwarrants residing in the community.

PS-33: Effectively utilize technology and deploy resources to impact crime and traffic safety in thecommunity.



Youth and Family Master Plan - This item applies to the following goals/objectives of the Youth andFamily Master Plan:

Objective 8: Provide a Safe, Secure, and Sustainable Environment.

CEQA REVIEW

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purchase of the AutomatedLicense Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras is not subject to environmental review. Under CEQAGuidelines Section 15378(b)(2) continued administrative activities and maintenance activities such asthe purchase of supplies are not CEQA projects. The ALPR cameras are supplies used to assistthe Police Department identify individuals committing crimes within the City of Claremont.Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this actionbecause there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen withcertainty that there is no possibility that the purchase of seven ALPR cameras will have a significanteffect on the environment. Therefore, no environmental review is needed at this time.



Submitted by:

Shelly Vander VeenPolice Chief




Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENTBETWEEN THE CITIES OF CLAREMONT, LA VERNE, POMONA, AND SAN DIMAS

SUMMARY

On July 28, 2015, the City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement between the Cities ofClaremont, La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimas (collectively known as the East San Gabriel ValleyWatershed Management Group, "ESGVWMG") to administer and share the costs for stormwatermonitoring and management efforts within the four-city watershed area. This agreement establishedthe City of Claremont as the Lead Agency in coordinating the ESGVWMG Coordinated IntegratedMonitoring Program (CIMP) and Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

The City of Pomona is now coordinating several Regional projects that will further the group’sstormwater monitoring and management efforts and has committed significant resources tocompleting these projects. As a result, the four cities of the ESGVWMG have agreed to transfer theLead Agency responsibilities from the City of Claremont to the City of Pomona.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to theCooperative Agreement for watershed monitoring and management to change the Lead Agency fromthe City of Claremont to the City of Pomona.





A. Continue discussion of this matter and request additional information.B. Do not approve the amendment.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

At its June 14, 2016 meeting, the City Council adopted the City's 2016-18 operating budget, whichincludes funding for stormwater monitoring and management-related expenditures.The staff cost to prepare documentation and this report is estimated at $500, and is included in theoperating budget of the Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

On November 8, 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)adopted the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, Order No. R4- 2012- 0175(Permit). With this new Permit, many additional regulations have been required of cities and countiesto ensure acceptable water quality standards are maintained with respect to stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. In response, the Cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimasformed the ESGVWMG in 2013 to collaboratively meet the requirements of the permit. Since thattime, the ESGVWMG has continued to comply with the requirements of the Permit.

As the ESGVWMG moves forward with stormwater monitoring and management, the City ofPomona’s available resources and role in coordinating Regional stormwater projects require thatLead Agency responsibilities transfer to the City of Pomona to continue the group’s compliance withthe Permit. These responsibilities include: project management and coordination; equipmentacquisition; permitting; facilitation of acquisition, installation and maintenance; receiving watermonitoring; stormwater outfall monitoring; non-stormwater outfall evaluation; data management andreporting; and submission of reporting results to the Regional Board.



Council Priorities - This item applies to the Council Priority “Local Water Issues.”

Sustainability Plan - This item complies with the following goals of the Sustainability Plan: GoalArea 1 - Resource Conservation, Water and Wastewater, which calls for "maximizing recharge oflocal water resources and minimizing pollution at local beaches by minimizing stormwater runoff andeliminating dry weather runoff'; and, Goal Area 2 - Environment and Public Health, outlining the goalto "...reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous and toxic materials, minimizing pollutants entering theair, soil and water..."

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not directly relate to the Economic SustainabilityPlan.

General Plan - This item addresses Measure lV-21 of the General Plan, "National Pollutant



Discharge and Elimination System" (NPDES) compliance.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the requirement provided through the Community DevelopmentDepartment Work Plan Goal CD-10: Ensure the City's compliance with NPDES/MS4 Permitstandards.


CEQA REVIEW

This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (theactivity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)excludes “[o]rganizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct orindirect physical changes in the environment” from its definition of “project.”

Even if this activity were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement, in and of itself, will have asignificant effect on the environment. On its own, this action will not result in any physical changes tothe environment.




Brad Johnson Austin RamirezCommunity Development Director Management Analyst




Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROMOPLANNING GROUP

SUMMARY

The City of Claremont currently has an agreement with Romo Planning Group for professionalplanning services in the amount of $25,000. Due to several upcoming projects that are beyond thecapacity of in-house Planning staff, as well as two full-time vacancies within the Planning Division,staff requests that the not to exceed amount of the contract be increased to $150,000, and that theterm be amended to allow for an additional, one-year term extension at the request of the City.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement withRomo Planning Group for professional planning services, beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June30, 2018, increasing the not to exceed amount to $150,000, and allowing a one-year term extensionat the request of the City.



A. Continue discussion of this matter and request additional information.B. Do not approve the amendment.



FINANCIAL REVIEW

The costs associated with privately-sponsored projects will be borne by the project proponent, andthe costs associated with City projects will be borne by the City.

With respect to City projects, if the determined cost associated with the project exceeds $25,000, orrequires an appropriation of City funds, staff will bring a request back to the City Council.

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $500, and is included in the operating budget ofthe Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

The City has a need for contract professional planning services for projects that are beyond thecurrent capacity of in-house Planning Division staff. The anticipated private projects on whichcontract planning services will be needed include the Clara Oaks Master Plan and associatedenvironmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the ClaremontCommons Master Plan and associated CEQA review, the Holliday Mining Pit Infill Project andassociated CEQA review, the Claremont Graduate University Master Plan and associated CEQAreview, and the Claremont University Consortium Tract Map and associated CEQA review. Theanticipated City projects include public counter assistance, zoning code revisions, and the processingof various zoning applications.

After reviewing the qualifications and speaking with the firm, staff has determined that RomoPlanning Group is a qualified consultant based on work from relevant projects in similar jurisdictions,strong professional experience, credibility, and previous work completed for the City. A statement ofRomo Planning Group’s qualifications is attached.


Council Priorities - This item does not relate to the Council Priorities.

Sustainability Plan - This item does not relate to the Sustainability Plan.

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not relate to the Economic Sustainability Plan.

General Plan - This item does not apply to the General Plan.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Community Development Work Plan Goal CD-1 (“Provideguidance for public and private development consistent with the Community’s high standard”). TheCity is furthering this goal by retaining the services of qualified environmental consultant firms toassist the City and the private development in the preparation of applicable environmentaldocuments.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not relate to the objectives in the Youth and FamilyMaster Plan.



CEQA REVIEW

This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (theactivity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)excludes “[o]rganizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct orindirect physical changes in the environment” from its definition of “project.”

Even if this activity were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the amendment to the contract for consulting services, in and of itself, willhave a significant effect on the environment. On its own, this action will not, in and of itself, result inany physical changes to the environment.





Attachment:Romo Planning Group Qualifications



RPG romo planning group, inc.

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

CITY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

December 2017

9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT


9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730

Office 909.255.4017 www.romoplanninggroup.com

Page 2 of 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

Company Profile ........................................................................................... 3

RPG Primary Team ...................................................................................... 4

Overview of Services ................................................................................... 5

Contract Planning .................................................................................. 5

Environmental Compliance ............................................................... 5

SMARA Compliance .............................................................................. 5

Work Experience .......................................................................................... 7

Team Summary Resumes .......................................................................... 8

Insurance ...................................................................................................... 10 References .................................................................................................... 11 Hourly Rates ................................................................................................ 12




Page 3 of 12

COMPANY PROFILE

RPG was established in 2001 by Mr. Gustavo Romo as an urban planning firm specializing in bringing the independent contractor directly to public agencies. After having worked as a city planner for more than 10 years and receiving his MBA degree, Mr. Romo began his business by providing land use entitlement services to developers and wireless telecommunication providers. In a short period, he found a niche serving as a project manager and interim staff planner for several Southern California jurisdictions and has since provided assistance to more than 30 communities at various capacities. Mr. Romo and his team have been contracting with cities and private developers as project managers and interim department directors, division managers, and staff planner for the last 20 years. With 35 years of combined planning experience, Gus Romo and a network of independent city planners work through RPG to match their urban planning skills with temporary staffing requests and case-by-case assignments. RPG attracts independent planners by providing professional and commercial liability insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, and technical and administrative support. Due to RPG’s low overhead costs, the contract planner retains a significant portion of the fees charged to the local jurisdiction or private client. The client, in turn, avoids paying the high rates often associated with larger consulting firms. As a result, planners seeking work through RPG offer diverse backgrounds and experience and are very adept in all aspects of the urban planning process.




Page 4 of 12

RPG Primary Team

Gus Romo Principal

Ernest Perea CEQA

Director

Marie Gilliam Principal Planner

Jim Morrissey Prinicipal Planner

Nyesha Loyd Administrative Assistant

Reuben Arceo SMARA Services Director

Jess Bruckhart Planning Technician

Shelby Williams Principal Planner

Charles Rangel Planning Director

Jennifer Davis Principal Planner

Erick Saavedra Planning Technician

Adrianna Ortiz Assistant Planner




Page 5 of 12

OVERVIEW OF SERVICES Contract Planning Services Romo Planning Group (RPG) has provided contract planning services to more than 30 jurisdictions located in the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside since 2001. These services include, but are not limited to, current and advanced planning, development feasibility analyses, CEQA/NEPA compliance, preparation of specific environmental studies, and interim staffing services. Because RPG only works with seasoned independent contractors, the team is very adept in all aspects of the development process, which results in effective and efficient project management for the public sector as well as private developers, real estate brokers, and local businesses. RPG contract planners approach every assignment with a problem-solving mindset. We have extensive experience in executing land use entitlement applications, taking projects through every step of the development review process, including final certificate of occupancy, assessing opportunities and constraints before submitting applications, coordinating with various departments and outside agencies, preparing staff reports and conditions of approval, and making presentations before public hearing bodies. Our civic relations make us a very valuable resource.

Environmental Compliance Services RPG utilizes Mr. Ernest Perea, Director of Environmental Services, to prepare and manage the preparation CEQA and NEPA documents that will adhere to federal, state and city standards. Mr. Perea has over 32 years of Land Use Planning and CEQA experience in both the public and private sectors. He is the author of the Guide to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist that was awarded the "Environmental Resource Merit Award" by the California Association of Environmental Professionals and is being used as a text book at Humboldt State University.

Mr. Perea has been serving as a CEQA Administrator and preparing CEQA and NEPA documents for a number of jurisdictions for many years. The range of our firm’s environmental experience includes preparing air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and biological assessments utilizing our in-house team members.

SMARA Compliance Services RPG provides planning expertise reviewing, coordinating, and executing mining entitlements and reclamation plans and associated documents and studies through both the lead agency and state review process with the Office of Mining and Reclamation (OMR). These skills sets include:




Page 6 of 12

Determining the adequacy and completeness of mining entitlement applications and reclamation plans prior to initiating internal and OMR review of the documents in accordance with OMR’s October 18, 2013 review policy submittal.

Completing the internal “certification” review process of reclamation plans, water delineation reports, biological assessment reports, hydrology reports in accordance with the Lead Agency’s adopted SMARA provisions prior to peer review of the documents by OMR.

Statue and legislative expertise of SMARA’s mining, reclamation, procedural, and special use provisions, specifically, lead agency responsibilities and projects judged to be “substantial deviations” from their existing reclamation plan, except such areas where vested mining right protections prevail.

Coordinating and project managing both the SMARA and CEQA functions; following through on OMR comments; obtaining responses and interfacing with departments; and responsive to management concerning the project’s status, and hearing time-table.

RPG personnel provide over 10 years of extensive experience executing mining entitlements, working with OMR personnel, including state and federal agencies and interacting at all stages of the mining permit process, which includes attending hearings and appeals at the state mining and geology board in Sacramento. For San Bernardino County, RPG has recently completed the entitlement process for Beck’s Mine, Cal Portland Cement, Essex Pit, Lucerne Pit, Mesquite Lake, and Newbury Springs.




Page 7 of 12

WORK EXPERIENCE

RPG has provided services to the following public and private sector clients: PUBLIC SECTOR

Cities/Counties Adelanto

Commerce Jurupa Valley

Azusa

County of San Bernardino La Puente

Banning

Covina Loma Linda

Bell Gardens

Glendora Pasadena

Claremont

Indian Wells

PRIVATE SECTOR

Developers/Brokers/Local Business Willdan Engineering

Lilley Planning Group

SB & O Engineering Associates

Ileana Orona (private investor)

Civic Solutions LILA French/American Private School

Steve Aguillon, ADSAS, FLP

B & G Catering

First American Realty

The Lyle Company

ERA Realty

4.0 Wireless Communication Management

Alex Mustapha and Associates (AMA)

Realty Executives JEDCO Mining SWMG Mining




Page 8 of 12

TEAM SUMMARY RESUMES

Environmental Review and Processing

Ernest Perea, Director of Environmental Services: Mr. Perea has over 32 years of Land Use Planning and CEQA experience in both the public and private sectors. He is the author of the Guide to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist that was awarded the "Environmental Resource Merit Award" by the California Association of Environmental Professionals and is being used as a text book at Humboldt State University.

Mr. Perea earned his B.S. Urban Planning from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, in 1982. He is the former Planning Director for the City of Fontana and the former Planning Manager for the City of Murrieta. Mr. Perea is responsible for preparing CEQA documents and overseeing the preparation of EIR’s under third party agreements with the City to ensure that the CEQA document reflects the independent judgment of the City. George Wirtes, Biologist: Mr. Wirtes has a Master’s of Science degree in Environmental Science and a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology; both awarded by California State University, Fullerton. Mr. Wirtes is on the list of Approved Biologists with the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. He is also listed as a California Desert Native Plant Expert with the County of San Bernardino and is an ISA Certified Arborist.

Kevin Carr, REA: Mr Carr has over 32 years of environmental experience with a focus on preparing Environmental Assessment documents for County and City Governments to include assessing public and environmental safety issues, Air Quality and Noise Studies. Mr. Carr conducts CEQA Air Quality Studies and air quality modeling using CalEEMod, URBEMIS, Caline4, OnRoad, and EMFAC on proposed projects for development to determine the environmental impacts to air quality and project compliance with CEQA. He also conducts CEQA & General Noise Studies using Sound Level Monitoring Equipment and noise modeling software including LEQV2, TNM Lookup Tables, and Sound 2000 on proposed projects for development to determine the environmental impacts from traffic, construction, man-made, and drive-thru operation generated noise. Mr. Carr is a graduate of Columbia Southern University Candidate Masters of Science Occupational Safety & Health/Environmental Management. He is also a graduate of the University of Phoenix Bachelor of Science, Business Management. He also holds an Associate of Arts degree with an Environmental Focus.




Page 9 of 12

Land Use Entitlement Project Management

Charles Rangel, Planning Director: Mr. Rangel serves as a contract Planning Director. He is a seasoned city planning professional with a team spirit that fosters positive partnerships and relationships with staff, colleagues, and the general public. He has over 25 years of civic experience and has managed various community development department in California. He is very diligent in his service to local government and committed to current and future needs of an organization. He is well-versed in all aspects of planning and zoning law, including CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act.

Reuben Arceo, Director of SMARA Services: Mr. Arceo is a professional urban planner with proven success in planning, environmental applications (CEQA/NEPA), SMARA, economic development, engineering, building, budgets and understanding of municipal operations. He excels in communication, public presentations, and report writing. He is currently assigned to the County of San Bernardino as SMARA Project Manager and the City of Banning as Project Manager for the San Gorgonio Specific Plan. He is also available to back-up Ms. Williams should the need arise for unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Arceo has over 30 years of experience in city planning and retired from the City of La Mirada as Community Development Director in 2012. Jim Morrissey, Principal Planner: Mr. Morrissey has over 31 years of supervisory experience in the public and private sectors. He has been a Planning Director or Interim Community Development Director in four (4) cities and has been the owner of his own planning consulting firm for over 14 years. He has over 8 years of experience working with several Inland Empire planning/engineering companies; experience in the preparation/evaluation of general plans, specific plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental impact reports, negative declarations, redevelopment plans, and development projects; and has managed planning and public works related projects, including specific plans, development projects, environmental analysis, feasibility studies, permit processing, citizen involvement programs, and grants. Shelby Williams, Principal Planner: Ms. Williams has over 25 years of Land Use Planning and CEQA experience in the public sector. She retired from the City of Covina as “City Planner” in charge of the Planning Division. Her contributions to the City of Covina can be seen through the vibrant downtown and overall smart growth that has taken place during her tenure at the City. Ms. Williams has provided project management services to RPG since her retirement in 2013. She is currently available for additional assignments and can be fully dedicated to a developer’s needs. She is very knowledgeable in both current and advanced planning and excels in public presentations and coordination. Her organizational and time management skills along with her wonderful personality foster cooperation from all involved in the land use entitlement process. Marie Gilliam, Principal Planner: Ms. Gilliam has over 40 years of diverse experience in environmental, land use and policy planning in the public and private sectors. Her foundation of technical knowledge dates from the inception of CEQA, NEPA and other major federal and state




Page 10 of 12

environmental and planning laws in the early 1970s. During her extensive professional career, Marie has worked for both municipal and county agencies acquiring valuable experience in many policy planning programs including all major General Plan elements; community plans; coastal and hillside land use planning; growth management; analysis of urban services, infrastructure and development capacity issues; comprehensive environmental planning/impact assessment as well as a wide range of regulatory and entitlement issues. During her career, Marie has managed or participated in over 25 comprehensive land use and policy planning projects; 30 land development projects of all types, as well as many other specialized projects. Jennifer Davis, Principal Planner: Ms. Davis is a a seasoned planner with strong presentation skills and over 30 years of planning and economic development experience through her work in Southern California and London, England. She is currently providing project management services for the City of Claremont, including significant projects located within the Claremont Colleges campus. Ms. Davis served as a both the Director of Community Development and the Economic Development Manager for the City of San Gabriel. Additionally, Ms. Davis served as the Regeneration and Conservation Project Manager for the London Borough of Haringey where the regeneration project she managed won a strategic planning award. She was also a Senior Planner for the City of West Hollywood for 11 years as the lead planner on some of the largest and most controversial projects in that City.

INSURANCE

Full Professional & Commercial Liability through Heffernan (Policy 1U40950)

(NOTE: RPG Website is currently undergoing revisions)




Page 11 of 12

REFERENCES

Al Warot Dean Sherer VP – Planning Services Former Planning Director PMC Willdan Engineering 562.714.0640 626.434.9112 Frank Tripepi Fabiola Wong Vice President Planning Manager Willdan Engineering City of San Dimas, CA 909.731.9975 626.824.0287 Chris Kelly Carmen Morales Former Community Development Director City Planner County of San Bernardino City of Bell Gardens, CA 714.681.0416 562.458.7219 Jeff Kugel Robert Neiuber Community Development Director Human Resources Director City of Glendora, CA City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA 626.914.8215 626.523.4337 Gilbert Livas Randy Anstine City Manager City Manager City of Downey, CA City of Calimesa, CA 562.904.7284 909.795.9801 Denver Miller William Tam Former Principal – Community Planning Public Works Director City of Pasadena, CA City of Irwindale 626.744.6646 626.430.2215 Roy & Carrie Bruckner Deborah Woldruff City Planning Consultants Former Planning Director BR Partners, Inc. City of Loma Linda, CA 909.626.6829 909.229.1886 Zai Abu Bakar Jessie Flores Planning Manager Business Development Manager City of Fontana City of Adelanto 909.350.7640 760.954.4521




Page 12 of 12

HOURLY RATES

Position Hourly Rate Principal (Private) $175 Department Director $145 Project Manager $135 Planning Manager $125 Senior Planner $115 Associate Planner $95 Assistant Planner $75 Planning Technician $60 CEQA/NEPA Specialist $165 Administrative Assistant $50

Hourly rates do not include out‐of‐pocket expenses (including, but not limited to, blueprinting, duplicating/copying, reproduction, GIS data acquisition fees, aerial photography, site photos and delivery services). These expenses will be billed at cost plus 10% for administration.


Agenda Report






City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVAL OF THE 2018-19BUDGET

SUMMARY

Staff requests City Council approval of the proposed programs for use of the City's 2018-19Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation. The allocation for 2018-19 is estimated tobe $136,577, and will be divided between the three programs detailed in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the program budget for the 2018-19 CommunityDevelopment Block Grant programs as proposed, and authorize staff to proportionately increase ordecrease each program budget based on the final Community Development Block Grant allocation, ifnecessary.


In addition to the recommendation, there is the following alternative:

· Approve the proposed CDBG budget for fiscal year 2018-19 with changes.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The estimated allocation of CDBG funding for 2018-19, in the amount of $136,577, is proposed tofund the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program ($60,000), Senior Case Management Program($20,486), and Job Creation and Business Incentive Program ($56,091).

The staff cost to prepare documentation and this report is estimated at $500, and is included in the



The staff cost to prepare documentation and this report is estimated at $500, and is included in theoperating budget of the Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

The CDBG Program is a Federal Block Grant Program that began in 1974, which provides funding tocities and counties to carry out programs and projects designed to benefit low-income persons. As amember of an Urban County Agreement, Claremont receives its CDBG funding from Los AngelesCounty. The County performs many of the administrative tasks required to comply with the Federalregulations of the CDBG program. Further background information on the CDBG program is includedas an attachment to this report.

Proposed 2018-2019 CDBG Budget

The County has not yet released the final budget allocation for fiscal year 2018-19, but has askedparticipating cities to proceed using the previous fiscal year’s allocation. For 2017-18, Claremontreceived a final allocation of $136,577. The 2017-18 allocation was the first year since 2011 that theCity received an increase (+2.83 percent) from the previous year; however, there have beencontinued reductions in Federal appropriations for the CDBG program in recent years and this year’sbudget may be consistent with that trend. Since the budget is only an estimate at this time, staffrecommends that the City Council authorize staff to proportionately increase or decrease eachprogram budget based on the final CDBG allocation.

The proposed budget is a continued commitment to the existing programs that have been fundedwith CDBG funds. The detailed breakdown of the budget is shown below.

Project/Program Budget

Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 60,000

Senior Case Management Program $ 20,486

Job Creation & Business Incentive Program $ 56,091

Total $136,577

Below is a more detailed description of the programs and items listed in the proposed budget:

Housing Rehabilitation Program: $60,000

The Housing Rehabilitation Program has been a part of Claremont's CDBG program for many years.The program is divided into two components, a rehabilitation loan and an energy efficiencyimprovement grant. The main purpose of the program is to provide funds to low-income homeownerswho are not able to pay for needed maintenance, repairs, or energy efficiency improvements. Themaximum amount for the loan program is $20,000 per household, and the interest rate is zeropercent. The loans are not required to be repaid until the homeowner sells the home or transfers thetitle. Energy efficiency improvements identified during a required home performance audit arequalified for a grant of up to $5,000.

Staff and the program consultant have actively advertised the program, and have received numerousinquiries from the public. Currently, two applications are in the construction phase and threeapplications are in the review process. Staff anticipates that the program budget will be expended bythe end of the fiscal year.



Senior Case Management: $20,486

The Senior Case Management Program provides individual case management services to seniorsover the age of 55, who reside in Claremont. Staff and the program consultant assist clients with avariety of age-related concerns, including Social Security, Medicare, Medical, SSI, HMO’s, and long-term care, by providing information, referrals, and on-going case management. Clients receive one-on-one interaction to ensure comfort and confidentiality. The Senior Case Management Programalso serves as a gateway to a number of other social service programs that are offered by theClaremont Senior Program, such as the Nutrition Program, Phone Assurance Line, and varioussupport groups. The program serves an average of eighty on-going cases that require individualizedassistance. Additionally, the program provides support to over 1,900 individuals with one-timeinquiries for information and referral assistance. The program provides twenty hours of support to thecommunity each week with regular on-site office hours at the Joslyn Center, Monday throughThursday, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Participation in this program has been consistent.

The full cost of the Senior Case Management Program for 2017-18 is budgeted at $31,204. FederalCDBG guidelines limit funding for public service programs to a maximum of fifteen percent of totalCDBG allocations. As the annual CDBG allocation has been continuously adjusted, the budget forthe Senior Case Management Program has been adjusted correspondingly. As a result, the GeneralFund is budgeted to subsidize the program in 2018-19 in the amount of $10,718.

Job Creation and Business Incentive Program: $56,091

In September 2009, the City Council approved the Job Creation and Business Incentive Program,which provides assistance to new or expanding businesses in the form of forgivable loans. Inexchange, the assisted business must create one permanent, full-time equivalent (FTE) incomeeligible position per every $25,000 in funding, in which the hired employee must be from anextremely low- to moderate-income household. The City Council has approved ten loan requests(Casa Moreno, Hip Kitty Jazz and Fondue, the Packing House Wine Merchants, Loving Hut, Bardot,50/Fifty Asian Fusion Cuisine, Hendricks Pharmacy, Elvira’s, Ecoterra Holistic Health, and The MeatCellar) since the adoption of this program. Staff has approved two applicants this fiscal year and iscurrently working with two prospective applicants.

With the elimination of the Claremont Redevelopment Agency, this program represents the onlyfunding currently available for economic development, and therefore, staff recommends this programbe continued into 2018-19.



Council Priorities - This item does not directly relate to the Council Priority List.

Sustainability Plan - This item complies with the Sustainability Plan’s Housing and EconomicSustainability Goal 6.1 (“achieve and maintain a mix of affordable, livable and green housing typesthroughout the City for people of all socio-economic/cultural/household groups”) and Goal 6.2(“Promote neighborhood identity and conservation of individual neighborhood character,” whichincludes encouragement of proper maintenance of homes).



Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not directly relate to the Economic SustainabilityPlan.

General Plan - This item relates to many General Plan goals, policies, and programs such as:

Encourage the conservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. (Policy 2-1.2)

Pursue new developments and businesses that add to the City’s economic base, particularly thosethat generate sales tax and property tax increment revenue. (Policy 3-1.4)

Ensure integration and participation of seniors in mainstream community life through accessiblesocial services. (Goal 7-6)

Continue to offer the Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program for lower- and moderate-income homeowners in need of financial assistance to make necessary home repairs. (HousingProgram #1)

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Community Development Department Work Plan Goal CD-2(“continue implementation of the General Plan”).


CEQA REVIEW

This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (theactivity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)excludes “[t]he creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activitieswhich do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentiallysignificant physical impact on the environment” from its definition of “project.”

Even if this activity were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the approval of the annual CDBG budget, as well as the individualprograms identified within the budget (i.e., the senior case management services, the rehabilitation ofhousing, and the creation of jobs) in and of themselves will have a significant effect on theenvironment. On its own, this action will not result in or lead to a significant physical change inClaremont.







Attachment:CDBG Program Background



CDBG PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Federal Objectives

The primary objective of the CDBG Program is “the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income” (24CFR570.2). There are also three national objectives for the program that, to the maximum extent possible, the use of funds is to attempt to attain. The first two objectives are to benefit people from extremely low- to moderate-income households and to aid in the prevention of slums or blight. The third objective is for the funds to be used for activities that the recipient certifies are designed to meet other community development needs that have particular urgency, because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available (e.g. earthquake recovery). Eligible Beneficiaries To implement the primary objectives of the program, not less than 60 percent of a City’s block grant funds must be used to benefit persons and families of extremely low- to moderate-income. In addition, 51 percent of the beneficiaries of each individual project and program must be extremely low- to moderate-income. Extremely low- to moderate-income households are defined as those having incomes of less than 80 percent of the county median income. For a family of four in Los Angeles County, the current income limit is $72,100. In geographic areas where at least 51 percent of the residents have extremely low- to moderate-incomes (“Target Areas”), all CDBG activities are presumed to benefit people with extremely low- to moderate-incomes. For example, public improvements, such as new sidewalks or streetlights, are only eligible if they take place in CDBG Target Areas. Claremont does not have any target areas that meet the 51 percent requirement. In addition, all persons within the following groups are presumed to be of extremely low- to moderate-income for purposes of the block grant: abused children, the elderly, battered spouses, homeless, and disabled adults. Therefore, any program or activity targeted specifically to one of these groups is considered eligible. Public Service Programs Public service programs – such as counseling, child care, or job training – are eligible as long as they meet the extremely low- to moderate-income objective. The amount of CDBG funds allocated in any given funding year to support public service programs must not exceed 15 percent of the total CDBG grant awarded to the City for that year. Eligible Activities

ATTACHMENT

The following is a list of some of the activities that are eligible to be funded with CDBG funds. Although these items are considered eligible, they must still pass the test of meeting one of the three federal objectives as described in the first section of this attachment.

• Acquisition of property for public purposes

• Improvement or construction of public facilities (e.g. streets, sidewalks)

• Removal of architectural barriers (ADA improvements)

• Housing rehabilitation

• Historic preservation

• Public services

• Business assistance resulting in job creation

ATTACHMENT


Agenda Report



TO: CITY COUNCIL

FROM: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER


City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

CITY MANAGER TARA SCHULTZ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

SUMMARY

After Tony Ramos announced his intention to retire as City Manager, effective December 28, 2017,the City Council directed Mr. Ramos to begin a recruitment for Claremont’s next City Manager. Therecruitment began September 12, 2017. A total of 37 applicants applied for the position and sixcandidates were interviewed by a panel of community members and a panel of professionals. Fromthis interview process, two finalists interviewed with the City Council on December 6, 2017 and,ultimately, Tara Schultz was selected as the next City Manager.

The City Council directed City Manager Ramos to negotiate the terms of an employment agreementwith Ms. Schultz for the position of City Manager. The terms and conditions of the employmentagreement are outlined below, with an effective date of February 5, 2018.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Tara Schultz as CityManager effective February 5, 2018, and approve the City Manager Employment Agreementbetween the City of Claremont and Tara Schultz.


In addition to the staff recommendation, there are the following alternatives:

· Do not adopt the attached resolution.



FINANCIAL REVIEW

The annual cost of the City Manager employment agreement is estimated at $314,056, includingsalary ($211,000), CalPERS retirement ($64,224), health benefit cafeteria allowance ($15,528),deferred compensation ($12,000), auto allowance ($5,400), and Medicare, life insurance, and long-term disability insurance benefits ($5,904). These costs are included in the City’s operating budget.

The cost to complete the recruitment process, negotiate and prepare the employment agreement,and complete this report are estimated to be $17,884. These costs include staff time allocated to therecruitment, and are included in the operating budget of the Administrative Services Department.

ANALYSIS

The City Council authorized City Manager Ramos to carry out a competitive recruitment process forthe next City Manager. A total of 37 applicants applied for the position. These candidates werescreened down to the top six contenders who were invited to interviews before two oral boardsconsisting of community members and a professional panel. From there, the top two candidatesrecommended by both oral boards were invited to interview with the City Council on December 6,2017. Ms. Schultz was unanimously recommended by the City Council and direction was given to Mr.Ramos to negotiate an employment agreement with Ms. Schultz. Ms. Schultz is currently theAssistant City Manager of the City of Alhambra, and has been with Alhambra for the last eighteenyears. Ms. Schultz has overseen many projects, programs, and departments during her tenure inAlhambra and brings with her a wealth of knowledge and experience in municipal government.

The City Manager is employed by contract as approved by the City Council. The City Attorney hasreviewed the proposed City Manager Employment Agreement with Ms. Schultz (“Exhibit”), which setsforth the compensation, duties, and other terms and conditions that would apply to Ms. Schultz’semployment with the City of Claremont. The agreement contains the terms and conditions that wereauthorized by the City Council and negotiated by City Manager Ramos.

The relevant terms of the City Manager Employment Agreement are as follows:

Term: 3 Years (February 5, 2018 - February 5, 2021)Salary: $211,000 plus same cost of living adjustments given to other

Department Head employeesDeferred Compensation: $1,000 per monthCalPERS: Ms. Schultz will pay (7%) of her member contribution for PERS

recruitment benefitsAuto: $450 per monthHealth/Dental/Vision: $1,294 per monthSeverance: 6 months for termination without cause and eligibility for Chief

Executives’ Separation Payment (CESP) through the CaliforniaJoint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)

If the City Council accepts the terms as set forth in this report and the City Manager EmploymentAgreement, the City Council will need to adopt the resolution appointing Ms. Schultz to the position ofCity Manager and approving the City Manager Employment Agreement. If the terms are notacceptable to the City Council, further direction should be given to City Manager Ramos.





Council Priorities - This item does not address Council Priorities.



General Plan - This item does not relate to Measures in the General Plan.

2016-18 Budget - This item is consistent with the 2016-18 budget.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not relate to objectives in the Youth and FamilyMaster Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed resolutionappointing Tara Schultz as City Manager effective February 5, 2018, and approving a City ManagerEmployment Agreement are not subject to environmental review. Under State CEQA guidelines,Section 15378(b)(2), continued administrative activities and maintenance activities for personnel-related actions are not CEQA projects. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA does notapply to this action because there is no potential for this personnel action to cause a significant effecton the environment. Therefore, no CEQA review is review is required for this action.




Tony Ramos Jeremy SwanCity Manager Personnel Services Manager

Attachment:Proposed Resolution




A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING TARA SCHULTZ AS CITY MANAGER EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 5, 2018, AND APPROVING A CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Tara Schultz is qualified to serve as the City Manager of the City of Claremont effective February 5, 2018; and WHEREAS, Interim City Manager Tony Ramos has negotiated the terms and conditions of a City Manager Employment Agreement with Tara Schultz, consistent with direction provided by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the attached City Manager Employment Agreement which sets forth compensation, duties and other terms and conditions which shall apply to Tara Schultz’s employment as City Manager; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Claremont Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, the City Council desires to appoint Tara Schultz as City Manager effective February 5, 2018, as well as to approve the City Manager Employment Agreement attached to this resolution as “Exhibit” and incorporated herein by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. Appointment of City Manager. The City Council appoints Tara Schultz as City Manager of the City of Claremont as of 7:00 a.m. on February 5, 2018. SECTION 2. Approval of City Manager Employment Agreement. The City Council approves the City Manager Employment Agreement attached hereto as “Exhibit” between the City of Claremont and Tara Shultz. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2018.

__________________________________ Mayor, City of Claremont

ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk, City of Claremont APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ City Attorney, City of Claremont

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT


Agenda Report




FROM: ANNE K. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN SERVICES


City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

HOMELESS SERVICES UPDATE

SUMMARY

On October 11, 2016, City staff presented a homeless services update to the City Council. As part ofthis update, Human Services staff emphasized that the system of homeless services had becomeincreasingly difficult to navigate. The City’s Homeless Program, also known as the CollaborativeCommunity Response to Claremont Homelessness (CCRCH), has been successful in this difficultenvironment connecting people to services through a super referral service, even those who areinitially resistant to services.

In addition to responding to and addressing the needs of those who are homeless, a key philosophyof the CCRCH is trying to keep people in housing. The objective of the CCRCH is working withhomeless individuals to separate them from the mentality that they will always be homeless. Throughthe development of trusting relationships and continued interaction, staff is able to connectindividuals to the resources and services they need including the Coordinated Entry System (CES).The City works with partners like the Claremont Homeless Advocacy Program (CHAP) to connectindividuals to programming and advocacy, as well as CES.

This report will provide an update on the progress of the CCRCH over the past year, as well as anupdate on the current work being done to combat homelessness at a regional level.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends:A. That the City Council receive and file the Homeless Services Update; andB. That the Mayor appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to examine homelessness in Claremont,

homeless prevention, and ways to engage further community studies of the CollaborativeCommunity Response to Claremont Homelessness.





A. Reject the recommendation.B. Request additional information from staff.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

Per the City Council’s approval of the Community and Human Services Commission’s CommunityBased Organization (CBO) Grant Program’s funding recommendation on April 26, 2016, $60,000 isallocated to fund homeless services provided by local service providers in efforts to provideresources and services for the CCRCH.

On October 23, 2017, the City of Claremont was selected by the Home for Good FundersCollaborative and County Homeless Initiative for the City Homeless Planning Grant for a conditionalaward of $30,000. This will come before the City Council for the acceptance and approval of thegrant contract at the January 23, 2018 meeting.

The activities of the CCRCH have been absorbed into the budgets of the Human Services and PoliceDepartments. The staff cost to prepare this report and administer the program is estimated at$14,061, and is included in the operating budgets of the Human Service Department and PoliceDepartment.

ANALYSIS

As the focus of homelessness has increased over the course of the past five years, so has theurgency to address this very complex issue. For the first time in history, there has been fundingallocated to provide comprehensive services and prevention for the homeless population through thehistoric passage of Measure H.

In March 2017, Los Angeles County voters were introduced to Measure H, the sales tax measure thatwould fund specific services and programs that comply with the “Approved Strategies to CombatHomelessness.” At its June 14, 2016 meeting, the City Council specifically approved to partner withthe County on the following five strategies (Attachment A):

· E4: First Responders Training

· E5: Decriminalization Policy

· E10: Regional Coordination of LA County Homeless Authorities

· F1: Promote Regional SB 2 Compliance and Implementation

· F5: Incentive Zoning/Value Capture Strategies

The City, in conjunction with its CBO partners and the Claremont Unified School District, plans toopen discussions about creating a structure and framework for preventing individuals and familiesfrom becoming homeless in Claremont, through programs which are currently funded by the CBOprogram.

2017 City Homelessness Planning Grant

Through the historic passage of Measure H, funding is set aside to allow cities to implementCLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 2 of 9


Through the historic passage of Measure H, funding is set aside to allow cities to implementhomeless measures and plan according to their specific needs. On September 15, 2017, the Citysubmitted a funding application for the Homeless Planning Grant through the Measure H Initiative.

On October 23, 2017, the City of Claremont was awarded $30,000 in grant monies. The City willutilize the funding to engage a consultant through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments(SGVCOG). The consultant will identify gaps and create metrics to measure the impact ofprogramming. Based on the findings, the consultant will recommend changes to the program toimprove services to homeless in the Claremont community.

The Measure H City Homeless Planning Grant acceptance and the contract with the County, as wellas a Memorandum of Understanding with the SGVCOG will come back to the City Council forconsideration on January 23, 2018.

Identifying Gaps with Measure H City Homeless Planning Grant Funding

With the monies from the Measure H City Homeless Planning Grant, the City will be able tostrengthen the CCRCH to fill in gaps that have already been identified, such as utilizing theconsultant to measure the success, follow up with individuals recorded in the homeless log from theinitial point of interaction through the services they receive, and finally at their access into the CES.

Furthermore, CCRCH could be moved forward with greater efficiency if there was an ability tocontinuously track the homeless log and follow up with each individual as they receive services fromour partners such as Tri-City Mental Health Services and/or Volunteers of America (VOA). Thesupport would also be able to assist staff with overseeing the Measure H monies received.

The City of Claremont is known for strong collaboration with community partners and countyagencies. It is these strong partnerships that will create a net of support for Claremont’s homelesspopulation.

The CCRCH

While the services available to homeless individuals in the City have not changed, the CCRCH isdesigned to help individuals connect more efficiently to services through a “super referral system”.

The City has developed and assumed the philosophy of offering a “hand up into services, instead ofa hand out,” when working with the chronically homeless. This philosophy asserts that instead ofgiving money to panhandlers and purchasing food for homeless individuals, that communitymembers support nonprofits that have structured programs and gateways into the CES, thus allowingthe individual homeless person to accept responsibility, connect to shelter, jobs, and possible familyreunification.

New actions can be taken as a result of increased data and funding for resources to supporthomeless individuals. If the Mayor chooses to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee, staff recommends thisCommittee examine the homeless issue in Claremont, the data collected thus far through theCCRCH, and begin an educational campaign Citywide about the “hand up into services, and not ahand out” philosophy. This Ad Hoc Committee will then provide recommendations about how tomaximize the collaborative work with nonprofit partners and County agencies to increase theexpansion of the City program and strengthen the Claremont community’s philosophy in addressinghomelessness.



Some of the initial framework has been implemented, including, but are not limited to, updating theCity’s Resources for Persons in Need Brochure (Attachment B), the Claremont Community HomelessSummit, strengthening the working relationships of the collaborative partners, building relationshipswith individuals who seek services, and sustaining the City’s Community Emergency Fund.

Tools and Deliverables of the CCRCH

Partners

The Human Services and Police Departments continue to effectively work together in a collaborativepartnership along with local service providers.

The Police Department has become an integral partner and resource to the community because theyare first responders. In the past year, the Police Department has participated in trainings that focusedon areas of mental health, such as the intensive one-hour mental health training presented by Tri-CityMental Health Services, as well as a comprehensive eight-hour, department wide, Platform,Efficiency, Proficiency (P.E.P.) training. The training focused on conduct with potentially hostileindividuals, while using a “capture, not combat” ideology.

The City continues to work with the Claremont Unified School District, Inland Valley Hope Partners,Tri-City Mental Health Services, Volunteers of America (VOA), Claremont Homeless AdvocacyProgram (CHAP), and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA).

Homeless Log

The Human Services and Police Departments developed an internal homeless log to keep track ofthe incidents with homeless individuals in the city, in real time. If City staff, partners, or the communitycall upon the Human Services Department regarding an incident with a homeless individual, staff willrecord the report date, incident date, name of the homeless individual, reporting person, witnesses,location, time, incident, VOA/Tri-City involvement, and comments. In addition, the City was able toreceive support this year from Tri-City Mental Health Services and gained an outreach representativewho conducts office hours at the Alexander Hughes Community Center every Tuesday and Thursday.She supports staff by reviewing the entries of the homeless log and venturing out into the hot spots inthe community to identify and assist homeless individuals to obtain services from Tri-City MentalHealth Services.

In 2016, there were 97 entries, many of whom were repeat encounters with the same individual. Todate, the total number of incidents recorded in 2017 is 88 entries. It is important to note that this yearhas not concluded and there may be additional entries that have not been accounted for. Thefollowing table will show an example of the incident report on the log:



In October 2017, one homeless woman that staff has been working with for the last two and a halfyears to receive mental health services and has been in the homeless log on more than fortyoccasions, became a client of Tri-City Mental Health Services. Staff will continue to work with Tri-CityMental Health Services to follow the success of the individual.

Furthermore, the homeless log also monitors the Field Interview (FI) cards that the PoliceDepartment issues during encounters with homeless persons in the field. The following table showsthe numbers of homeless FI cards recorded during each month during the past year:

Homeless Count 2017

The City of Claremont continues to participate in the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s(LAHSA) annual Homeless Count to get an approximation of how many homeless individuals arewithin the City. Over the past few years of the Homeless Count participation, the City has reported adecline in the number of homeless individuals. The following table shows the numbers during thepast three years:



While there is no support for a direct correlation between the CCRCH program and the decrease inidentified homeless during the Homeless Count, as long as the City has engaged this super referralservice, the numbers have been going down.

Staff continues to work closely with LAHSA to identify hot spots in the community. Depending on theweather and other variables including convenience, oftentimes, homeless individuals retreat to visibleplaces in the community, which includes City parks, the Village, shopping plazas along FoothillBoulevard, the I-10 freeway, and near the industrial businesses at Foothill Boulevard and Monte VistaAvenue. These hot spots will be taken into heavy consideration during the homeless count in 2018.

Utilizing the information from the City’s hot spots, homeless logs and the Homeless Count allows theCity to better connect individuals to service providers through the collaborative partnership withgreater efficiencies. It is important to keep in mind that the Homeless Count provides only a point-in-time count. It provides a general number for one day. While these numbers are helpful to consider,the ongoing work through the CCRCH program is the most reliable source of data on homelessactivity in the City of Claremont.

Claremont Community Homeless Summit

On October 23, 2017, the City of Claremont, in partnership with the Claremont Chamber ofCommerce, hosted a Community Homeless Summit (Attachment C). The Summit was intended toprovide residents, business owners, and community members the effective tools to communicatedifficult dialogue, engage and strengthen their understanding of supportive services, as well ascoordinate resources with homeless residents.

There were over seventy individuals in attendance at the Summit. The panel consisted of expertsfrom the Claremont Homeless Advocacy Program (CHAP), Volunteers of America (VOA), Tri-CityMental Health Clinic, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), as well as theClaremont Human Services and Police Departments. The experts touched on their areas of expertiseand educated the audience on legislation and policies, as well as what is being done to addresshomelessness in the local community and regionally.

Participants were able to break out into small groups during the second half of the Summit and speakto the panelists individually regarding priorities and/or concerns they may have regarding the issue.Brochures and pamphlets, including a new Fact Sheet Infographic (Attachment D) were among theliterature that was provided for individuals to take home.

It is the intent of the CCRCH to connect as many individuals as possible to services and resources.While implementing the CCRCH, it is clear that some of these individuals are reluctant and do notwant the assistance that is offered. The CCRCH has shown the capability to build a network andtaskforce of partners, which allows staff to work to facilitate and cultivate compassionate relationshipswith homeless individuals, which ultimately builds trust. With time and trust, homeless individualsmay be connected with agencies when they are ready to accept the services.



Future of the CCRCH

As the City begins its work with a consultant through the SGVCOG, City staff will continue to activelypursue, educate, and engage the community in its effort to bolster the CCRCH to become aninnovative example for other cities to replicate throughout the region.

The City will begin to examine the key reasons to the unseen homeless population in the City ofClaremont. This includes families that are sharing residences with other families, children andparents that are living in long-term hotels on Foothill Boulevard, many of whom attend ClaremontUnified School District schools. In this respect, staff will continue to work with the Claremont UnifiedSchool District to obtain data on homeless children who attend the Claremont schools.

In 2018, the Police and Human Services Departments will activate an education campaign in thecommunity to reinforce the “hand up into services, instead of a hand out” philosophy. The City willwork with local merchants and residents seeking support for the nonprofit organizations that workdirectly with the homeless.

The City realizes that the magnitude of the homeless issue means that it will take time and require acomprehensive strategy to effectively combat the issue and educate the Claremont community on thehidden homeless population and engage the community in efforts to address the cause andconditions of homelessness.

Ultimately, the programs and educative tools demonstrated by the CCRCH will be able to address theunseen homeless. The homeless residents on our streets are only the visible tip of an unseeniceberg.

The flexibility of the CCRCH program allows it to be modified and strengthened to address many ofthe various aspects of homelessness and the Ad Hoc Committee can help provide direction to stafffor the next iteration of the program



Council Priorities and Policies - At its 2016 Priority Workshop, the City Council stated they place ahigh priority on maintaining the quality of life for all Claremont residents. The City Council iscommitted to supporting programs and services that positively impact Claremont residents, such asthe CBO Program.

Sustainability Plan - This item does not directly apply to the goals of the Sustainability Plan.

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not directly apply to the recommendations outlinedin the Economic Sustainability Plan.

General Plan - This item addresses the following measures relating to various programs delineatedin the General Plan and furthers the goals of the CBO and Homeless Programs:



Youth and Family Master Plan

I-45: The plan serves as a guideline for improving services available to the City’s youth and familiesby delivering safe and constructive programs.

I-47: Financial Support for Community and Human Services ProgramsContinue to grant need-based financial support to youth from low-income families and other low-income residents participating in Community and Human Services Programs.

I-50: Senior Master PlanFacilitates successful aging through community senior programs and services for both independentseniors and the frail elderly, and provides information on available resources for all seniors.

I-64: Homeless AssistanceThe City provides funding and referrals to local non-profit organizations that have expertise inassisting homeless persons and families. Assistance may include food, shelter, and transitionalservices.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the following City Manager and Human Service Departmentgoals:

CM-8: Facilitate and create meaningful partnerships with community-based organizations and othercities.

HS-10: Work closely with service providers including the Claremont Unified School District, Tri-CityMental Health, the Claremont Library, community-based organizations, and/or the community to buildpartnerships and coordinate programs and services.

HS-24: Address the needs of the homeless community by working in conjunction with the PoliceDepartment and local service providers.

HS-25: Work to provide a better quality of life for the community through the effective collaborationwith other City departments.

CEQA REVIEW

This update is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct orreasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (theactivity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2)excludes “[c]ontinuing administrative ... activities, such as ... general policy and procedure making”and Section 15378(b)(5) excludes “[o]rganizational or administrative activities of governments thatwill not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment” from its definition of “project.”

Even if this update were a “project,” it would be exempt from environmental review under CEQAGuidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have thepotential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty thatthere is no possibility that the informational update on the City’s homeless services, in and of itself,will have a significant effect on the environment. On its own, this action will not result in any physicalCLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 8 of 9


will have a significant effect on the environment. On its own, this action will not result in any physicalchanges to the environment.


At its December 6, 2017 meeting, the Community and Human Services Commission unanimouslyvoted to receive and file the Homeless Services Update and forward to the City Council to receiveand file.




Anne K. Turner Viola VanHuman Services Director Management Analyst

Attachments:A - June 14, 2016 City Council Agenda ReportB - Resources for Persons in Need BrochureC - Claremont Community Homeless Summit FlyerD - Fact Sheet Infographic



jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A

1. Adopted as CC Reso 2016-35.

Youth Crisis Hotlines

Substance Abuse

Notes

City of Claremont City Hall (909) 399-5460

Police (909) 399-5411

Human Services (909) 399-5490

County Information Line

Dial 211 or (800) 339-6993 (800) 660-4026 TDD

www.211la.org

About 2-1-1: 24 hour 7 day a week referral to community services in Los Angeles County

including emergency shelter, disability, welfare, emergency food, legal referrals, senior services,

rehabilitation, and many more.

Claremont Homeless Advocacy Program (CHAP) –

(909) 624-9114

Shelter and homeless services

Foothill Family Shelter (Upland) – (909) 920-0453 1501 W. 9th Street, Suite D, Upland, CA 91786 Housing programs, employment services, child enrichment, case management and therapy

House of Ruth – (909) 623-4364

Hotline: (877) 988-5559

P.O. Box 459, Claremont, CA 91711

For victims of domestic violence, housing assistance, career counseling, Cal Works case management, community education, on-site daycare, legal advocacy.

Inland Valley Hope Partners –

(909) 622-3806 ext. 234

1753 N. Park Ave., Pomona, CA 91768

Food security program, healthy living programs and housing programs

Mon – Thurs 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Call between 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

American Recovery Center – (909) 865-233

2180 Valley Blvd., Pomona, CA 91768

Medical detoxification, resident input treatment, outpatient treatment, mental health treatment, prevention and youth services

Pomona Crisis Center – (909) 623-1588

240 E. Monterey Ave, Pomona, CA 91768

Substance abuse treatment services, outpatient treatment National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence - (800) 622-2255

4626 N. Grand Ave., Covina, CA 91724

Individual/group counseling, interventions, drinking driver treatment program, domestic violence diversion

Prototypes – (909) 624-1233 (for Women)

845 E. Arrow Hwy., Pomona, CA 91767

Addiction, domestic violence, and mental illness

Victory Outreach – (909) 865-0373

177 W. Monterey Ave, Pomona, CA 91767

Recovery Home

Revised 4/4/2017

California Youth 24 Hour Crisis Line

(Confidential Hotline) (800) 843-5200

National Runaway Safeline

(800) 786-2929

24/7 Hotline

National Human Trafficking Hotline

(888) 373-7888

Resources For Persons in Need

sdesaute

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B

Mental Health

Medical Assistance

CLOTHING

Purpose Church – (909) 629-5277, ext. 3014

209 W. Pearl St., Pomona, CA 91768

Tues: 9:00am – 10:30am

Limited supply available

Hot meal every 3rd Saturday at 4:00 p.m.

Clothing and haircuts 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

FOOD SOURCE

7th Day Adventist Church – (909) 629-0106

1921 N. Garey Ave., Pomona, CA 91767

1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

(11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.)

Beta Center/Hunger Program

209 W. Pearl Ave., Pomona, CA 91766 Mon –

Fri / Lunes – Viernes

Arrive at 9:00 a.m. or 3:00 p.m.

Food pantry with proof of residence, income and ID of

everyone in household,

Homeless with ID

New Life Community Church

275 E. Foothill Blvd., Pomona, CA 91767

Office hours: Tues – Thurs 9am – 5pm Fridays: 9 a m - 1 2 p m

Food Pantry: Friday’s at 4:00 p.m.

Helping Hands Ministry

480 W Monterey Ave, Pomona, CA 91767

Food Pantry: Sunday’s at 3:00pm

In connection with New Life Community Church

Pomona Valley Christian Center – (909) 868-1920

1006 S. Garey Ave., Pomona, CA 91766

Breakfast: Mon-Fri 7:30 a.m.–8:30 a.m./Sat: 8:30 a.m.

Dinner: 3rd Saturday of the month @ 3:00 p.m.

Salvation Army – (909) 623-1579, ext. 201

490 E. La Verne, Pomona, CA 91767

Mon, Wed, Fri: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. &

1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Tues & Thurs: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Bus tokens, food bank, clothing

Society of St. Vincent De Paul – (909) 469-9773

(behind St. Joseph Catholic Church)

1150 W. Holt Pomona, CA 91766

Food Pantry and Clothes closet can go twice a

month, rent assistance

Mon – Fri 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Sowing Seeds for Life – (909) 293-7735,

1350 Arrow Hwy., La Verne, CA 91750

1st & 3rd Wednesday each month

(1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.)

2nd Friday of each month

(12:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.)

JOB ASSISTANCE

Pomona Economic Opportunity Center – (909) 397-4215

1682 W. Mission Blvd., Pomona, CA 91766

Mon – Sat: 6:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

GAIN– (909) 392-3008 2255 N. Garey Ave, Pomona, CA 91767 Business Development, advocacy, work force development

America’s Job Center of California – Goodwill (909) 242-7999

264 E. Monterey Ave., Pomona, CA 91767 Monday – Friday 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles – (800) 433-6251

Choices – (909) 258-9272

3560 W. Temple Ave., #H, Pomona, CA 91768

Free pregnancy testing, confidential conversations, information

and options, abortion information

East Valley Community Health – (909) 620-8088

1555 S. Garey Ave, Pomona, CA 91766

Mon – Thurs 8:00am – 8:00pm

Fri – Sat 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Parktree Community Health Center – (909) 622-6216

750 S. Park Ave., Pomona, CA 91768

Village location – (909) 630-7927

1450 E. Holt Ave., Pomona 91767

Free immunizations, TB treatment, STD testing and

treatment – Must show LA County residency

David & Margaret Youth and Family Services

Janet Oroco: (909) 596-5921, ext. 3153

Michael Miller: (909) 596-5921, ext. 3500

NAMI – (909) 399-0305 – Local Hotline Helpline: (800) 950-6264 – National Hotline

Information and referral

Project Sister – (909) 626-4357 – Hotline Number

Support for survivors of rape or sexual molestation

Tri-City Mental Health – (909) 623-9500

2008 N. Garey Ave, Pomona, CA 91767

Shelter Resources

The Los Angeles County Coordinated Entry System (CES)

streamlines the process of finding housing for those

who are homeless. In 2014, Union Station Homeless

Services was selected by the United Way of Greater

Los Angeles as a Lead Agency to manage the efforts of

more than 40 social services agencies throughout the

San Gabriel Valley. These services include street out-

reach, housing navigation and care coordination; help

people experiencing chronic homelessness locate and

collect their documents, find permanent homes, and

stay housed for good.

As part of this effort, the Volunteers of America

(VOA) Pomona location has been assigned as the City

of Claremont’s subcontractor to this Coordinated En-

try System. Please contact VOA if you need assistance

at the phone numbers below:

Reggie Clark: 909-593-4796

Daniel Cole: 213-220-7299

2040 N. Garey Ave. Pomona, CA, 91767

Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Monday, October 23, 2017 | 6:00 p.m.

Alexander Hughes Community Center | 1700 Danbury Road | Claremont

Professional Panel

Ann Marie Sullivan

Claremont Homeless Advocacy Program (CHAP)

Reggie Clark, Program Manager

Volunteers of America (VOA)

Gilbert Saldate, Outreach & Housing Mngr.

Shawn Smith, Support Team Supervisor

Tri-City Mental Health Clinic

Shelly Vander Veen, Chief of Police

Anne K. Turner, Director of Human Services

City of Claremont

Daniella Alcedo, Regional Coordinator SPA3

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA)

Facilitator

Joseph M. Lyons, City Council Member

City of Claremont

“Be a Part of the Solution!”

The City of Claremont

in partnership with the

Claremont Chamber of Commerce,

will host a free Community

Homeless Summit. Business

owners and community members

will be able to learn and obtain

resources from a panel of

experts on how to assist homeless

individuals and families within our

community.

The City of Claremont and the Claremont Chamber of Commerce

Presents

RSVP ENCOURAGED:

(909) 399-5356 | [email protected]

sdesaute

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT C

CITY OF CLAREMONT COMMUNITY HOMELESS SUMMIT

FACT SHEET: COLLABORATIVE HOMELESS RESPONSE TO CLAREMONT HOMELESSNESS

First Responder Training (E4)

Decriminalization Policy (E5)

Regional Coordination (E10)

Promote Regional SB 2 Compliance

and Implementation (F1)

Incentive Zoning/Value Capture

Strategies (F5)

COLLABORATIVESTRATEGIES OF THECOUNTY HOMELESS

INITIATIVE

In response to the homeless crisis, the City of

Claremont has taken a proactive role in its response.

The Human Services and Police Departments work to

administer homeless services through collaboration and

a coordinated entry system to streamline access to

services, maximize resources, and encourage

partnerships to strengthen

the community's response.

COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS OF THEHUMAN SERVICES & POLICE DEPARTMENTS

The program is designed to

assist the Claremont homeless

population through enhanced

collaborative partnerships

between the Claremont Police

Department, Human Services

Department, and local service

providers

The City of Claremont is dedicated

to helping the homeless community

and continues to implement its

Collaborative Community Response

to Claremont Homelessness since

its inception in 2015.

Although the City of Claremont does not

offer direct services to homeless individuals,

the Collaborative Community Response to

Homelessness has been designed to be a

"Super Referral" service.

For the first time in history, there is funding

available to be allocated to fund programs

that provide shelter, housing, and services

GOALS & PURPOSE

1ST TIME IN HISTORY!

BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION!Would you like to help someone in need, but don't know where to begin?

Keep these [5] things in mind!

Philosophy: "A Hand Up into Services, not a Hand Out"

[1] Call the City of Claremont Human Services or Police Departments - they are there to

help you!

[2] The City discourages keeping people on the streets - we want to connect

individual/families to services and housing.

[3] Once a homeless individual resides at your residence or business and starts receiving

mail, the individual can then make a case that they are your tenant. Moreover, if you

want them to leave, you will now have to begin an eviction process.

[4] The Claremont Police Department is well trained to assist individuals with mental

health issues or anyone that is in need of help.

[5] This is an ongoing issue! The community must work together to continue to develop and

improve homeless services and partnerships with local service providers!

.

.

sdesaute

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT D


Agenda Report




FROM: ANNE K. TURNER, HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR


City Manager: TRFinance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

CITY HALL TEMPORARY ART INSTALLATION

SUMMARY

In 2015, decay was found in the Red Iron Bark tree in front of City Hall. The tree was replaced with alarge specimen Camphor tree. The Camphor tree looked good for a while and then it began todecline. After several attempts to find a permanent replacement tree, it was decided it would be bestnot to replant another tree in that area. Staff then discussed the idea of adding a piece of public art inthis space with the Public Art Committee (PAC).

The PAC appointed an ad hoc committee to review this item and develop a Request for Proposals(RFP) for a temporary art installation (Attachment A). The PAC approved the RFP at its June 26,2017 meeting (Attachment B) and directed staff to distribute it. On October 4, 2017, the ad hoccommittee met to review the six proposals for the temporary art installation at City Hall. The PAC adhoc committee recommended the proposal from Artist Sijia Chen, a tree inspired sculpture(Attachment C). This recommendation was unanimously approved by the PAC at its meeting onOctober 9, 2017 (Attachment D). At this time, the City Council is being asked to consider therecommendations from the PAC listed below.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council:A. Approve a temporary public art installation at City Hall;B. Appropriate $15,000 from the Public Art Fund ($10,000 for the artist agreement and $5,000 to

prepare the site);C. Direct staff to negotiate with the artist the length of the art loan (minimally eighteen months);

andD. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Sijia Chen in an amount not to

CLAREMONT Printed on 1/4/2018Page 1 of 5powered by Legistar™

exceed $10,000.



A. Reject the recommendation.B. Refer the matter back to the PAC for further study on a permanent art piece, including cost for

the purchase of the permanent artwork.C. Request additional information from staff.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The artist will receive $5,000 for the term of the art loan (a minimum of eighteen months). This is theonly payment for the loan of the artwork. After eighteen months, the City and the artist can agree toextend the loan, but no further compensation will be provided. The City of Claremont will pay fortransportation, delivery, and installation fees not to exceed $5,000.

The PAC has reviewed the site and requested that the current planter be removed and a concretepedestal to display the sculpture be created. The cost for the removal of the planter and pedestalinstallation is approximately $5,000 and would be a one-time expenditure from the Public Art Fund.

The total proposed budget for the City Hall temporary art installation is not to exceed $15,000 and isto be paid from the Public Art Fund. The current balance of the Public Art Fund is approximately$140,000.

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $1,619, and is included in the operating budget ofthe Human Services Department.

ANALYSIS

Background

The Red Iron Bark tree that was in front of City Hall for many years was inspected as part of the CityHall re-landscaping project in 2015. Decay was found in the tree at the junction of the main branchesabout twenty feet up from the base, which was significant enough to pose a risk of a branch failing.The area in front of City Hall is a high traffic area, and due to the increased risk, it was recommendedthe tree be removed. Shortly after the Red Iron Bark tree was removed, the City replaced it with alarge specimen Camphor tree. The Camphor tree looked good for a while but then began to decline.After several attempts to find a permanent replacement tree, it was decided that it would be best notto replant another tree because of the soil in this area. The space did, however, provide a wonderfulopportunity to add public art at City Hall.

The issue was brought to the Public Art Committee, who decided that a rotating installation wouldallow the City to regularly showcase artists, keep art relevant, and to explore different mediums in thespace. After the PAC studied the costs of permanent art, the rental of a temporary piece seemed tobe more financially viable. The PAC did express an interest in buying a permanent piece for thisspace in the future, if the right artwork was found and it was approved by the City Council. If theseconditions were met, the PAC suggested holding fundraising events and writing grants to secure thefunding needed for this type of purchase.



While the artists were made aware of the importance of the piece being site specific, the RFP statedthe piece could be newly fabricated for this installation or could be an existing piece in the artist’scollection.

RFP Review and Artist Selection

Staff released the RFP on September 7, 2017 (Attachment A) with a submission deadline of October2, 2017. Staff received six proposals for the project. The ad hoc committee met on October 4, 2017and selected the proposal from artist Sijia Chen (Attachment C), described as a minimal and abstractinterpretation of a tree trunk. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee was brought to the PACat the October 9, 2017 meeting (Attachment D). There was discussion among the PAC about thewords on the steel panels. The PAC decided to use botanical names of trees found in the City ofClaremont. An image of the proposed piece is below:

The recommendation of the PAC was made in three separate motions. The PAC moved torecommend forwarding the proposal from Artist, Sijia Chen for the City Hall temporary art installationproject to the City Council for approval, the removal of the planter box and installation of a permanentpad for a sculpture, and that botanical names of Claremont trees should be included as the words onthe panels. Staff contacted the artist to confirm she was fabricating the piece and would use thebotanical names supplied by the City, and the artist agreed. The artist informed staff the piece wouldtake twelve weeks to fabricate.

Sijia Chen is a Los Angeles based, multi-disciplinary, visual artist, concentrating in large-scalepainting, sculpture and installation. She received her MFA from Tyler School of Art in 2011 and herBFA from Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts in 2009. She has successfully exhibited her work both inthe United States and internationally.

CEQA

This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or



reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment).

Even if this activity were subject to CEQA, it would be exempt from environmental review underCEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that havethe potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certaintythat there is no possibility that approval of a temporary art installation at City Hall, in and of itself, willhave a significant effect on the environment.

Even if this activity were subject to CEQA, approval of a temporary Public Art Installation at City Hallis categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - ExistingFacilities), Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction of Small Structures) and Section 15304 (Class4 - Minor Alterations to Land). CEQA’s Class 1 categorical exemption allows for the minor alterationof existing public facilities or topographical features with negligible or no expansion to the previouslyapproved facility or topography. The addition of a temporary Public Art Installation at City Hall is aminor alteration of a public facility (City Hall) or topographical feature (the area surrounding City Hall)with no expansion to the building and negligible expansion its surrounding area (i.e., a tree beingreplaced with a sculpture). The Class 3 categorical exemption applies to the construction andlocation of certain new, small structures or facilities, including “[a]ccessory (appurtenant)structures.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e).) To the extent the temporary Public Art Installationis a new “structure” of “facility,” it is an “accessory” or “appurtenant” structure that is categoricallyexempt from CEQA review. The Class 4 categorical exemption applies to minor public alterations inthe condition of land or vegetation that do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees(except for forestry and agricultural purposes).

As noted above, the temporary Public Art Installation would replace a Camphor tree whose health isin decline. The Class 4 exemption specifically includes “[n]ew gardening or landscaping, includingthe replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistantlandscaping.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(b).) including the minor temporary use of landhaving negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, which is what is being proposed.

None of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section15300.2 apply to the proposed project because the proposed project (1) is not located in a uniquelysensitive environment, (2) is not located within a highway officially designated as a state scenichighway, (3) is not located on a hazardous waste site, (4) would not have a cumulative impact, and(5) would not have a significant substantial adverse change in the significance of a historicalresource. Therefore, the Class 1, Class 3, and Class 4 exemptions apply, and the exceptions do not.

Finally, this activity is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significanteffect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approvalof a temporary Public Art Installation at City Hall, in and of itself, will have a significant effect on theenvironment.



Council Priorities - This item addresses the Council Priority of Quality of Life Issues.





General Plan - This item addresses the following General Plan Policies:

Policy 2-5.3: Continue to require public art as a part of new development projects.

Policy 2-7.1: Encourage the use of public art, paved crosswalks, and landscaping to mark entries intothe City.

Policy 2-12.2: Provide benches, streetlights, public art, and other amenities in public areas to attractpedestrian activities.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Human Services Department Work Plan Goal HS-22:Implement the recommendations of the Public Art Master Plan and to coordinate the City’s Public ArtProgram.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the Youth and Family Master Plan.

Public Art Master Plan - This item relates to the Public Art Master Plan in terms of the KeyRecommendations, specifically for seeking permanent project options for public art throughout thecommunity.


The proposed public art installation at City Hall was brought to the PAC on October 9, 2017 and theCommittee unanimously recommended forwarding the proposal from artist Sijia Chen for the City Halltemporary art installation project to the City Council for approval, the removal of the planter box andinstallation of a permanent pad for a sculpture, and that botanical names of Claremont trees shouldbe used as the words on the panels.




Anne K. Turner Melissa VollaroHuman Services Director Human Services Manager

Attachments:A - Request for ProposalsB - Excerpt from the 6/26/17 Public Art Committee MinutesC - Sijia Chen ProposalD - Excerpt from the 10/9/17 Public Art Committee Minutes



Public Art at City Hall RFP City of Claremont Page 1 of 4

CITY OF CLAREMONT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROJECT: CITY HALL TEMPORARY ART INSTALLATION CLAREMONT, CA

DEADLINE: OCTOBER 2, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Claremont invites artists and artist teams to submit proposals for a site- specific outdoor public art installation to be exhibited in front of City Hall in downtown Claremont. This is a very visible public space in Claremont’s bustling village area near the Claremont Colleges, close to museums and the train. Artists all over California are encouraged to apply.

BACKGROUND

The City of Claremont is an incorporated City with a population of over 37,000 residents, located 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Claremont is best known for its tree-lined streets, historic buildings, and college campuses. Over the last couple of years, Claremont’s lovely trees have been impacted by the drought, as many communities have.

The Red Iron Bark tree that was in front of City Hall for many years was inspected as part of the City Hall re-landscaping project in 2015. Decay was found in the tree at the junction of the main branches about 20 feet up from the base, which was significant enough to pose a risk of a branch failing. Because the area in front of City Hall is a high traffic area, and due to the increased risk, it was recommended the tree be removed. Shortly after the Red Iron Bark tree was removed, the City replaced the tree with a large specimen Camphor tree. The tree looked good for a while and then it began to decline. After several attempts to find a permanent replacement tree, it was decided that it would be best not to replant another tree in that area, and instead the City decided that this could be a wonderful opportunity to add public art at City Hall.

The issue was brought to the Public Art Committee, who decided that a rotating installation would allow the City to regularly showcase artists, and support public art in the community. Submitting artists should be aware of the importance of site specificity, engagement with local narratives/history, and appropriate imagery and materials for public space.

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A


PUBLIC ART GOAL AND INTENT The City of Claremont seeks to select artists with artwork or artworks that are either already fabricated or can be fabricated for the purpose of enhancing the aesthetics of the location, and surroundings of City Hall property.

The artist’s work should engage visitors and create a sense of community. Qualified proposals should creatively and thoughtfully keep in mind the history of the site and Claremont in general, the context of the trees relative to the site, and the rich art history and art culture that exists in Claremont.

The ultimate goal is to find an iconic, timeless, and durable handcrafted permanent piece for City Hall.

BUDGET AND TERMS

• The selected artist will receive $5,000 for the term of the art loan.

• The City of Claremont will provide the initial foundation (at approximately 6’x 6’x18”).

• Installation:

o The City of Claremont will pay for transport, delivery and installation fees not to exceed $5,000.

o The City of Claremont will manage installation in order to minimize the logistics for coordinating heavy equipment/lane closures/extra unknown contractors on site.

• The City of Claremont at any time would consider any piece for permanent

selection, at which point a new contract will be made for purchase of the art.

• Artist or artist teams selected should note that their work will be considered on loan to the City of Claremont and will remain on loan to the City of Claremont for no less than 18 months. .

• Artist will need to complete a W-9 form, provide insurance naming the City

of Claremont as additionally insured, and purchase a City of Claremont Business License for $130.

• The City of Claremont reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time.


ARTIST ELIGIBILITY:

Open to all professional visual artists or collaborative artist teams at least 18 years of age, residing in California are eligible to apply. City of Claremont employees including consultants, Public Art Committee members, and City volunteers are ineligible to apply.

The RFP should include the following:

1. Letter of Intent

• Identification of the artist’s name or artist’s team name, address, telephone and email address, and contact person.

2. Statement of Qualifications

• Description of artist’s experience related to completing other public art projects.

3. Proposal

• Description of the type of unique art piece to be developed of this space or a unique piece the artist has already fabricated, which would meet the requirements for this space.

• Provide a visual representation of the proposed artwork transposed on the photograph of the site (provided upon request).

• Professional resumes for principal artist and key members of artist teams.

4. Minimum of three professional references, including names, addresses and phone numbers.

5. Any brochures, examples of previous work, etc.

The successful applicant will be able to articulate past experience developing successful public art projects or other similar work; have an understanding of contemporary public art within an historic community setting; have knowledge of public art trends and resources; and experience working within a public process.

EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF PROPOSALS

The selection committee will be composed of two members of the Public Art Committee and the Arts Coordinator. The selection panel will review proposals and choose three finalists who will be contacted for an interview.

PROJECTED TIMELINE

o October 2, 2017- RFP Deadline o November 2017- RFP Review and finalists chosen. o December 2017 - Contracts completed and logistics meeting o January 2018 - Installation and Artist Reception


SUBMISSION DEADLINE

Proposals are due by 5:00 p.m., Monday, October 2, 2 0 1 7 . Responses received after this date will not be considered.

CONTACT

Please direct questions regarding the Request for Proposals (RFP) to Melissa Vollaro, Human Services Manager, by e-mail at [email protected] or phone at (909) 399-5358.

For mail applications:

CITY OF CLAREMONT Human Services Department Attn: Melissa Vollaro 1700 Danbury Rd. Claremont, CA 91711

EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE CLAREMONT PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE MEETING

Monday, June 26, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.

6. Public Art at City Hall Revised Request for Proposal (RFP)

Chair Croushore provided an oral report on the Public Art at City Hall project. She said the Ad Hoc Committee received several proposals and for various reasons none of the proposals were selected. The Committee reviewed the revised Request for Proposal and a blue-lined version of those revisions was provided. Chair Croushore requested that the Project Description be revised to read, The City of Claremont invites artists and artist teams to submit proposals for a site-specific outdoor public art installation to be exhibited in front of City Hall in downtown Claremont. Remove the word qualifications and replace with the word proposals. Commissioner Worley said it was brought up in the Architectural Commission by some people that were on the Commission when the Public Art Committee was discussed and recommendations where made by the Architectural Commission, that some of the language they created specifically was directed at local artists. Commissioner Worley said there is no specificity as to the artists that would be invited. Director Turner said the selection of artists or any restrictions on artists was specifically removed from the Architectural Commission as a duty and put with the Public Art Committee. She said this Committee has the option to choose whether they want to keep it to local artists, how they define local artists, whether they want to keep it to artists in Southern California, or whether they want to go nationwide. Director Turner said this is the responsibility of the Public Art Committee and not the purview of the Architectural Commission. Committee member Neiuber moved to approve the revised Request for Proposal and authorized staff to distribute it, seconded by Commissioner Worley, and unanimously carried on the following vote:

AYE: Committee members Croushore, Neiuber, Tchalian, Unis, and Commissioner Worley

NOES: Committee member - None ABSENT: Committee members Toovey and Wimbley

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B

CLAREMONT CITY HALL PUBLIC ART

PROPOSAL BY SĲIA CHEN

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

mvollaro

Typewritten Text

jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT C

S I J I A C H E N5633WObservationLane,LosAngeles,[email protected]

City of Claremont September 30, 2017

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to be considered to produce the public art installation to be exhibited in front of Claremont’s City Hall. I am a multi-disciplinary artist, and I currently reside and operate my studio in Los Angeles.

My passion for public art, and my appreciation for Claremont’s rich and vibrant cultural values, is the basis for my application. I have frequently visited Claremont’s historical buildings and cultural venues, and developed a great appreciation for places like the Sumner House, the Santa Fe Depot, and the Claremont Museum of Art. For this project, taking into consideration it will be in an outdoor setting, I wanted to address the significance of trees and citrus plants in defining Claremont’s landscape. My artistic proposal incorporated these symbols of Claremont’s identity, and they are reflected in the concept and essential design elements of the piece. My intent is to acknowledge the history of the project’s location, to encourage interaction and engagement with the public, and to contribute to Claremont’s cultural history and community.

My commitment to public art is reflected in my ongoing work for a public installation commission for Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport in Chaoshan, China. The commission called for several large works to be installed throughout the airport’s public areas, including outdoor spaces. I wanted the pieces to be artistically original yet respectful of the surrounding region’s cultural heritage and values. In addition to my bio, creative proposal, statement of qualifications, and professional references, I have included photographs of my previous works, so that you may hopefully develop a better understanding of my artistic viewpoint for your project.

I welcome and look forward to the opportunity to further discuss with you my application. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Sijia Chen

About Sĳia Chen

Sijia Chen is a multi-disciplinary visual artist concentrating in large-scale painting,

sculpture and installation. Her recent works include the SWA installation and tea tree

sculptures at Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport. She has shown her work in solo

exhibitions at Art and Sustainability, Net Impact Los Angeles, Culver City, CA; Art Museum of

Shantou University, Shantou, China; Fei Gallery, Guangzhou, China; South Bay Contemporary,

San Pedro, CA; Zhou B Art Center, Chicago, IL; Temple Contemporary, Philadelphia, PA; and

group exhibitions in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, U.S. and

China. Several institutions, among them the Goldbach Center, Zurich, Switzerland; the Inside

Out Museum, Beijing, China; Guangdong Art Museum, Guangzhou, China; Shantou University,

Shantou, China; and Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China, have included

Chen’s work in their permanent collections.

Sijia Chen received her MFA from Tyler School of Art in 2011 and her BFA from

Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts in 2009. She currently resides and works in Los Angeles,

CA.

Resume/CVEDUCATION

2011 Master of Fine Arts, Painting, Drawing and Sculpture Department, Tyler School of Art, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

2010 Printmaking Apprentice Training Program, The Fabric Workshop and Museum, Philadelphia, PA

2009 Bachelor of Fine Arts, Painting Department, Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China

SOLO EXHIBITION

2016 Art and Sustainability, Net Impact Los Angeles, Culver City, CA 2014 Sijia Chen, South Bay Contemporary, San Pedro, CA 2014 Playground, Fei Gallery, Guangzhou, China 2013 Home-New Work by Sijia Chen, Art Museum of Shantou University, Guangzhou, China 2011 Wander-Land, Temple Contemporary, Tyler School of Art, Temple University, Philadelphia,

PA 2011 Wet Paint Two: Sijia Chen + Katherine Perryman, Zhou B. Art Center, Chicago, IL

SELECTED GROUP EXHIBITIONS

2017 Entangled Loci, HilbertRaum Gallery, Berlin, Germany 2017 The Collectives, Brand Library, Glendale, CA 2017 Formats, Shugu Museum, Shenzhen, China 2017 Round Two, Durden and Ray, Los Angeles, CA 2017 Formats, Shengshi Chuancheng Museum, Shunde, China 2016 The Newbies, Durden and Ray, Los Angeles, CA 2016 Start, the Abstract Art of China, Art Xiamen, Xiamen, China 2016 Mas Attack X, Fine Art Complex, Tempe, AZ 2015 Chang Jiang International Photography and Video Biennale, Chongqing, China 2015 Stay Under Sea, N+ Space, Shantou, China 2015 Art Bamboo 146, Tokyo, Japan 2014 Beyond the Ocean, Torrance Art Museum, Torrance, CA 2014 Transforming Feminism, South Bay Contemporary, San Pedro, CA 2014 TBD, University of Wisconsin, White Water, WI

2013 Red Point, Art Basel Miami, FL 2013 Homing Pigeon, Gallery Lara Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 2013 Chengdu Biennial, Chengdu, China 2013 Art Nova 100, Beijing, China 2013 Symbiosis Cultural Part Two, 33 Contemporary Gallery, Chicago, IL 2013 Symbiosis Cultural, Tijuana, Mexico 2012 Synergy, Art Space 191, Vienna, Austria 2012 Art-Energy-Future, Regional Museum of Natural Science, Turin, Italy 2011 Baling Hou, Red Point Gallery, Zurich, Switzerland 2011 Baling Hou Continues: Next Generation of Asian Art 2011, Goldbach Center, Zurich,

Switzerland 2011 Woot! Crane Arts, Philadelphia, PA 2011 National Wet Paint Exhibition 2011, Zhou B Art Center, Chicago, IL 2011 Juried Gallery Show, F & N Gallery, Philadelphia, PA 2010 I Heart Art, Wassaic Project, New York, NY 2010 PDA/PDS: Graduate Student Exhibition, Presser Hall, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 2009 Chengdu Biennial, Chengdu, China 2009 Today National Art Student Annual Awards, Today Art Museum, Beijing, China 2008 Left Right China International Art Festival, Left Right Art Zone, Beijing, 2007 Second Art Exhibition by New Generation of Artists in Guangzhou, Guangdong Museum

of Art, Guangzhou, China 2007 Pingyao International Photography Festival, Pingyao, China

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES

2015 Guest Speaker, Tyler School of Art, Philadelphia, PA 2015 Guest Speaker, University of Arts, Philadelphia, PA 2015 Guest Speaker, Ryman Arts, Fullerton, CA 2014-2016 Guest Curator, Ucity Art Museum, Guangzhou, China 2014 Curator, Exchange Exhibitions between Torrance Art Museum, Los Angeles and Ucity Art

Museum, Guangzhou, China 2013 Artist in Residence, Inside Out Museum, Beijing, China 2012-2013 Adjunct Professor, Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, China 2013 Guest Speaker, Cheung Kong School of Art and Design, Shantou University, China 2013 Artist in Residence, Inside Out Museum, Beijing, China 2012 Guest Speaker, International Photographers Association of Los Angeles 2012 Associate Professor, Painting, Nanyang College of Art, Shantou, China 2011-2015 Guest Curator, 33 Contemporary Gallery, Chicago, IL 2010-2012 Guest Curator, Art Museum of Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China 2011 Teaching Assistant, Figurative Drawing, Spring, Tyler School of Art,

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 2011 Guest Speaker, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 2011 Guest Speaker, A.D.12 Artist Association, Shantou, China 2010 Guest Speaker, Shantou Lin Baixin Science and Technology Secondary School,

Shantou,Guangdon, China 2009 Exhibition Assistant and English/Chinese Interpreter, “Cai Guoqiang-Fallen Blossom,”

Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Fabric Workshop and Museum, Philadelphia, PA 2009 Guest Speaker, Nanyang College of Art, Shantou, China

PUBLIC COLLECTIONS

Public Art: Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport, China Museum of Contemporary Art, Chengdu, China Inside Out Museum, Beijing, China Goldbach Center, Zurich, Switzerland Guangdong Museum of Art, Guangzhou, China Inside Out Museum, Beijing, China Art Museum of Shantou` University, Shantou, China University City Art Museum of Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, Guangzhou, China

Professional References Max Presneill

Director of Torrance Art Museum

3320 Civic Center Dr, Torrance, CA 90503

(310) 804-4647

Michael Flanagan

Director, Crossman Gallery

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

950 W Main St, Whitewater, WI 53190

(262)472-5708

Sergio Gomez

Director of Exhibitions at Zhou B Art Center

Founder of Art NXT Level

1029 W 35th St, Chicago, IL 60609

(708) 837-4534

Statement of Qualifications

My interest in the Claremont City Hall Temporary Art Installation is multifold, and is a reflection

of my core values that art should be accessible, interactive, and inspirational.

I apply the following criteria to all of my works: (1) Expresses a clear artistic vision, (2)

Engages the audience, (3) Enriches, is sensitive, and responsive to its surrounding environment,

(4) Is constructed so that its durability and constitution are of a high standard. I consider this

project as an opportunity for the City of Claremont to enrich the public space outside of its City Hall,

and to preserve its cultural heritage. My intent for this installation is to instill and reinforce the

values of community and civic responsibility in the residents of Claremont, while expanding their

awareness and appreciation for contemporary artistic expression.

I highly value the importance of public art installations, and have relished every opportunity

I’ve been given to create works in this specific medium. For my most recent project, I was

commissioned by Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport to create several pieces for permanent

placement throughout the airport’s public spaces. It was essential that the installations not only

reflected my modern artistic viewpoint, but also captured the rich cultural heritage and history of the

region that the airport serviced. The commission was an important milestone, for both the airport

and the residents of the Chaoshan region. It was therefore of the utmost importance that the

installations’ presence was respectful and commensurate to the efforts put into the planning,

design, and construction of the airport itself. I also wanted the installations to uplift the spirits of the

travelers and patrons of the airport. I can relate to and appreciate the significance of the moments

in a person’s life when they pass through an airport, and I wanted to convey and inspire those

same emotions through the installation.

The centerpiece of the commission is an outdoor installation located in front of the main

terminal of the airport, comprised of the three letters S, W, and A, and mounted so that they floated

just above a body of water within a shallow infinity edge pool. The selected letters represent the

three-letter code assigned to the airport by the International Air Transport Association. The letter

structures are about 18 feet tall and constructed out of a steel exterior skin, to ensure durability and

strength, and internally backlit so that they are viewable at night. An integral design aspect of the

letter structures was the application of Chinese paper cut art techniques to the exterior steel skin.

Chinese paper cut art is a widespread and historically significant practice in the Chaoshan region, in

particular to celebrate special occasions. The structures’ steel skin was painted in red to mimic the

red paper medium used in Chinese paper cut art, and then cut so that they depicted figures, shapes

and patterns, which then contrasted against the white sub-layer that housed the lighting elements.

The combination of these artistic design elements created the visual effect that the letters, during

both day and night, are large paper cut sculptures.

Inside the main terminal, there are two sculptures, both comprised of three intertwined 21 feet

tall steel structures that resembled tea trees, painted in several different colors. At the edge of the

branches of the tea tree structures are platforms, on top of which tea kettles and tea cups are

placed. The inspiration for these sculptures was to symbolize the cultural values of health and

hospitality that are represented in serving and consuming tea in Chaoshanese culture.

For a project of this nature and scope, I believe a public art installation more than anything

else should represent the values and history of the people who will interact with it. The selected

work will be the realization of an artist’s concept, but it will be the residents of Claremont that define

their community, and give life and energy to their surroundings.

Examples of Previous Works

SWA public art installation at Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport, 20x40 Feet


Tea Tree Sculpture at Jieyang Chaoshan International Airport, 21x8 Feet


Rear Identity Light Box Installation Collected by Guangdong Museum of Art, 6x9 Feet


24 Years Art Installation at Chengdu Biennial, 12x9 Feet


Carnival, Acrylic, oil, mixed media on mylar, 9X14.3 Feet

Walking? Flying? Acrylic, oil, mixed media on mylar, 8.3X14.3 Feet


The City of M, Ink, pencil and acrylic on Mylar, 5x10 feet x 3

Ferris Wheel, Ink, pencil and acrylic on Mylar, 5x10 feet x 3


Spinggarden Ave, Acrylic and ink on mylar, 44x77 inches

Spring Alpha, Acrylic and ink on mylar, 44x66 inches

For this project, taking into consideration the installation will be outdoors, an important

element in my proposal is to encourage interaction between the piece and the public. My

proposal will contain abstract elements, but the overall form and creative content will be

accessible so that it feels familiar and inviting. The concept for the piece was conceived with

the expectation that it may be placed on permanent display but also possibly relocated, and it

is for this reason that I believe that stainless steel would be the best material to utilize, taking

into consideration its strength and durability.

Proposal

Proposal - Inspiration

Proposal - Rendering of Project Site

My proposed work is a minimal and abstract sculptural interpretation of a tree trunk,

to emphasize the significance of trees in Claremont’s landscape, and to serve as a

memorial for the Red Ironbark tree that previously resided at the project site. The trunk

would be comprised of three organic and fluid plank shaped steel panels. The panels

would be unpainted and given a matte finish, and engraved on them could be words and

text that are significant and unique to Claremont’s history.

Size: Approximately 9-10 feet width x 10-11 feet height, subject to change.

Proposal

Project Budget & Timeline

Fabrication Cost

Shipping & Installation

Total

$10,000 est.

$4,000 - $5,000 est.

$14,000 - $15,000 est.

Fabrication

Shipping & Installation

Total

5-6 weeks

4-6 weeks

9-12 weeks

Excerpt from the 10/9/17 Public Art Committee Minutes 2. CITY HALL TEMPORARY ART INSTALLATION – ORAL REPORT

Human Services Manager Melissa Vollaro provided some background on the City Hall temporary art installation project. Last spring the Committee sent out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), followed up with artists for proposals, but did not go with any of the proposals. The Committee updated the Request for Proposals (RFP) with an increased budget, requesting proposals upfront, and re-released it to the public in September with an October 2 deadline. Of the six proposals received, the ad hoc committee reviewed the proposals last week and selected one of the artists for the project. Chair Neiuber provided a handout of the selected proposal by artist Siji Chen. She described it as a minimal abstract sculpture of a tree trunk to emphasize Claremont’s trees; the panels are unpainted and engraved with words significant to our community. Committee member Christopher Toovey arrived at 7:12 p.m. Manager Vollaro shared that the artist’s preliminary cost is $10,000 - $15,000, which is over the City’s budget of a maximum of $10,000. The artist can work within the concrete planter box, with no alterations. She is recommending three concrete columns to be installed in the interior cavity of the planter box, which would serve as foundations for the sculpture to be mounted to. The estimated timeline from start to finish is 9-12 weeks for the fabrication of the piece. The artist is recommending energy efficient, LED rope lighting to be installed along the ground level interior perimeter of the planter box. The artist is open to Claremont providing the words or text. She would like to choose the font style and size for the text. Letter/word count would be determined once the size of the panels is finalized. The final height of the piece is 10-11 feet. After discussing the logistics of the planter box and the words that would be engraved on the piece, the Committee agreed on the following recommendations. Committee member Unis moved to recommend forwarding the proposal from Artist, Siji Chen for the City Hall Temporary Art Installation project to the City Council for approval, seconded by Committee member Wimbley, and unanimously carried on the following vote:

AYES: Committee members - Neiuber, Tchalian, Toovey, Unis, Wimbley NOES: Committee member – None ABSENT: Committee member Croushore and Commissioner Worley

Committee member Tchalian moved to approve removing the planter box and installing a permanent pad for a sculpture, seconded by Committee member Wimbley, and unanimously carried on the following vote:


Committee member Tchalian moved to approve that botanical names of Claremont trees be used as the words on panels, seconded by Committee member Wimbley, and unanimously carried on the following vote:


jcostanza

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT D


Agenda Report




FROM: LARRY SCHROEDER, MAYOROPANYI NASIALI, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE


City Manager: TR


SUBJECT:

APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS, THE SUSTAINABILITYCOMMITTEE, AND THE TRI CITY MENTAL HEALTH GOVERNING BOARD

SUMMARY

The City of Claremont currently has positions to fill on the Police Commission, the Traffic andTransportation Commission, the Sustainability Committee, and the Tri City Mental Health GoverningBoard.

The City Council Ad Hoc Selection Committee has conducted interviews, and hereby recommendsthe appointments outlined below, in accordance with established policies.

RECOMMENDATION

The City Council Ad Hoc Selection Committee recommends that the City Council make the followingappointments and reappointments to City commissions, committees, and boards, for the termsspecified:

Police CommissionAppoint Frank Bedoya to a four-year term to fill a vacant position.

Traffic and Transportation CommissionAppoint Robert Miletich to a four-year term to fill a vacant position.

Sustainability CommitteeReappoint Freeman Allen to a one-year term commencing February 1, 2018.Appoint Josh Galvin to a four-year term commencing February 1, 2018.Reappoint Barnabus Path to a four-year term commencing February 1, 2018.



Tri City Mental Health Governing BoardReappoint Ron Vera to a two-year term commencing January 1, 2018.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The cost to advertise, coordinate interviews, and prepare and complete this report is estimated at$976. This cost is in staff time and is included in the operating budget of the Administrative ServicesDepartment.

ANALYSIS

The City Council encourages citizen participation most notably through its active use of citizencommissions and committees. Currently there are five citizen commissions established by theCouncil as well as certain committees.

In considering the appointments and reappointments contained in this report, it is necessary to bemindful of certain policies and restrictions, which include:

GeneralEach commissioner and Council-appointed committee member may serve a total of eight years on acommission and/or eight years on a committee, or any special City Council appointments. Uponconclusion of this eight-year service, a Commissioner may reapply to serve on any Committee orCommission after a one-year break in service (Best Practices/Norms).

City CommissionsThe terms of members shall be for up to four years (Claremont Municipal Code).

Sustainability CommitteeTerms of service for members shall be two years (Sustainable City Plan).

Tri City Mental HealthCommunity Members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council for a term of two years; provided,however, the initial term of the Community Member shall be one calendar year (City CouncilResolution No. 2007-75).


Council Priorities - This item does not address Council Priorities.



General Plan - This item meets Measure I-66 - to appoint residents who possess a strong interest inthe community and are able to give generously of their time to serve on the City’s commissions toperform the specific tasks as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the City Council Work Plan Goal, GG-2 - to maintain a system ofcitizen commissions and committees that advise and inform the City Council on various issues.



Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the Youth and Family Master Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

These appointments are not subject to environmental review under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in adirect or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2)excludes “[c]ontinuing administrative ... activities, such as ... personnel-related actions” and “generalpolicy and procedure making” and Section 15378(b)(5) excludes “[o]rganizational or administrativeactivities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment”from its definition of “project.”

Even if these appointments were a “project,” they would be exempt from environmental review underCEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)’s “general rule” that CEQA applies only to projects that havethe potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certaintythat there is no possibility that these appointments, in and of themselves, will have a significant effecton the environment. On its own, this action will not result in any physical changes to theenvironment.



Submitted by:




CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL

Documents

Transcript of CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL