Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution No. 6889
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 6889 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A LETTER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON AND DAVID COBB DBA "GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP" RELATING TO THE FUNDING OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ATLANTIC BOULEVARD AND BANDINI BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Vernon intends to construct transportation infrastructure improvements related to the Alameda Railroad Consolidation Project, including the Atlantic Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard interchange project on Freeway Route 710; and WHEREAS, the City of Vernon desires to obtain funding from other government sources to assist in the cost of constructing such projects; and WHEREAS, David Cobb, dba Global Stratagem Group, is a consultant who has unique experience in assisting in securing funding for public improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the City desires to hire Global Stratagem Group as a consultant to assist the City in obtaining funding from other public agencies to help fund the construction of such projects, including the Atlantic Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard interchange project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon does hereby find and determine that the recitals contained hereinabove are true and correct. 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby approves the Letter Agreement, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council concurrently with this resolution, and the City Council hereby orders said Letter Agreement to be received and filed by the City Clerk. SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said Letter Agreement for, and on behalf of, the City of Vernon. SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall certify to the passage of this resolution and thereupon and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1996. ATTEST: BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk -2- EONIS C. MALBURC , Mayor .,r 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 6889, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of Vernon. (SEAL) BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk -3- Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. flower street 4 3r I Floor 1 m Ankcles (,abl nrurr ` )0071 213 112.2V42 2/ 213623.0<v24 Fax 310 145 ((166 Prier pcEronpa %rarihlink rtes 01101 01111 10101 Ii GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP December 3, 1996 Bruce Malkenhorst City Administrator, City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California 90058 Dear Mr. Malkenhorst: /42. 6;,,-7 This shall serve as a Letter of Agreement between the City of Vernon and David Cobb (dba "Global Stratagem Group "). The City of Vernon has expressed its interest in pursuing the development of transportation infrastructure improvements in order to improve commercial mobility throughout the City of Vernon. As such the City of Vernon requires On -Call Strategic Infrastructure Development Services including the following: Project Evaluation and Assessment Project Development, Funding and Financing Project Expediting and Approvals Strategic Alliance & Consortium Development Of particular interest to the City of Vernon are improvements to the Atlantic /Bandini 710 Freeway Interchange, Intelligent Transportation and Signal System improvements along North/South and East /West Streets, and capacity improvements along 26th Street. In addition, the City Administrator may identify other transportation improvement projects of interest to the City of Vernon. Scope of Work David Cobb (dba as "Global Stratagem Group ") will provide On -Call Strategic .Infrastructure Development Services as directed by the City Administrator or his designee. The City Administrator or his designee will provide direction for the completion of specific tasks which advance the City of Vernon's interests with regard to the development, funding and completion of infrastructure improvements which improve commercial mobility within the City of Vernon. Furthermore, at the direction of the City Administrator, David Cobb shall register as required as a lobbyist on behalf of the City of Vernon with all appropriate agencies. Page Two, December 3, 1996 Letter of Agreement, City of Vernon Egta As compensation for the services provided to the City of Vernon, the City of Vernon shall pay David Cobb at the rate of 125.00 dollars per hour. David Cobb will bill the City of Vernon on a monthly basis. Remittance is expected within 30 days of submission. Additionally, the City of Vernon shall compensate David Cobb for any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the above described On -Call Infrastructure Development Services. All travel expenses must be pre- approved. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be twelve months commencing on the date of its execution, provided that either party may terminate with thirty days written notice to the other party. Accepted and approved this /l of December, 1996. CITY OF VERNON BY LEONIS C. MALBURG, Mayor ATTE, By BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk BYP OVED AS TTLO RM: r f DAVID B. BREARLEY, City Att rney Approved this 10 day of December, 1996. BYs- S. DAVID COBB, dba as "Globs tratagem Group" CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro-Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 February 5, 1997 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group 444 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Re: Letter Agreement for Consulting Services Dear Mr. Cobb: DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 On December 17, I mailed you three duplicate originals of the above referenced agreement which, were executed by the officials of the City. I asked you to sign the agreements and return two fully executed agreements to this office. To date, I have not received anything except your January /February billing. I would appreciate your looking into this. Payment of Invoice No. 1 in the amount of $3,125 was mailed this date to Duban Accountancy. Very truly yours, CITY, OF VERNON GJO /hr Enclosure ria J. Orosco Chief Deputy City Clerk Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 .S_ 1 hu r Sheet 41rzl Fluor (.,11/1,01/4 900;1 213.312, 284.2 7 e/ 213.623 08241 fax 310 645.0666 Pager gsgrnnp@ear /blink_ nel ::i GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP City of Vernon Invoice #1: January 31, 1997 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet December 1996 December 5 December 10 December 12 December 17 December 17 December 27 2.0 hrs. MTA Board Mtg. & Workshop on 20 Year Long Range Plan 2..0 hrs. Mtg. W/Malkenhorst, Brearley and Gagin Re: Call for Projects /Corridor Strategy 2.0 hrs MTA Planning and Programming Meeting Re: MTA ACTA $140.0 Million Acceleration 0.5 hrs. Phone Calls 1.0 hrs. Writing Talking Points and Board Conditions 1.0 hrs Research and Review of MTA Call for Projects Documents December 1996 Sub -Total 8.5 hrs January 1997 January 7 January 9 January 15 January 15 January 16 January 21 January 22 January 23 January 27 3.0 hrs. Attend MTA Call for Projects Staff Presentation 1.5 hrs. Mtg. W/ David Brearley RE: Call for Projects Strategy 1.5 hrs MTA Call for Projects Committee 1.5 hrs Meet w/ MTA Capital Planning Staff 0.5 hrs Calls: M. Gagin; M. Myers 1.5 hrs Mtg. W/M.Gagin; M. Myers RE: Review of Call for Projects Application 2.0 hrs Review Alameda Corridor EIR/EIS & ROD Re: Development of Corridor Cities Program Management Program in response to $1.8 million FHWA Announcement 3.0 hrs New SECTA Board Mtg. 1.5 hrs Mtg wB. Malkenhorst; D. Brearley; M. Gagin; M. Myers 0.5 hrs Calls to B. Cashin & D. Yale RE: Mtgs for Week of February 3`d, 1997 January 1997 Sub -Total 16.5 hrs Total Hours 25.0 hrs @ 5125.0= $3125.0 Please remit to: Total Balance Due: $3125.0 S. David Cobb c/o Duban Accountancy (Certified Public Accountancy) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 Total paid to date under terms of Letter of Agreement: $0.0 q = i E iF t1 ..PR § i d5 d + '. 9/, ` • i 3 yj 1 P , 5 C c i {fm qS 'E3 Y- : '--.. i EEI }k g i ; r' -9 PP, i • � �AORROI1AS�r ORQE'Ei NQ sRIN /QE�il� gE 3O"'Y4 D S�F3� 10 :A ] -a ° /OR 1 € N tC d a r j _� s u � . 'w� .,aw• N.+"d } , 6 :rtl y' i$s yp .sC, gz te.! .���i a�- +'is#a ES �p ■ .�i ,i 3 ,ii ;7 f t fi;1Y a z a .P.�,l4t.1- 9 - :I�b a ril@t6 • axe ,. ,��ap P,.. ,a 3' �. is .� ■ f1 c, xa, �`` i . • • _ 188i1E i9 x _1t f -{t t r .k€ t31i� 46 C y Ea S$ y I�yq ua tpEF EY„11 Ir 1 6 F 4 1� • . ,. Say , -• •� - r, s.x.a grp t,3 ....,fF._....` Ita ¢. 'Y G 1aI .K.�y�.,R... �S,,..x. i{ g( yy afr ...� ., mV=,. i t y`9 pj` &Y §_ ggyy a, , IA CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro-Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 David Cobb Global Stratagem Group 444 S. Flower Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330-5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213)581- 1178 December 17, 1996 Re: Letter Agreement for Consulting Services Dear Mr. Cobb: Enclosed herewith are three duplicate originals of the above referenced agreement which have been executed by the officials of the City of Vernon. Please sign the agreements and return two fully executed documents to the attention of the undersigned. Very truly yours, CITY • VERNON BVM/hr Enclosure ria J. Orosco Chief Deputy City Clerk Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 4445. Plo,ccr.Shcet 43rd Floor 1.33 iingelcs Cadilornia 9007 i• _?1 > 312 2N-17 I ci 2H.62/.(/\'24 Ia.c 31U' /]5.(15(6 Pager Ecgronp.P.cartblin/' nct GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP December 3, 1996 Bruce Malkenhorst City Administrator, City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California 90058 Dear Mr. Malkenhorst: This shall serve as a Letter of Agreement between the City of Vernon and David Cobb (dba "Global Stratagem Group "). The City of Vernon has expressed its interest in pursuing the development of transportation infrastructure improvements in order to improve commercial mobility throughout the City of Vernon. As such the City of Vernon requires On -Call Strategic Infrastructure Development Services including the following: Project Evaluation and Assessment Project Development, Funding and Financing Project Expediting and Approvals Strategic Alliance & Consortium Development Of particular interest to the City of Vernon are improvements to the Atlantic /Bandini 710 Freeway Interchange, Intelligent Transportation and Signal System improvements along North /South and East /West Streets, and capacity improvements along 26`" Street. In addition, the City Administrator may identify other transportation improvement projects of interest to the City of Vernon. Scope of Work David Cobb (dba as "Global Stratagem Group ") will provide On -Call Strategic Infrastructure Development Services as directed by the City Administrator or his designee. The City Administrator or his designee will provide direction for the completion of specific tasks which advance the City of Vernon's interests with regard to the development, funding and completion of infrastructure improvements which improve commercial mobility within the City of Vernon. Furthermore, at the direction of the City Administrator, David Cobb shall register as required as a lobbyist on behalf of the City of Vernon with all appropriate agencies. Page Two, December 3, 1996 Letter of Agreement, City of Vernon Fees As compensation for the services provided to the City of Vernon, the City of Vernon shall pay David Cobb at the rate of 125.00 dollars per hour. David Cobb will bill the City of Vernon on a monthly basis. Remittance is expected within 30 days of submission. Additionally, the City of Vernon shall compensate David Cobb for any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the above described On -Call Infrastructure Development Services. All travel expenses must be pre- approved. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall be twelve months commencing on the date of its execution, provided that either party may terminate with thirty days written notice to the other party. Accepted and approved this /4' of December, 1996. CITY OF VERNON LEONIS C. MALBURG, Mayor ATTES : By BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY DAVID B. BREARLEY, City Attorn Approved this day of December, 1996. Y S. DAVID COBB, dba as "Global Stratagem Group" Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 5007 Ocean Front Walk, Suite Two Marina Del Rey, California 90292 310.8278069 Tel 310.827.6120 Fax 888.777 3631 (PIN 538 -9617) globalstratagem@msn.com www.globalstratagem.com MEMORANDUM November 23, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Pager GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP Bruce Malkenhorst, City Administrator David Brearley David Cobb, Global Stratagem Group 1999 City of Vernon Tax Comparison s5sv t 11999 CI'CY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY OF VERNON At the direction of Vernon City Attorney David Brearley, Global Stratagem Group (GSG) has conducted a review of the Kosmont 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey, and conducted additional research of business related taxes in six Los Angeles County cities with industrial and commercial economic bases similar to Vernon. Those cities were: Carson Commerce Industry Irwindale Santa Fe Springs Torrance. The good news is that Vernon is rated by the Kosmont 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey as a "Very Low Cost" city in which to do business. Our own comparative analysis verifies this conclusion. A draft matrix comparing all applicable business related taxes is attached. (See Attachment A.) Kosmont 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey The survey rates cities as "Very Low Cost," "Low Cost," "Medium Cost," and "High Cost." In addition, the survey provides a "City Activity Rating" that gauges a city's willingness to cut deals to foster economic development. Each city's taxes relating to industrial development are broken down into these categories: business taxes (employee head count taxes and gross receipts taxes), utility user taxes, property taxes and development fees. Each cities "Economic Incentives" are also enumerated. Kosmont 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey (Con't) Most valuable for purposes of analysis is the survey's benchmark "Rate Comparison." This business tax ratio predicts the "annual tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable." The "Rate Comparison's" most accessible number is the rate of taxation per $1000 of revenue. Listed from least to most expensive in regards to the ratio and their overall rating, the subject cities ranked as follows: Santa Fe Springs Vernon Commerce Carson Irwindale Torrance Industry $0.05 /$1000 $0.06/$1000 $0.07/$1000 $0.21/$1000 — $0.26/$1000 — $0.43/$1000 — N/A - — A "Very Low Cost" City — A "Very Low Cost" City — A "Very Low Cost" City A "Very Low Cost" City A "Low Cost" City A "Low Cost" City - A "Medium Cost" City Due to its reliance on the property tax, Industry was not included in the survey's business tax "Rate Comparison" although, as you can see, it was rated overall. For your information, Los Angeles is a "High Cost" city at $0.33/$1000. TYPES OF BUSINESS TAXES IN THE SUBJECT CITIES GSG conducted its own research of business taxes and made on -site visits (except Vernon) to gather each cities business related promotional materials. 1) EMPLOYEE HEAD COUNT TAXES Like Vernon, most of the cities studied here rely on employee head count to tax businesses. The exceptions are Industry which relies on the property tax, and Irwindale which relies on a gross receipts tax. In comparison to all California municipalities, however, employee head count is used by only 28% to tax business while a gross receipts tax is utilized by 53% to tax business. Regarding the employee head count taxes, Vernon's approximate those of low cost Santa Fe Springs and Commerce. Carson's employee head count taxes start out low but become increasingly expensive as a manufacturing firm grows in size. Torrance's employee head count taxes start out high and remain so. For ease of comparison of employee head count taxes, the matrix (Attachment A) lists rates for manufacturing firms of 10, 100, and 1000 employees. As you will see, Vernon's employee head count tax for 1000 employees is 1/19 of those assessed by Torrance. 2 TYPES OF BUSINESS TAXES IN THE SUBJECT CITIES (Con't) 2) PARCEL TAXES FOR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Vernon and Commerce are alone among the studied cities in the utilization of parcel taxes. As you know, parcel taxes in Vernon vary with the size of the operation and its association with a manufacturing base. Parcel taxes in Vernon are levied at a higher rate than those in Commerce. Moreover, business taxes in Commerce are capped at a combined total of $3000.00 for both the employee head tax and all applicable parcel taxes. While business taxes in Vernon are not capped, Vernon is still a more cost effective place to do business than Commerce; however, these parcel taxes explain why Vernon ranks behind Santa s Fe Springs in the 1999 Kosmont Survey as an affordable place to do business. Attachment A explains this in greater detail. 3) GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES Irwindale levies a business tax based on gross receipts of $0.26/$1000. Torrance levies a 4 -5% gross receipts tax on businesses occupying leased property only. 4) UTILITY USER TAXES, & PROPERTY TAXES Of the studied cities, only Irwindale (7.5 %) and Torrance (6.5 %) levy utility user taxes. Vernon's property tax is slighty higher than the average rate for the studied cities. Commerce, Irwindale, Torrance, and Santa Fe Springs levy an ad valorem tax of 1.0125 %. Vernon and Carson levy at 1.015830 %. Industry levies at 1.8 %. CITY BY CITY ANALYSIS Vernon's affordability is apparent in this breakdown of the subject cities. Grouped together with very low cost Santa Fe Springs and Commerce, Vernon is clearly a much more cost effective place to do business than the far more expensive cities of Carson, Irwindale, Industry and Torrance. A.) CARSON: The City of Carson is in the middle of the pack regarding overall business taxes — though it taxes at a rate roughly three times the rate in Vernon. Carson's employee head count business tax starts low, but the fact that the city charges $21.40 per employee regardless of the number of employees means that bigger firms pay at relatively high rates. Carson's somewhat higher property tax (1.015830 %) also adds to the cost of doing business. There are no utility user taxes. When visited, Carson had few promotional materials available. B.) COMMERCE: The City of Commerce is tightly grouped with the other very low cost cities Santa Fe Springs and Vernon. Commerce's employee head count tax is levied at a low per employee rate of $5.50 and is combined with a low parcel tax of $0.0063 per square foot. The combined amount cannot exceed $3000.00. Its property tax is at the lowest levied rate of 1.01250 %. There are no utility user taxes. When visited, Commerce was the most prepared of any of the cities. A well stocked folder with promotional and informational materials was readily at hand. 3 CITY BY CITY ANALYSIS(Con't) C.) INDUSTRY: The City of Industry levies no business or utility taxes; however, it is considered the most expensive of the studied cities because of its very high property tax rate: 1.8 %. Of all the studied cities, Industry has the most corporate looking city offices while the promotional materials available were perfunctory. D.) IRWINDALE: The City of Irwindale is the second costliest city studied here. It is the only one that levies a gross receipts business tax ($0.26/$1000), and only one of two to levy a utility user tax (7.5 %). Its property tax is at the lowest rate of 1.01250 %. It's relatively modern city hall and friendly personnel made for a pleasant visit. Few promotional materials were available. E.) TORRANCE: The City of Torrance is by far the most expensive municipality for businesses studied here. The city essentially charges a $45 per employee head tax, more than double Carson, the next most expensive city. In addition, there are a number of taxes unique to Torrance. These include: a construction tax on additions of 1.5% over 500 sq. ft., rising to 5.7% on additions of over 5000 sq.ft.; and more importantly, a commercial occupancy tax for businesses that occupy over 50% of a building's office space. Doing business in Torrance also involves a 6.5% utility user tax. The property tax is levied at the lowest rate of 1.0125 %. The on -site visit provided few promotional materials and the only charge for materials: a $15 fee for a xeroxed copy of the city's business regulation. F.) SANTA FE SPRINGS: The City of Santa Fe Springs is the low cost leader among the subject cities, just narrowly less expensive than Vernon. The employee head tax is levied at lower initial rates than Vernon's although by the time a business reaches the 1000 employee range, Santa Fe Springs is slightly more expensive (by $300). It's property tax is levied at the lowest level of 1.0125 %. The city charges no utility user taxes. The on -site visit was very friendly, and the brochures had the slickest, most professional look. G.) VERNON: The City of Vernon is the second least expensive municipality in which to do business among the subject cities. With virtually identical employee head count taxes to those of Santa Fe Springs, Vernon becomes more expensive due to its levies of parcel taxes on distribution facilities. Furthermore, Vernon's property tax is marginally higher than Santa Fe Springs. With no utility users tax, Vernon maintains its low cost lead over the rest of the subject cities. 4 CONCLUSION As Attachment A, Business Taxes in Selected LA County Cities illustrates, Vernon is in an enviable position as the second least expensive city among Los Angeles County's business oriented cities that were studied by GSG. The benchmark Kosmont "Rate Comparison" ratio provides a readily understood way to sell Vernon's cost effectiveness regarding business taxes. Bunched with other "very low cost" leaders Santa Fe Springs and Commerce in the Kosmont 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey, Vernon business taxes are less than one third of Carson's, less than a quarter of Irwindale's, less than one eight of Torrance's. With its unusally high property tax, Industy is rated as more expensive than all of these using the Kosmont survey's "Cost of Doing Business Rating." For Vernon, becoming the lowest cost city would seem to entail eliminating the parcel taxes and bringing the property tax into line with the lowest rate of 1.0125 %. Short of doing that, however, Vernon is a still a Kosmont "very low cost" city. 5 GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP 66 /£Z /I• I. Z.Z Apnis xel uouJleA NINO i iv is AINO 1ib21a 1**** This tax is levied on leased property only. Torrance also This is meant to allow a comparison of the tax structures in the differing municipalities. * ** This rate is determination of the tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees. This is the business tax on $1000. ** This parcel tax levied soley on open air facilities. The combined total of the employee tax and this tax cannot exceed $3000. If no manufacturing faciltiy is involved, the first 5000 sq.ft. is taxed at $200 plus $0.035 per each additional sq.ft. * If a manufacturing facility with an open warehouse, the first 5000 sq.ft. is taxed at $200 plus $0.0157 per each additional sq.f 1Kosmont Business "Rate Comparison" * * *_ 1Kosmont Business "Cost Rating" Utility User Tax Ad Valorem Property Tax 1Commercial Occupancy Tax 1 Parcel Tax/Distribution 1Business License Tax/Gross Receipts 1 Large Firm -1000 Employees 1 Medium Firm- 100 Employees 1 Small Firm -10 Employees 1Business License Tax/Employee Based 1 m En O o 0) Very Low 0 W co a O $0.0157sq.ft* $2,380 69 cn co U1 69 s co 0 VERNON has a construction tax on a $0.21 Very Low 0 (1i 00 w 0 0 69 1•3 : 4=., 0 0 N 0 $214 CARSON o 0 Very Low o 01 0 0 ft 0 0 0) • 000`£$ $555 fa COMMERCE additions. Medium 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRY {9 o 0N) Low —1 kJ., Oo 1.012500% 69 0 N 0) '_.,. o 00 IRWINDALE $0.43 Low 0 O 0 O o 0 4- 5 %**** j 01 Ol O TORRANCE ° 0 01 Very Low 0 -5 o o 0 rn.p.t-, co 0 co 0 N 0 SANTA FE SPRINGS NINO i iv is AINO 1ib21a 1999 Kosmont Cost fDoingBusiness Su rve y Kosmont Cost Ratings & City Activity Ratings Adelanto, San Bernardino Co $. • Indio, Riverside County $ •• Agoura Hills, Los Angeles Co $ • Industry, Los Angeles Co $$ $ Alhambra, Los Angeles Co S$ ••• Inglewood, Los Angeles Co $$$ $ • Anaheim, Orange Co .._ $ •• Irvine, Orange Co $ • Apple Valley, San Bernardino Co ...... _.. $ • Irwindale, Los Angeles Co $$ NR Arcadia, Los Angeles Co S $ • La Mirada, Los Angeles Co $. • Azusa, Los Angeles Co $ . Lakewood, Los Angeles Co S. • Barstow, San Bernardino Co $. • Lancaster, Los Angeles Co $. ••• Bell, Los Angeles Co $$$ • Las Vegas, Nevad .a $$ •• Beverly Hills, Los Angeles Co $$ • Long Beach, Los Angeles Co $$ ` ••• Brea, Orange Co $ •• Los Angeles, Los Angeles Co $$$ ` ••• Buena Park, Orange Co $ • Los Angeles County Unincorp. Are ...a.$$ • Burbank, Los Angeles Co $$ •• Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles Co $ • Calabasas, Los Angeles Co ...._ S.$ • Mission Viejo, Orange Co $. • Camarillo, Ventura Co ..._ $ • Monrovia, Los Angeles Co $. •• Carlsbad, San Diego Co $ • Montebello, Los Angeles Co $. •• Carson, Los Angeles Co ..._ $ . Monterey Park, Los Angeles Co $$ • Cerritos, Los Angeles Co $ • Moorpark, Ventura Co $ Chandler, Arizon n $$$ $ •• Moreno Valley, Riverside Co $$ • Chino, San Bernardino Co $ • Murrieta, Riverside Co $ Chula Vista, San Diego Co $. •• National City, San Diego Co S • Colton, San Bernardino Co $. • Newport Bench, Orange Co $. • Commerce, Los Angeles Co $. • Norwalk, Los Angeles Co $ $ • Compton, Los Angeles Co $S$ • Oceanside, San Diego Co $. • Corona, Riverside Co $ .•• Ontario, San Bernardino Co $. ••• Costa Mesa, Orange Co $ • Orange, Orange Co $ .• Covina, Los Angeles Co ..._ $$ •• Orange County Unincorp. Are ...a $ • Culver City, Los Angeles Co $$$ $ ••• Oxnard, Ventura Co $ .. Cypress, Orange Co $ • Palm Springs, Riverside Co $$ • Diamond Bar, Los Angeles Co $ • Palmdale, Los Angeles Co $ . •• Downey, Los Angeles Co $$ • Paramount, Los Angeles Co $. •• El Cajon, San Diego Co $ • Pasadena, Los Angeles Co $$ •• El Centro, Imperial Co $ • Phoenix, Arizon .a $$$. $ •• El Monte, Los Angeles Co ...._ $$ ' • Pico Rivera, Los Angeles Co $.$ •• El Segundo, Los Angeles Co $$ • Pomona, Los Angeles Co $$ $ ••• Escondido, San Diego Co $ • Portland, Orego n $$$ $ AAA Eugene, Orego n $ NR Poway, San Diego Co $ • Flagstaff, Arizon a $$$ $ • Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino Co.$ . $ Fontana, San Bernardino Co $.$ • Redlands, San Bernardino Co $$ • Fountain Valley, Orange Co $ • Redondo Beach, Los Angeles Co $$ • Fullerton, Orange Co $ . Reno, Nevad .a $$ NR Garden Grove, Orange Co $. ••• Rialto, San Bernardino Co $. •• Gardena, Los Angeles Co $$ • Riverside, Riverside Co $$ • Glendale, Los Angeles Co . $$ •• Riverside County Unincorp. Are ...n $ ••• Hawthorne, Los Angeles Co $.$ • Rosemead, Los Angeles Co $, • Hemet, Riverside Co $ . Salt Lake City, Utah $$$ • Henderson, Nevad a $$ • San Bernardino, San Bernardino Co ...$$$ • Hesperia, San Bernardino Co $ •. San Bernardino County, Unincorp. Are $ , • Huntington Beach, Orange Co $$ • San Diego, San Diego Co $. • Huntington Park, Los Angeles Co $$ ' • San Diego County Unincorp. Are ...a... $ 1999 Southern California Edition $ San Fernando, Los Angeles Co $$ San Marcos, San Diego Co $. Santa Ana, Orange Co $$ Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Co $$ Santa Barbara County Unincorp. Are .. di Santa Clarita, Los Angeles Co ..._ $ Santa Fe Springs, Los Angeles Co ...._$ Santa Maria, Santa Barbara Co $ Santa Monica, Los Angeles Co ........ $$$ $ Seattle, Washingto .n $$$ $ Signal Hill, Los Angeles Co $. Simi Valley, Ventura Co South Gate, Los Angeles Co $. Tacoma, Washingto ..a $$$ $ Temecula, Riverside Co $ Thousand Oaks, Ventura Co Torrance, Los Angeles Co $$ Tucson, Arizon .a $$$,$ Tustin, Orange Co Upland, San Bernardino Co $. Ventura (San Buenaventura), Ventura Co. $ Ventura County Unincorp. Are ...a $ Vernon, Los Angeles Co $ . Victorville, San Bernardino Co $ Vista, San Diego Co West Covina, Los Angeles Co $ West Hollywood, Los Angeles Co $ Westlake Village, Los Angeles Co $ Westminster, Orange Co $$ Whittier, Los Angeles Co $$ Yorba Linda, Orange Co .._ $. Kosmont Cost Ratings SS SSS $$S$ Very Low Cost Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost City Activity Ratings AAA 10 or More Deals* AA 5 to 9 Deals* • 0 to 4 Deals* • • u • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• $ • • • • • • • • *within last 12 months or fiscal year NR = No Response Please refer to the User Guide for an explanation of the Kosmont Cost Ratings and City Activity Ratings. 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusinessSurvey® Top Spots A wide array of financial and non - financial considerations go into the site selection /business location decision. The Survey focuses on the level of taxes and fees imposed locally, and incentives offered by local public agencies. Presented here are the communities with the most favorable tax rates for businesses and the results of the City Activity Ratings. The Kosmont Cost Ratings The Kosmont Cost Ratings rate community costs based on the key local tax rates: business taxes, electric and telephone user taxes, and property taxes (see the User Guide for methodology). The results of this evaluation are clear: overall local taxes are not a burdensome cost in the majority of communities surveyed. Seventy -five communities in this Survey -57% of the total— achieve the very low cost $ rating. Thirty -six earned the low cost $$ rating, eight received the medium cost $$$ rating, and twelve received the high cost $$$$ rating. (See Page 13 for detail on these cities.) The Top Spots Ten jurisdictions make the very top cut this year from a business operations perspective: they impose neither business nor utility user taxes, and they all earn a $ Kosmont Cost Rating. The Top Spots are listed at right. Unincorporated county areas account for five of the ten jurisdictions. The Communities Close to the Top An additional 31 communities in the Survey impose average business taxes at a "negligible" rate, have no utility user taxes, and earn a $ Kosmont Cost Rating. Our threshold for a "negligible" rate is 1/100th of 1% or less, equivalent to just $1,000 on $10 million in gross receipts. Most of these communities (although not all) are small cities in outlying areas. Businesses whose locational criteria are flexible enough to move away from urban centers can decide whether the local tax benefits in such towns outweigh factors such as transportation costs, travel time, labor pool availability, etc. The correlation between communities with low business taxes and low utility user taxes is very high. Of all the communities with a negligible business tax, 80% also impose no utility user taxes, compared to 43% among all communities in the Survey. Where Professionals Can Do Business for Less Office professionals are taxed at higher rates than other businesses by many jurisdictions. However, some jurisdictions offer very competitive rates for professionals. The nine cities listed have 100,000 or more residents, impose no tax or a negligible tax on office professionals, and also earn a $ Kosmont Cost Rating. In addition, five of the seven county unincorporated areas (every county except Los Angeles and Ventura) fall into this category. Kosmont Cost Ratings Very Low Cost Low Cost Medium Cost High Cost The Top Spots • Diamond Bar • Eugene, Oregon • Mission Viejo • Santa Clarita • Westlake Village • Orange Co. Unincorp. Area • Riverside Co. Unincorp. Area • San Bernardino Co. Unincorp. Area • San Diego Co. Unincorp. Area • Santa Barbara Co. Unincorp. Area Professional Communities (At least 100,000 residents) • Corona • Costa Mesa • Eugene, Oregon • Irvine • Lancaster • Orange • Palmdale • San Diego • Santa Clarita Manufacturing Communities (At least 100,000 residents) • Anaheim • Chula Vista • Corona • Costa Mesa • Eugene, Oregon • Fullerton • Irvine • Lancaster • Orange • Oxnard • Palmdale • San Diego • Santa Clarita 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusiness Survey® Activity Ratings A 0 -4 Deals* AA 5 -9 Deals* AAA 10 or More Deals* * within last 12 months or fiscal year Activity Ratings AAA Rating • Alhambra • Corona • Culver City • Garden Grove • Lancaster • Long Beach • Los Angeles • Ontario • Pomona • Portland, OR • Riverside Co. Unincorp. Area • Ventura AA Rating • Anaheim • Brea • Burbank • Chandler, AZ • Chula Vista • Covina • Glendale • Hesperia • Las Vegas, NV • Monrovia • Montebello • Palmdale • Paramount • Pasadena • Phoenix, AZ • Pico Rivera • West Covina • Indio • Rialto • Santa Ana • Santa Maria • Seattle, WA • Simi Valley • Temecula • Victorville Top Spots Where Companies Can Manufacture for Less Business tax policies often grant manufacturers lower rates than those on other business sectors. Of the jurisdictions surveyed, 51% tax manufacturers at the low rate of 1 /100 of 1% or less. Thirteen cities with 100,000 or more residents fall into this category, and also earn a $ Kosmont Cost Rating. Five of the seven county unincorporated areas (all except Los Angeles and Ventura) fall into this category as well. City Activity Ratings This year, the Survey inaugurates a new component to help measure the level of public /private transaction activity within cities. Based on staff re- sponses to questionnaires, the City Activity Ratings highlight those com- munities most active in subsidy deals, Disposition and Development Agree- ments, Owner Participation Agreements, and the like. Ratings were not adjusted for population, which was not shown to be a significant determi- nant of public /private activity. See Page 4 for detail on methodology. Most communities earn a • for four or fewer deals within the last year. The twelve communities with AAA ratings and twenty -five communities with AA ratings are listed at left. Any project is subject to numerous require- ments before it can become part of a public /private transaction. However, these ratings provide an indication of a community's willingness to create such partnerships with the private sector. This index will be refined in fu- ture editions to provide more detailed information. 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusinessSurvey® What's Hot ... What's Not? Business Tax Rates Remain Stable Business tax rates have remained stable in Southern California since last year's Survey, demonstrating both the impact of Proposition 218 and local efforts to remain competitive. In the Southern California communities surveyed that do impose business taxes, rates for the six primary business categories average 33/100` of 1 %, with a median of about one -half as much. Business taxes include business license taxes and fees, and payroll taxes in the few cities that have them. But most communities have allowed strong economies to keep their revenues in pace with inflation rather than ask voters and the business community to accept higher rates. Some have even lowered rates. Oceanside, for example, reduced its rates, and San Diego County abolished the business license system in unincorporated areas. Average and median rates vary by category, with professionals taxed far more than other categories. The chart below shows the differences. .058% Typical Business Tax Rates Percent of Gross Receipts .034% .016% .025% .026% Average ❑ Median .035% .020% .099% .016% General Professional Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Personal Office Service Note: Percentage is the amount of lax on the first $10 million in gross receipts or the first 100 employees. (For payroll, net income and other assumptions, see Notes & Explanations Section.) Compared with Central and Northern California, the Southland has lower rates. The overall average rate to the north is 44/100` of 1 %, and the overall median is 20 /100`h of 1 %. But both parts of California benefit from lower rates compared to the twelve cities surveyed in neighboring states. Outside California, the average among the six categories is 120/ 100`h of 1 %, and the median is 75/100th of 1 %. In part this reflects our out -of -state sample of mostly large cities, which typically impose higher taxes. OVERALL Gross receipts taxes are the most popular method of imposing business taxes in the Southland, where they are the basis for taxation 53% of the time. Employee -based methods are utilized 28% of the time, while flat rates and other methods surface in 19% of taxes. The other approaches include payroll taxes in rare instances, and occasional taxes on square foot- age or cost of operations. Some observers feel that business taxes tied to profitability would be more equitable, but the State Constitution limits local taxation on this basis. Kosmont Cost Ratings: The Expensive Spots The Kosmont Cost Ratings assign ratings to communities based on overall business tax rates, electric tax rates, telephone tax rates, and typical property tax rates. Twelve of the 131 communities in the Surveyearn the high cost$$$$ rating, and seven of these are out -of -state cities. In Southern California, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Los Angeles have competitive property tax rates, but suffer from relatively high business and utility taxes. Compton and Inglewood receive this rating primarily because of their utility and property tax rates. High property tax rates are the key reason why some cities in nearby states are expensive. Chandler, Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tuscon, Arizona, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, all receive a $$$$ rating. Property taxes are most extreme in Arizona, where the non - residential rate can be more than three times a typical California rate. In Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma, high business tax rates compound the relatively high property tax rates, and utility taxes are imposed as well. Eight cities receive medium cost $$$ ratings: Bell, El Monte, Huntington Park, Industry, Long Beach, Pomona, San Bernardino, and Salt Lake City, Utah. 1999 Southern California Edition 0 1999 Kosmont Cost jDoingBusiness Survey® Different Impacts Park fees, predominantly on residential de- velopment only, are by far the most common development impact or exaction fee imposed by Southern California communities. They are found in 63% of the cities and counties sur- veyed. Localities specify traffic fees nearly half of the time, although in many of the remaining communities, developers will end up paying traffic fees through approval ne- gotiations. Frequency of Specified Development Impact /Exaction Fees Parks 63% Traffic Impact 49% 24% Thoroughfare /Bridge 23% Public Facilities 19% General Dev. Impact 19% Public Art - 10% Signalization . 6% Construction Tax 4% Open Space /Habitat 1 2% Affordable Housing 1% Parking 0% Child Care Park and traffic fees are the most popular impact fees. Southern California communi- ties tend to impose park fees more often than traffic fees while the reverse is true for Cen- tral and Northern California communities. LA's Tax Reform Package: Business - Friendly With a Sprinkling of Savings Since its inception, the Kosmont Cost of Doing Business Survey® has revealed the high costs of doing business in Los Angeles, where overall business taxes are the highest in Southern California. Within the State, only San Francisco surpasses Los Angeles in its business tax rates. After years of wanting to make the City more competitive, Mayor Richard Riordan has now pre- sented a plan for revamping the system, hoping to improve economic growth prospects in the City. This tax reform effort is significant not just for its potential impact on Los Angeles businesses, but as a signal of how California cities are becoming more business - friendly. It is also notable for recognizing that tax simplifi- cation, not just tax reduction, is a key incentive for business. The outcome of Mayor Riordan's effort will not be known until well into 1999. If successful, it will not erase the high business tax burden in Los Angeles, but it will reduce some of the present system's problems. The current tax system that Los Angeles is trying to fix has two fatal flaws: it is expensive and complicated. Gross receipts rates range from $1.18 to $5.91 per $1,000 of gross receipts. In some cases, the rates are several times the equivalent in key competitor cities, and are even more compared to a few nearby cities with nominal taxes. The average rate among six busi- ness categories is $3.30 per $1,000 (equivalent to 0.330% of gross re- ceipts). The complexity of the system is equally notable, with 64 different business categories, some of them distinctly dated in today's economy. Many businesses pay in multiple categories, which makes compliance even harder. A study commissioned by the City suggested that Los Angeles residents pay disproportionately less than dwellers in neighboring cities, meaning that Los Angeles businesses are picking up more of the burden. Together these factors result in abysmal compliance —the number of non - payers may be as high as 30 %, and under- reporting is widespread. Reform by Reduction The tax reform proposal's most significant element is a reduction to only eight tax categories based on Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs). Businesses would be subject to taxation at a single rate instead of multiple rates for different activities, which in itself will reduce accounting costs for many. Less uncertainty about applicable categories will help as well. A minimum tax of $75 would become consistent across categories. As an incentive, the plan calls for exemptions in the first year of operation and for companies with less than $5,000 of gross receipts. Other provisions attempt to improve filing and compliance. Overall, tax receipts would drop by $23 million, or 8% of total business license revenues. The City asserts that up to 90% of firms would see a cut, but at different rates for different firms. The highest rate of $5.91 per $1,000, applicable to lawyers, doctors and other professionals, would drop 0 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost f DoingBusiness Survey® to $5.40. Some businesses would be bumped into much lower rate cat- egories than currently apply, and few would see minor rate increases (the lowest tax would increase from $1.18 to $1.20 per $1,000). Some high - tech industries are targeted in the proposal and especially benefit from lower rates. How would the changes improve Los Angeles' competitive positioning? Currently one of the few California communities with a High Cost $$$$ Kosmont Cost Rating, the changes will not reduce rates enough to earn a lower rating. Los Angeles would become more competitive with other high - cost Westside cities including Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City. The reform proposal leaves out some desirable changes, not for lack of effort by Mayor Riordan's staff, but because of fiscal dependence on tax revenue amid ongoing budget deficits. For example, the current policy of taxing inter - company transfers is being subjected to further study. And while small businesses will be better under the proposal than it is now, most small service and professional firms will still pay far more in Los Angeles than in most of the competition. KA believes this discrepancy should be revisited since start -up firms create essential service jobs. Grow- ing firms from scratch is easier than bringing established firms into the co mmunity. Not Enough for Some Opponents should be relatively few, but like any big city, Los Angeles is subject to political unpredictability, and some noisy critics may surface. Opposition to the proposal is brewing from writers, who want to be ex- empt from taxes if based at home. Under the plan, they would be taxed at the lowest rate of $1.20 per $1,000 of income; the current rate is far higher but is rarely paid. In addition, ongoing City charter reform efforts may confuse the issue among voters, and the City is also fighting off seces- sion efforts centered in the San Fernando Valley, but potentially spreading elsewhere. If the City Council approves the reform proposal by February, it will go to voters in June 1999 (Proposition 218 makes voter approval necessary be- cause some taxes would increase). The LA tax reform proposal recognizes that tax rates are not the sole factor in business tax matters. Many businesses are relatively immobile because of capital investment, employee access, the need to be in a particular loca- tion because of their customer base, and similar non -tax considerations. The tax plan successfully addresses a desperate need for simplification of the system. It may serve as a model for dozens of other California cities that also have outdated tax codes. It also leaves the door open for future tax reductions, or even a more wholesale revision of the system at some point. (The plan calls for a Business Tax Advisory Group to make recommenda- tions for future changes). Much more could be revised, but this proposal represents a notable improvement over the current system. Employee Efforts Beginning with last year's Survey, we asked cities how many employees they have. We then compared the answers to population as a way of measuring the efficiency of local bureaucracies. As an efficiency measure this is rough, because the figures are not adjusted for service levels (some cities contract for out- side police and fire services, for example) or for the cities which operate their own utilities. We asked for Full -Time Equivalent (FIE) em- ployment. Nonetheless, the differences are striking. In Southern California, cities employ a median of 5.3 workers per 1,000 residents. In Central and Northern California, the median is 6.8 workers. A few industrial cities are "off -the- charts" because they have so few residents amid the factories, but the highest nonin- dustrial city in the Southland is El Segundo at 20.1 employees, followed by Beverly Hills at 18.6 workers, and Santa Monica at 17.4. Los Angeles has a ratio of 11.6 workers per 1,000 residents. In Central and Northern California, San Fran- cisco is the chart - topper at 30.2 employees per 1,000 residents, followed by Emeryville at 24.2 workers. Among cities in neighboring states, Seattle has the highest ratio at 16.7 workers, followed by Tacoma at 16.2, and Salt Lake City at 15.5. 1999 Southern California Edition 0 1999 Kosmont Cost fl)oingBusinessSurvey® Business Taxes: Who Charges the Most? While typical rates are low, a few communities charge businesses substantially more. Below are the ten communities in this edition that impose the highest business tax rates, as averaged among non - property categories. Los Angeles is the highest at 33/100th of 1% of gross receipts, followed closely by Seattle at 32 /100th. Tacoma and Portland join this list, as well as the West Los Angeles -area communities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, El Segundo, Culver City, and Inglewood, plus San Bernardino. If the proposed tax reforms in Los Angeles are adopted by a majority of voters, L.A. will drop below the Tacoma average rate. Highest Business Taxes Percent of Gross Receipts .330% .316% .302% .220% .216% .182% .164% .134% .127% .117% L. A. Seattle, WA Tacoma, WA Portland, OR Santa Monica Beverly Hills El Segundo Culver City Inglewood San Bernardino Note: Rates shown are averaged among the six non - property categories. Percentage is the amount of tax on the first $10 million in gross receipts or the first 100 employees. (For payroll, net income and other assumptions, see Notes & Explanations Section.) When viewed for specific categories, the rankings change somewhat. For Professionals, Los Angeles remains on top fat 59/100th of 1% of gross receipts), but Beverly Hills and Santa Monica top the out -of -state cities. The reverse is true for Manufacturing: Portland and Seattle are most expensive, followed by El Segundo. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica tie for fourth place. Los Angeles is fifth in this category, followed by Tacoma. Fiscal Fickleness: California Voters Continue a Year of Unpredictable Ballot -Box Behavior In the second year following enactment of California's Proposition 218, the message from voters on local tax measures has become more confused. As Kosmont & Associates, Inc. (KA) predicted, the overall passage rate for new taxes was down sharply in 1998 compared to 1997. Voters still ap- pear to support new taxes, but in many cases a two- thirds approval re- quirement thwarts them. Adding to the confusion is voters' acceptance of different types of taxes: it ran counter to perceptions of what taxes are popular. Utility user taxes gained the most voter acceptance, while tran- sient occupancy taxes failed more often than not. Proposition 218, approved by state voters in November 1996, is the latest in a string of voter decisions that have, among other provisions, made bal- lot -box fiscal decisions the norm in California. Proposition 218 requires retroactive votes on general taxes enacted since 1995, and on new or in- creased taxes. Following other measures such as Proposition 62, it has meant that local elections routinely include tax- related votes. The issues at stake can be as obscure as charges on gravel pit operators or as close to home as electric taxes. Last year in the Survey, we reported that California voters demonstrated a surprising pro -tax voting pattern in 1997, the first year following enact- ment of Proposition 218. Votes in 146 elections analyzed by KA indicated that Californians voted pro -tax outcomes 70% of the time. In 1998, the pattern changed. KA reviewed nearly 200 local elections and found pro -tax behavior in just 46% of the elections. KA found that 54% of general tax votes were pro -tax, while 41% of special tax votes were pro -tax. This outcome may or may not have been predictable, depending on one's historical perspective. But the results were surprising for certain types of taxes and uses of revenues. The election data was gathered by the California Debt and Advisory Com- mission (CDAC), and augmented and analyzed by KA. KA believes that these general and special tax votes, from the April, June and November elections, represent nearly all such tax matters to face voters in 1998. Results are "pro -tax" if they retain, impose or increase a tax (usually a "yes" vote), and "anti -tax" if they remove, prevent or decrease a tax (usually a "no" vote). General taxes require majority vote, and special taxes designate a specific use of funds and require two - thirds approval. A utility or sales tax can be a general tax if revenues are unassigned, or a special tax if revenues are reserved for a specific purpose. The table below shows results based by types of tax (regardless of whether the tax is general or special). 0 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusiness Survey® Table A 1998 California Local Tax Elections by Type of Tax Total Pro -Tax Anti -Tax Vote Vote Pro -Tax Percent Business Taxes 10 4 6 40% Transient Occupancy Taxes 26 12 14 46% Utilit User Taxes 32 19 13 59% Sales /Other General Taxes 27 10 17 37% Parcel /Land - based /Misc. Taxes 102 46 56 45% Total 197 91 106 46% There was no particular category of tax that elicited strong voter endorse- ment. Even transient occupancy taxes on hotels, traditionally accepted by voters because their impact falls mostly on visitors, won in just twelve of 26 elections. While 86% of San Francisco voters affirmed a prior two - point hotel tax increase, in 14 other communities, ranging from Arroyo Grande to Roseville, voters rejected new or increased hotel taxes. Utility user taxes fared best, winning approval in 59% of elections. Most were modest affirmations of existing taxes, like the utility tax approval in Alameda, rather than new or increased taxes. Sales, business and parcel taxes lost more often than winning. Most sales tax increases were for spe- cific purposes, and the hurdle for approval of special taxes is tough. A typical sales tax loss is the one in Madera County, where 64% of voters approved a 0.25% sales tax increase for public safety, but the measure fell short of the two- thirds threshold needed. When the votes are examined by use of revenues, patterns are more dis- tinct. As the following table shows, unrestricted general taxes won ap- proval in just over half of elections. Taxes for various kinds of emergency services only won 23 of 54 elections, a sharp decline from the high ap- proval rate for such taxes that KA found in 1997. Library and school taxes were by far most popular, winning approval 73% of the time. Parks and recreation - related and various taxes for capital improvements fared worst. Table B 1998 California Local Tax Elections by Use of Tax Total Pro -Tax Anti -Tax Vote Vote Pro -Tax Percent 71 39 32 55% General Use Emergency Services 54 23 31 43% 6 73% Parks /Recreation 14 3 11 21% Libraries /Schools 22 16 Ca u ital Im rovements /Mist. 36 10 26 28% Total 197 91 106 46% Very few of the elections dealt with new taxes, as opposed to retaining or increasing existing taxes, for example. Of new tax votes, a majority passed, further violating conventional wisdom about voter behavior. ...continued on page 13 The Popular Taxes The vast majority of communities in this edition — nearly 92 %— impose some sort of business tax. Even more popular are transient occupancy taxes, which 94% of communities collect. Utility taxes are far less common, found in just 39% of communities. Parking taxes, charged in just 4% of communities, remain unpopular. Communities with Local Taxes itgtfieit Utility User Taxes 4% Parking Tax Within Southern California, business and transient occupancy taxes are evenly distributed among all counties. Utility taxes, however, are by far most prevalent in Los Angeles County, and are least common in San Diego and Imperial Counties, where only Chula Vista imposes one, among cities surveyed. Local taxation on the whole occurs less in Southern California than in Central and Northern California. Business, utility, transient, and parking taxes are all more common to the north. 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusiness Surz»ey® Utility User Taxes Among the 40% of communities that charge an electric user tax, the tax rates range from 1.5% to 12.5 %. Rates are typically the same for telephone, cellular, gas and water billings as well. However, a few cities exempt cellular billings and almost one -third exempt water billings. In Los Angeles, the non - residential electric rate is 2.5% above its other utility tax rates. Local elections in the aftermath of Proposition 218 have reduced overall tax levels slightly. Average and median electric user rates in Southern California are 6.1% and 5.3% respectively. Although the average rate in the south is 0.7% higher than the north, the median rate is the same. In Northern California, however, more communities impose utility user taxes. The ten highest electric user taxes among communities in this edition are shown below. Four of these cities (Los Angeles, Culver City, Inglewood, and Santa Monica) also are among those with the most expensive business tax rates. Highest Non- Residential Electric Tax Rates 12.5% 11.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.0% 9.0% 8.5% L. A. Culver City Bell Compton Inglewood Long Beach Santa Monica Pomona Tucson Flagstaff Local Government Finance: Cities Are Looking for Taxes in All the Wrong Places A City Manager s Perspective By Rick Cole Rick Cole is City Manager of Azusa and the co- author of The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development, published by the Local Government Commission. He served twelve years as Councilmember in Pasadena, including two years as Mayor, where he is credited with a major role in the successful revitalization of Old Pasadena. We all win when communities compete to improve their attractiveness as places to do business. That's healthy competition. But we all lose when communities cut corners to pay the bills for essential services. That's cut- throat competition — where cities and counties vie to cut their own throats. Cutting costs, improving efficiency, enhancing service — these are all smart moves that not only make a community a better place to do business, they also improve overall regional economic opportunities as well. But with local government financing in shambles, California's cities and counties find that these smart moves bring little return. To survive, local govern- ments have been lured into "economic development" policies that distort the real economy and "entrepreneurial" ventures that reward a lucky few at the expense of the vast majority of businesses and taxpayers. The City of Carson provided the most spectacular recent example of this melancholy march of the municipal lemmings. In high- roller bidding for the next NFL expansion team, only three cities made it to the final round: Houston, Los Angeles and ... Carson. Why would a community of 90,000 residents find itself in the same league with two mega- cities? Because of Carson's willingness to underwrite a gigantic new stadium with up to $180 million of public funds, a staggering sum that works out to $3,000 for every adult resident. It's not sports mania driving Carson's flyer with public funds. "It is clearly principally a financial deal," Carson City Manager Jerome Groomes main- tains. Before Proposition 13, property taxes used to pay the bills for basic services like police, fire and libraries. But two decades later, local govern- ment finance is so convoluted that cities and counties are routinely driven to high -risk deals with sports moguls, corporate giants and developers. The Path of Proposition 13 But we can't blame the late Howard Jarvis for these inadvertent conse- quences of property tax reform, for the problem lies with California's cra- ven state politicians who have treated his legacy as the "third rail" of state politics — touch it and you die. Not only has no major figure been willing to tamper with the measure, none has even been willing to find a coherent way of implementing it. This bipartisan collusion began with Jerry Brown, who was seeking re- election as governor when the initiative passed. Overnight, Brown switched 0 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost of DoingBusiness Survey® from a vehement foe to a tireless champion for the sweeping new mandate. Abandoning his threat that the 60% property tax reduction would mean doomsday for schools and local services, Brown tapped the State's bloated surplus to give homeowners instant tax relief without the dire consequences he had predicted. Brown's opportunism won him re- election, but no provision was made for the inevitable day when the surplus would run out. The State could afford the local government "bail -out" immediately after Proposition 13, but when the recession hit state government, Governor Pete Wilson ruthlessly diverted $3.6 billion in annual revenue from cities and counties to public schools to meet the mandate of Proposition 99. That forced harsh cut- backs on communities already reeling from their own lowered revenues. The County of Los Angeles had its share of local property taxes cut in half. Struggling to stay afloat by asset sales and deficit finance, the county avoided bankruptcy only with an election -year bail -out from the Clinton adminis- tration. The City of Los Angeles scrimped on core services, postponed necessary infrastructure investment and slashed others, like parks and rec- reation, by almost 40 %. Wilson's "emergency" tax shift (which remains in effect) unleashed a reck- less scramble for revenue to replace it. Orange County supervisors were delighted to reap premium interest income until the morning they were awakened with the news that more than $3 billion had evaporated in speculative investments. Sales Tax Mania To offset the property tax loss, counties and cities now feverishly compete for sales tax revenue by subsidizing developers to build what author Bill Fulton calls "sales tax canyons" along major freeways and boulevards. A recent survey of decision - makers in more than two - thirds of the state's cities revealed that "new sales tax revenue" is the single most important factor in local economic development policy. It outranked eradicating blight, creation of jobs, contributions to the regional economy, and pres- ervation of agriculture. It also overrode concerns about traffic, the environ- ment, adequacy of infrastructure, and even conformity to cities' own Gen- eral Plans. Ironically, home shopping and catalogue sales have reduced per capita retail store sales by 40% since the passage of Proposition 13, while the Internet threatens to shred them even faster. The absence of a fair, stable and understandable system to pay for local services has fostered the growth of an impenetrable thicket of special fees, special deals and special exemptions, all of which inevitably are exploited by special interests. These costs will continue to escalate until local gov- ernment finance is reformed. "Under the current system, communities end up with the short end of the stick," Carson's manager Groomes main- tains. "What the State seems to forget is that the State is made up of all those communities." ...continued on page 13 The Other Taxes Cities and counties have a number of additional taxing powers, including sales, transient occupancy, documentary transfer and parking taxes. These often have less impact on businesses than business license, utility and property taxes, but they can compound otherwise high costs. Transient occupancy taxes are nearly universal, with rates ranging from 5% in Huntington Park to 15.2% in Seattle. In Southern California, Anaheim has the highest rate at 15 %, and Beverly Hills, Los Angeles and Inglewood tie for the next highest at 14 %. The average among all California communities is 10.25 %. This average has increased a bit as a few communities have been successful in increasing rates. Parking taxes are imposed in just six communities in this edition. Burbank, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and Inglewood impose a 10% tax, Ontario charges a per diem rate and Salt Lake City charges a 1.0% tax. Documentary transfer taxes (measured only for California cities) are a standard $1.10 per $1,000 of property value in all but a handful of cities. This amount is split equally between the city and county. A few cities, however, charge substantially more. Most notable is Palm Springs, which charges $11.10 per $1,000. Also above the standard rate are Culver City, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Pomona, Redondo Beach, and Riverside. Sales tax rates range from 7.25% to 8.25% within Southern California (rates vary from county to county) and from zero to 8.6% in out -of -state cities in the Survey. 1999 Southern California Edition 0 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusinessSurvey® Incentives for Business Very frequently, communities are willing to at least consider economic incentives in selected locations, according to economic development staff. Most emphasis is on new development incentives (such as offsite infrastructure), rather than business operating incentives (such as utility tax discounts). On the whole, availability of incentives appears to be slightly greater in Southern California than in Central and Northern California, especially with regard to business operating incentives. Communities Willing to Consider Economic Incentives Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Industrial Develo ment Bonds Land, Ac uisition or Construction Subsidies Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions 87% 70% Lease or Tenant Im rovemenf Subsidies Financial Relocation Assistance 56% Property Tax Reimbursements sz%% Business License Tax Waivers or Reduction* 33% Utilit Tax Discounts* 13% *Among communities with suds taxes Willingness to consider such tools does not make securing them easy. Case -by -case negotiations, performance clauses for developers or occupants, and legal and environmental findings of necessity are among the hurdles businesses face. location within a redevelopment area or an enterprise zone is typically a key advantage. The Not -So -Local Taxes Numerous components account for business operating costs. Real estate, direct labor, and labor benefit costs are often primary cost considerations behind location decisions. Differences in state - imposed taxes can be critical as well. (For example, Nevada has no corporate income tax, while the rate in Arizona. is 8.0 %.) Locally- imposed taxes must be viewed in this broader context for a given business operation. Among neighboring cities, labor and state costs are likely to be the same, and the big differences are specific real estate occupancy costs and local taxes and fees. This section briefly compares California statewide tax policies with those of the other states represented in the Survey. California Income /Excise Taxes: The corporate income tax rate in California is 8.84% for state - generated income. Banks and financial institutions pay 10.84% but receive exemptions from local business and personal property taxes. Sales and Use Taxes: Total sales and use tax rates range from 7.25% to 8.5 %, varying by county. This includes a 6.0% state rate, a 1.25% combined city and county rate, and additional taxes in certain counties for mass transit, highways or other uses. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: property tax rebates on real and personal property of up to 15 years with capital investments of at least $150 million; state manufacturing equipment tax credits; local manufacturing property tax rebates; research and development expenditure tax credits; various start -up /small business tax incentives; tax credits for employing welfare recipients; enhanced net loss carryovers for biotech firms and firms in Enterprise Zones; hiring and equipment tax credits in Enterprise Zones; sales tax credits in Enterprise Zones. Newly available tax credits include software development and partial sales tax exemptions for movie - related services. Arizona Income /Excise Taxes: The corporate income tax rate for state - generated income is 8.0 %, a decrease from 9.0% Sales and Use Taxes: Arizona imposes a transaction privilege and use tax. The state rate is 5.0% for most industries, with localities adding up to 2.0% more. Professional and personal services are exempt from the tax. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: new construction tax credits for manufacturing and research and development facilities; manufacturing equipment privilege tax exemption; research and development expenditure tax credits; defense restructuring tax credits; Enterprise Zone hiring tax credit; Enterprise Zone manufacturing property tax abatement; pollution control tax credits and deductions. 0 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusinessSurvey® The Not -So -Local Taxes Nevada Income /Excise Taxes: Nevada imposes no corporate or personal income taxes. However, the state levies a business activity tax of $100 annually per full -time employee. Sales and Use Taxes: Total sales and use tax rates range from 6.5% to 7.0%, varying by county. This includes a 6.5% state rate, with some counties levying an additional tax. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: business tax abatement for certain businesses; machinery and equipment sales tax exemptions or deferrals for certain businesses. Oregon Income /Excise Taxes: The corporate excise tax is 6.6% of net Oregon income. Sales and Use Taxes: There is no sales or use tax in Oregon. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: property tax exemptions for certain major capital investments; research and development expenditure tax credits for certain industries; pollution control tax credits; Enterprise Zone property tax exemptions (excluding land); reclaimed plastic tax credits. Washington Income /Excise Taxes: Washington imposes no corporate or personal income taxes. However, the state levies a business and occupations tax that is based on gross receipts generated within Washington. Rates currently range up to 1.5% (a decrease of 0.5% from last year) for services, with a 0.471% rate for retailers and 0.484% rate for manufacturers. Sales and Use Taxes: Total sales and use tax rates range from 7.0% to 9.1% and vary by locality. This includes a 6.5% state rate, with localities imposing an additional tax of 0.5% to 1.7%. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: manufacturing equipment sales and use tax exemption; High Technology business and occupations tax credits for certain industries; High Technology sales and use tax deferrals and exemptions for certain industries; Distressed Area business and occupations tax credits; Distressed Area sales and use tax deferrals and exemptions. Utah Income /Excise Taxes: The corporate franchise tax in Utah is 5.0% for state - generated income. There is a special gross receipts tax for certain exempt corporations ranging from zero to 1.7520% and up to 0.4725% for electric generating corporations. ...continued on pagel3 County Contrasts Business tax differences among the county regions in the Survey are quite pronounced. Among the seven regions in the chart, the out -of -state median business tax rate is by far highest (as averaged across the six non - property categories). At just under 8 /100th of 1% of gross receipts, this median reflects high rates in Seattle, Tacoma, and Port- land. Within the Southland, Los Angeles County and the Santa Barbara /Ventura re- gions are the highest, with Orange County being the lowest at 1 /100th of 1% of gross receipts. Median Business Tax Rates by Region Out -of -State .075% .021% Los Angeles .020% Ventura /Santa Barbara .014% San Bernardino .012% Riverside .011% San Diego /Imperial .010% Orange Note: Medians are calculated for communities with business taxes only. Percentage is the amount of fax on the first $10 million in gross receipts or the first 100 employees. (For payroll, net income and other assumptions, See Notes & Explanations Section.) Rates are medians among six non - property categories. 1999 Southern California Edition 0 1999Kosmont Cost ofDoingBusiness Survey® Landlords Pay More Not all cities tax rental revenues from real estate. However, among communities with such a tax, landlords are frequently subject to higher business taxes than other industries. The overall rates are still relatively low as a percent of gross receipts (in the range of 9/ 100'" of 1% of gross receipts on average), but these categories are subject to much confusion. Tax methods vary considerably and the tax may be different for landlords based within the taxing jurisdiction instead of outside city limits. Among the communities in this edition, Beverly Hills, Tucson, Chandler, Phoenix, El Segundo, and Manhattan Beach are the most expensive for commercial landlords (highest to lowest), and Chandler, Phoenix, Beverly Hills, Tacoma, Azusa, and Monterey Park charge the most for residential landlords (highest to lowest). Average business tax rates for commercial landlords are slightly lower in the north while the reverse is true in the south for residential landlords. Similarly, median business tax rates for commercial landlords are slightly higher in the north while the reverse is true in the south for residential landlords. Finding the Money Special zones employing the old- fashioned model —tax incentives and credits —are available in many communities in the form of enterprise zones, foreign trade zones and other special areas. For most of these zones, the caveat is that eligible locations are relatively few, and they are rarely prime real estate locations. Many cities use redevelopment project areas in a similar fashion, crafting incentives based on flexibility in redevelopment law. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are also becoming more common Each community profile in the Survey lists the special incentive or similar zones in a locality. Redevelopment project areas are nearly universal in Southern California, found in 93% of the jurisdictions surveyed in this edition. Least common are foreign trade zones, present in just 8 %. There are some distinct differences between the south and north of the state: redevelopment areas are more common in the south, but BIDs are much less common Enterprise and foreign trade zones are less common as well. 93% Communities With Special Zones 43% Recycling Business Redevelopment Market Dev. Improvement Sta e Enterprise Foreign 0 her Business Areas Zones Districts Zones Trade Zones Incentive Zones 16% 19% Listed below are some of the benefits that businesses can derive from such zones. Enterprise and Other State Incentive Zones California's 36 Enterprise Zones and three Local Area Military Base Recovery Areas (LAMBRAs) were created to generate jobs in depressed areas through business investment (two additional LAMBRA zones have conditional designations). The primary benefits include: • Hiring tax credits against state taxes for qualified employees. The credit varies and may be up to 50% of wages the first year, at a maximum of 1.5 times the minimum wage. • Deductions for qualified business equipment (up to $10,000 in the first year) • Net operating loss carryover for up to 15 years for individuals or corporations 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmant Cost ofDoing Business Survey® Finding the Money • Tax credits for certain sales and use taxes paid - Communities with enterprise zones can also offer their own incentives, such as reduced local fees or reduced utility rates The cities of Brawley and Calexico in Imperial County have 15 -year state designations as Manufacturing Enhancement Areas (MEAs). The most notable advantage of the MEA designation is its graduated hiring credit provisions for previously unemployed or underemployed residents of Im- perial County. The maximum allowable credit is 150 percent of mini- mum wage. Other states have their own enterprise zone programs as well. Eugene, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Tucson all have some form of enterprise zone. California Financing Programs In addition to these incentive zones, California provides a myriad of fi- nancing programs for a wide range of specialized uses. These include in- dustrial development bonds co- sponsored by localities, infrastructure loans up to $1 million in rural areas and smaller cities, small business loan guar- antees, export finance loan guarantees for small business, loans for pollu- tion control equipment, and hazardous waste - related financing. The Cali- fornia Capital Access Program and the California Technology Investment Partnership Program provide assistance to small businesses Financing also includes loans up to $1 million in designated Recycling Market Develop- ment Zones for projects that advance the use of recycled materials. In the Federal Empowerment Zone in portions of Los Angeles, federal tax credits (up to $3,000) for a portion of eligible employees' salaries are al- lowed beginning in 2000 through 2007. Eligible employees must be resi- dents of the Zone. This area is also a Tax Free Area for the City of Los Angeles with respect to business taxes. Federal Foreign Trade Zones Foreign Trade Zones (and subzones) offer deferral, reduction, or elimination of US Customs duties for importers and exporters. Benefits include: • deferral of duties on import merchandise until transferred out of a zone • potential reduction of duties in some cases • no duties on labor, overhead, or profit related to production operations in a zone • no duties on merchandise that is imported into a zone and then subsequently exported If a company or industrial development is a strong candidate for Foreign Trade Zone status, it can contact nearby existing zones about possibilities for obtaining a designation. Property Taxes: Where California Shines Where California cities and counties have suffered fiscally from the Tong -term impacts of Proposition 13, the State's property owners have benefitted more than originally expected: the Golden State's property tax rates are more competitive than almost all its neighboring states, rivaled only by rates in Nevada. Arizona cities assess property at particularly high rates. The four highest property tax rates in the Survey are in the Grand Canyon State, ranging from Flagstaff's non - residential rate of 2.074 %, up to the non - residential rate of 3.601 % in Phoenix. These rates are two to four times the median rates in California. (Residential tax rates in Arizona are much Tess, but still considerably more than California's.) Higher property tax rates elsewhere account for the large proportion of High Cost $$$$ Kosmont Cost Ratings in neighboring states. Non - Residential Property Tax Rates Southern CA Median 1.030% Central & Northern CA Median 1.062% Out -of -State Median 1.501% See Notes & Explanations Section for methodology 1999 Southern California Edition 0 1999 Kosmont Cost olDoingBusiness Survey® How Crime Compares The Survey includes the FBI's latest full -year crime statistics (for 1997), and the results are striking for the predominance of non -Cali- fornia cities among the highest -crime locales. Of the ten communities with the worst overall rates of serious crime, eight are in neighbor- ing states. Salt Lake City, with a high num- ber of property crimes, leads. 1997 Serious Crimes per 100,000 Residents Salt Lake City, UT Commerce, CA Portland, OR Tacoma, WA Seattle, WA Tucson, AZ Eugene, OR Phoenix, AZ Santa Fe Springs, CA Flagstaff, AZ 1 1,736 11,402 11,316 10,811 10,390 10,019 9,996 9,632 9,484 9,215 See Notes & Explanations Section for methodology detail Among the biggest cities in the Southland, the rates were 5,584 in Los Angeles, 4,833 in San Diego, and 3,872 in Santa Ana. Finding the Money. Redevelopment Project Areas The vast majority of California communities have redevelopment project areas, and their redevelopment agencies remain one of the most flexible sources of assistance for property owners, businesses, and developers, including: • Tax - exempt financing • Land assemblage • Direct financial assistance • Construction of public improvements Redevelopment activities are funded through incremental property tax revenue increases resulting from increased property values, together with federal and local grants and loans, as well as the sale of bonds. Agency debt is repaid from the tax increment revenue. A portion (at least 20 %) of tax increment revenue is set aside for low or moderate - income housing. In addition, special disaster redevelopment project areas may be established after a presidentially - declared natural disaster. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) BIDS are the self -help, privately financed approach to business assistance zones. They are established either by local businesses or property owners in a defined area. The latter property -based BIDs (PBIDs) are quickly becoming popular throughout the state since being legalized in 1995. BIDs add slightly to annual costs for businesses or landlords, but their organizers believe that the increased costs will be offset by the benefits of better safety, cleanliness, streetscaping, marketing, and planning efforts. Historically used in downtown retail areas, BIDs are increasingly enacted in non - retail areas as well. ® 1999 Southern California Edition 1999Kos1nantCost ofDoingBusiness Survey® Fiscal Fickleness (continued) The popularity of education - related taxes is echoed as well in general ob- ligation bond approvals. Of 137 general obligation bond votes tracked by the CDAC, voters approved 59% of the bonds. The vast majority of such bonds benefit primary and secondary schools. But before designating 1998 a come -back year for local anti -tax forces, a tally of votes shows an underlying pro -tax sentiment that may yet prevail. In the November elections alone, over 740,000 "yes" votes were cast in general elections and 565,000 "no" votes. The special tax elections elicited over 1.2 million "yes" votes and nearly 1.1 million "no" votes, showing an underlying acceptance by the electorate. But the two- thirds requirement meant that 59% of the taxes saw defeat. For city and county governments, voter unpredictability will not make fiscal planning any easier as they try to maintain service levels. But until state changes in local government financing ease their fiscal burdens, there appears to be enough pro -tax sentiment to make searching for new taxes worthwhile. KA wishes to thank Hardy Gamer, Associate Analyst, and Peter Schaafsma, Executive Director, of the California Debt and Advisory Commission for their assistance in providing election data. Local Government Finance... (continued) With a new administration in Sacramento, California has a fresh opportu- nity to think about how to pay the bills for basic local services that every resident uses and needs. Reform will not be easy, and "local government finance" doesn't top the list of issues watched by press and pollsters. But it will have a far more profound impact on the State's future than the divi- sive "hot button" topics that are exploited at election time. Like educating our kids, creating healthy and prosperous communities is part of the foun- dation for the California dream. It's serious work, and serious people need to turn their attention to serious reform before scandal or fiscal crisis forces another revolt like Proposition 13. Not -So -Local Taxes (continued) Sales and Use Taxes: Total sales and use tax rates range from 5.75% to 7.0 %, varying by locality. This includes a 4.75% state rate, a 0.25% county rate, a 1.0% city rate, and additional taxes of 0.10% to 1.0% in certain counties for mass transit, highways or other uses. Tax Credits and Exemptions include: high technology equipment contribution tax credit; Enterprise Zone tax credit; recycling market development zone tax credit; energy systems installation credit; sales tax exemption on airplane parts and supplies; sales tax exemption on pollution control equipment for industry; Freeport Law exempts inventory or other personal property held for sale from property taxation; research tax credits; sales tax exemption for purchase of new and replacement manufacturing equipment; various other sales and use tax exemptions. 1999 Southern California Edition 0 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESIDENT, Larry J. Kosmont, Kosmont & Associates, Inc. VICE- PRESIDENT, Kevin Randolph, Best, Best & Krieger EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Richard Mallory, TREASURER, Edward Schilling, Stone & Youngberg SECRETARY, Nevin Sanli, Sanli Pastore & Hill Tony Canzoneri, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri Kenneth Caresio, O'Connor & Company Securities (eil Cerillo, Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency Dennis Ciocca, Sutter Securities Tom Clark, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Routh Mark Curran, Piperlaffray William Strausz, Richards Watson & Gershon Introducing the 21st Century Institute for a Better California The beginning of 1999 marks the inauguration of a new and exciting orga- nization created to advance the understanding of the benefits that public - private partnerships bring to California s communities. This new non - profit organization is called the 21st Century Institute for a Better California. The mission of the 21 Century Institute is clear: To educate Californians about successful public - private development efforts that build and sustain a high quality of life for all Californians The 21st Century Institute was founded by a group of people directors and staff members of local economic development and redevelopment agen- cies, private developers, attorneys, real estate consultants, and others who are bullish on the future of public - private development in our state. We are committed to improving the quality of life for Californians and believe strongly that public- private partnerships are a proven strategy towards reach - ing that end. We have formed the 21 Century Institute to improve the understanding among Californians of the enormous benefit that public - private develop- ment partnerships bring to our state. Currently that understanding weighs against public - private ventures. As a result, there are assaults on the legisla- tive and initiative front to restrict the ability of local governments to work creatively with the private sector for the betterment of our communities. For the most part, these assaults aim to create disincentives for public -pri- vate projects. The Institute seeks to inform Californians about those successes on a project - by- project basis. Also, we will show that when seen as a whole, public - private partnerships have moved California and its residents dramatically forward. We will pursue these goals in two primary ways: first, through strategically placed articles in the general media and in targeted publica- tions; and second, through direct communications with citizens and stake- holders at the local level in conjunction with mayors, economic develop- ment professionals, and urban planners. invite you to join our efforts in preserving and enhancing the future of public - private development partnerships. Support the 21st Century Institute with a donation or call our headquarters to find outwhat you can do to help us achieve our educational mission on (916) 446 -1510. Very truly yours, Larry J. Kosmont, CRE President of the Board 1999 Kosmont Cost ofDoing Business Survey® Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Labor Market Labor Availability (1997)1 Population (1998)2 Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 9,603,300. 4,496,700 4,189,200 307,500 6.84% Labor Cost' 1995 1996 1995 -96 Increase (Decrease) 1995 -96 Percent Change $32,445 $33,478 $1,033 3.18% 'State of California Employment Development Department county annual average. 'State of California Department of Finance county population figures as of 1/1/98. 'U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics metropolitan area average annual pay figures. Ventura Metropolitan Area Labor Market Labor Availability (1997)1 Population (1998)2 Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 730,800 383,100 358,100 25,000 6.53% Labor Cost' 1995 1996 1995 -96 Increase (Decrease) 1995 -96 Percent Change $27,262 $28,260 $998 3.66% 'State of California Employment Development Department county annual average. 'State of California Department of Finance county population figures as of 1/1/98. 'U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics metropolitan area average annual pay figures. Labor market data compiled by kosmont & Associates, Inc. Regional Economic Overview: Los Angeles & Ventura Counties The Economy The Los Angeles /Ventura region's economy began to slow in late 1998. However, the growth rate is still well above growth rates in the early 1990's and is expected to achieve a strong two percent or better growth rate in 1999 as well. The economy should regain momentum in 2000 and 2001 since the Asian financial crisis is expected to be over by then. The four components that comprise the GDP are consumer spending, business investment, government spending, and net exports. While consumer spending and business investment both increased five and ten percent respectively, government spending and net exports dropped. Net exports, an important indicator for Los Angeles that captures approximately 10 percent of U.S. GDP, dropped by almost 80 percent. After an extreme low during the early part of the 1990's, consumer confidence climbed to its highest level since the late 1980's. However, with the recent instability in international economies and a slowdown in the national stock market, the October 1998 consumer confidence level represented a decline for the fourth month in a row, to 119 after a high of 140 in July 1998. The index rebounded slightly, to 124, in November. A Consumer Confidence Index of less than 100 would signal a likely slowdown in the housing markets. Consumer confidence is projected to be approximately 100 at the end of 1999. Los Angeles County lost 10 percent or 430,000 jobs of its employment base during the 1990 to 1994 recession, which was one of the worst percentages of employment loss ever experienced by any metropolitan area. The percentage decline in Los Angeles County's employment was far worse than the percentage decline in California (3.6 percent) and the United States (1.0 percent). Employment growth in Los Angeles County is expected to slowly increase (1.2 percent to 2.8 percent per year) until Los Angeles finally recoups all of its job losses by the year 2001. This is a faster growth rate than projected for the United States, but much slower than the forecast for Orange County and Ventura County (which is forecast to grow 1.5 to 3 percent per year). In Los Angeles, absolute job numbers are expected to decrease 44 percent from 1998 levels to total 54,800 new jobs in 1999. Similarly, absolute job numbers in Ventura County are expected to decline 36 percent to total 4,500 new jobs next year. Although the absolute number of jobs will decline, employment growth overall is a positive sign. The Los Angeles/ Ventura economy's dependence on the motion picture industry continues. The domestic box office is up 7.5 percent and the industry employs over 1 2 million people in Los Angles County. An industry slowing, or a major studio relocation, could hurt the Los Angeles economy considerably, although not nearly as significantly as the recent contraction in the defense industry. 1999 Southern California Edition 1999 Kosmont Cost f 1�oingBusiness Survey® The defense industry is still consolidating and downsizing, as evidenced by Boeing's recent acquisitions of McDonnell Douglas and Raytheon's purchase of Hughes Aircraft, combined with both companies' decisions to cut over 12,000 jobs at the time of merger. Boeing has since announced to cut a further 53,000 jobs in a second layoff, with 600 jobs lost specifically in their Long Beach facility. A potential labor strike in early 1999 by Los Angeles and Long Beach longshoremen could affect the region's economy, since a quarter of the nation's container cargo is handled by these ports, and an estimated 400,000 people in Southern California are directly employed in the region's trade sector. Negotiations between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association will commence in May of 1999. Quality of Life Homeownership in Los Angeles County is low (54 percent) while ownership is high in Ventura County (69 percent). The U.S. average homeownership rate is 66 percent. The low home ownership rate in Los Angeles County is attributable to affordability. Housing affordability will be a key concern in this region. Los Angeles and Ventura county school systems suffer from a common problem — overcrowding. In 1998, Governor Pete Wilson allocated $971 million to Los Angeles County and $771 million to Ventura County to construct new schools with the intention to lower class size to approximately twenty students to improve the quality of education. The highest ranked district in Los Angeles County was La Canada Unified, with an average SAT score of 1,184. Similarly, the highest ranked district in Ventura County was Conejo Valley Unified, with an average SAT score of 1,102. The crime rate in Los Angeles County is slightly higher than the average for California as a whole. In 1996 (the most recent data available), there were 55.04 crimes per 1,000 people in Los Angeles County, compared to 52.57 crimes per 1,000 people throughout the state. In contrast, the crime rate is approximately 60 percent lower in Ventura County than California. Among area cities, the City of Calabasas topped the list as the safest city, with the lowest crime rate at 6.49 crimes per 1,000 people. Outlook Barring a longshoremen strike, 1999 should be another good year for the Los Angeles and Ventura economies. Employment will continue to grow, which will put upward pressure on home prices since Los Angeles and Ventura counties are not approving many new housing units. John Burns is Senior Managing Director and Shefali Mody is a Consultant at The Meyers Group. They can be reached at (949) 263 -8755. Provided to Kosmont & Associates, Inc. by Meyers Group 1999 Southern California Edition Assoc ates,Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey VERNON Los Angeles County, California Cost Rating 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 www.vemongov.org Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (323) 583-8811 (323) 583 -8811 (323) 583 -8811 (323) 583-8811 (323) 583-8811 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 -98 85 3.7% City Type Charter City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents 3,588.2 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) Activity Rating BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee General Office ❑ ❑ Professional Office ❑ ❑ Retail ❑ ❑ Wholesale ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Manufacturing ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ Personal Service ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ Commercial Property 50000 Residential Property 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Calculation Formulas City Designation /Rate Code All Categories All Categories All Categories Warehousing All Categories All Categories Exempt Exempt Rate Comparison Annual tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total % of $10m Per $1.000 $595 0.006% $0.06 $595 0.006% $0.06 $595 0.006% $0.06 $595 0 006% $0.06 $595 0.006% $0.06 $595 0.006% $0.06 $0 0.000% $0.00 $0 0.000% $0.00 ALL CATEGORIES: 0 - 1 employee = $125 2 - 10 employees = $190 11 - 25 employees = $260 26 - 50 employees = $360 51 - 75 employees = $480 76 - 100 employees = $595 101 - 150 employees = $710 151 - 200 employees = $880 201 - 250 employees = $950 251 - 300 employees = $1,070 301 - 400 employees = $1,190 401 - 500 employees = $1,310 501 - 600 employees = $1,435 601 - 700 employees = $1,670 701 - 800 employees = $1,905 801 - 900 employees = $2,140 901 - 1,000 employees = $2,380 1,001 - 1,100 employees = $2,615 1,101 - 1,200 employees = $2,850 1,201 - 1,300 employees = $3,085 1,301 - 1,400 employees = $3,325 1,401 - 1,500 employees = $3,560 1,501 - 1,600 employees = $3,795 1,601 - 1,700 employees = $4,030 1,701 - 1,800 employees = $4,270 1,801 - 1,900 employees = $4,505 1,901 or more employees = $4,740 Maximum = $4,740 WAREHOUSING: 1 - 5,000 sq. ft. = $200 annual fee 5,000 sq. ft. and over = $200, plus $.035 per sq. ft. CO 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates not scheduled to change. Special parcel tax on warehouses, truck terminals, freight terminals, and distribution facilities in the amount of $0.01 per sq. ft. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 0.0% Telephone 0.0% Cellular 0.0% Gas 0.0% Water 0.0% Electric Distributor Vernon Municipal Light Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $19,865,154 Business License Taxes 4.1% Utility Taxes 0.0% 22.9% Per Resident $233,708 Sales Taxes Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $57,576,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01583% 8.25% 0.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Kosmont & A 999 Associates, Inc. Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar None Environmental Initial Study Fee None Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Zone Change Fee None General Plan Amendment Fee None Specific Plan Fee None Development Agreement Fee None ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Redevelopment Agency Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Property Tax Reimbursements Unlikely to be Available Utility Tax Discounts Not Applicable Financial Relocation Assistance Will Consider Transaction - RDA VERNON Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee MI Art in Public Places Fee • Other Special Fees SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) • Other Non- Residential Assessment/Tax Districts • State Enterprise Zone(s) MI Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) • Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) MI Redevelopment Project Area(s) Industrial Revitalization Project Area - (active) © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.lcosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages Export Small Business Development Center: on -site direct assistance to export transactions for Vernon companies; off -site infrastructure, $1/2 million in Community Development Block Grant funds available 1. U.S. Growers: A new freezer building valued at $11.6 million; 2. J & J Seafood invested over $3.5 million to build a 60,000 sq. ft. building 1. Lowest utility rates in California 2. Labor pool availability 3. No gross receipts tax & low crime TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 1, 17tinterchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Los Angeles International Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service LACMTA, Southeast Train 'n Wheels Shuttle Rail Transit Service Blue Line (1/2 mile to station) Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, LA Junction Railway Kosmont Associates, LInc. �99 Cost of Doing Business Survey® Vernon, CA Case Study Costs for typical office, industrial, retail and apartment projects and occupants Developer Costs Specified Impact/Exaction Fees' Minimum Maximum Occupant/ Owner Costs Annual Local Taxes' A. 60,000 sq. ft. Office Building Typical Tenant: 130,000 sq. ft. Law Firm $0 $0 110,000 sq. ft. Advertising Agency $600 $360 1 • ..... .,.,,.,.,.. ..M. Q1.. Inarrulas-Luling racwty Typical Tenant: $0 $0 150,000 sq. ft. Electrical Equip. Firm $24,610 1 110,000 sq. ft. Auto Parts Manufacturer $5,090 1 C. 100,000 sq. ft. Distribution Facility Typical Tenant: $0 $0 1100,000 sq. ft. Import /Export Firm $42,620 1 D. 125,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: $0 $0 145,000 sq. ft. Supermarket $39,340 1 13,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Outlet $2,850 1 E. 10,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: 12,500 sq. ft. Restaurant $0 $0 11,500 sq. ft. Hair Salon $2,420 1 $1,490 1 F. 40 Unit Apartment Building 2 'Landlord Costs $0 $0 $34,540 1 Rounded to nearest $1,000. No specified entitlement fees. Excludes typical fees such as application, plan check, permit, inspection and similar fees, and water, sewer, drainage, and school fees. All projects may be subject to additional and /or substitute fees based on environmental review. See separate explanations for specific project assumptions. Rounded to nearest $10. Includes special parcel tax on warehouses and business license and payroll taxes, if any, utility user taxes, if any, and property taxes (except for office occupants) based on typical ad valorem rate for community. See explanation at end of chapter for specific occupant assumptions. © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved — modifying this image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.lcosmont.corn Kosmont & 1 999 Associates, Inc. Cost of Doing Business Survey CARSON Los Angeles County, California Cost Rating 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 www. ci. carson. ca. us Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (310) 830 -7600 (310) 952-1748 (310) 952 -1762 (310) 952-1761 (310) 952 -1764 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 -98 90,600 7.9% City Type General Law City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents 3.6 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) 4,332 Activity Rating BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee 71 General Office ❑ ❑ Professional Office ❑ ❑ Retail ❑ ❑ Wholesale ❑ ❑ Manufacturing ❑ ❑ Personal Service ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Commercial Property ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Residential Property ❑❑❑ ❑CI Calculation Formulas City Designation /Rate Code All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories Commercial Rentals Residential Rentals Rate Comparison Annual tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total $2,140 $2,140 $2,140 $2,140 $2,140 $2,140 $107 $7,863 %of$10m 0.021% 0.021% 0.021% 0.021 % 0.021% 0.021 % 0.001% 0.079% Per $1.000 $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.01 $0.79 ALL CATEGORIES: One -time application fee = $100.00 $107.00 per first 5 employees, plus $21.40 per additional employee COMMERCIAL RENTALS: $107.00 annual fee RESIDENTIAL RENTALS: $85.00 flat fee for first 10 units, then $8.50 per additional unit 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.lcosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates scheduled to change by CPI. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 0.0% Telephone 0.0% Cellular 0.0% Gas 0.0% Water 0.0% Electric Distributor Southern California Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $27,220,841 Business License Taxes 5.3 % Utility Taxes 0.0% 49.6% Per Resident $300 Sales Taxes Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $748,295,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01583% 8.25% 9.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Assoc ates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar $750 (Design Overlay Review) Environmental Initial Study Fee $500 Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Zone Change Fee $2,500 General Plan Amendment Fee $2,500 Specific Plan Fee $4,000 plus $100 per acre Development Agreement Fee $5,000 plus $100 per acre ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Community Development Department Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - RDA Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Will Consider Transaction Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Will Consider Transaction Property Tax Reimbursements Will Consider Transaction Utility Tax Discounts Not Applicable Financial Relocation Assistance Will Consider Transaction CARSON Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee ■ Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee • Art in Public Places Fee p Other Special Fees Note 1 Note 1: Parkland Dedication In -Lieu Fee: Determined on a case - by -case basis. See City for detailed calculation methodology Parks Fee: SF: $37.83 - $38.35 per unit MF: $27.67 - $33.91 per unit SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) MI Other Non - Residential Assessment/Tax Districts Landscape, Lighting • State Enterprise Zone(s) 0 Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) • Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) tn Redevelopment Project Area(s) Project I Project 11 © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. 213) 623- ( ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES' Special Carson pledges to be as competitive as reasonably Freeway Interchange Ratio Incentive possible in attracting companies that increase its 12.1 interchanges for each 100,000 residents Programs stature as an excellent, low -cost municipality in and Services which to operate a business Nearest Commercial Airport Long Beach Municipal Airport; Los Angeles International Airpo Notable Financially assisted developer with CarMax project Nearest Port Facilities Public /Private Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Transactions Bus Transit Service Carson Circuit, LACMTA Business 1. No utility user taxes Rail Transit Service Advantages 2. Low business license fees Blue Line 3. Top quality business /industrial parks Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific AoKsmont ates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey Cost Rating COMMERCE Los Angeles County, California 2535 Commerce Way Commerce, CA 90040 www.ci.city-commerce.ca.us Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (323) 722-4805 (323) 722 -4805 Ext. 232 (323) 722 -4805 Ext. 233 (323) 722 -4805 Ext. 223 (323) 722 -4805 Ext. 233 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 -98 City Type General Law City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) 13,050 7.5% 11.8 11,402 Activity Rating BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee General Office ❑ ❑ Professional Office ❑ ❑ Retail ❑ ❑ Wholesale ❑ ❑ Manufacturing ❑ ❑ Personal Service ❑ ❑ Commercial Property ❑ ❑ Residential Property ❑ ❑ Calculation Formulas ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ City Designation /Rate Code All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories Rate Comparison Annual tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total $676 $676 $676 $1,180 $676 $676 $3,000 $3,000 % of $10m 0.007% 0.007% 0.007% 0.012% 0.007% 0.007% 0.030% 0.030% Per $1.000 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.12 $0.07 $0.07 $0.30 $0.30 ALL CATEGORIES: $5.50 per employee, plus $0.0063 per sq. ft. of enclosed premises Minimum fee = $50.00 Maximum fee = $3,000 Residential Rentals: same as above if more than 4 units © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 wwwlcosinont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates not scheduled to change. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 0.0% Telephone 0.0% Cellular 0.0% Gas 0.0% Water 0.0% Electric Distributor Southern California Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $21,269,609 Business License Taxes 3.1% Utility Taxes 0.0% 49.2% Per Resident $1,630 Sales Taxes Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $335,224,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01250% 8.25% 0.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Kosmont Associates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar None Environmental Initial Study Fee $500 Conditional Use Permit $750 Zone Change Fee $800 General Plan Amendment Fee $800 Specific Plan Fee None Development Agreement Fee None ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Community Development Department Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Property Tax Reimbursements Not Applicable Utility Tax Discounts Not Applicable Financial Relocation Assistance Will Consider Transaction - offer cooperation and assistance COMMERCE Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee • Art in Public Places Fee • Other Special Fees SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) • Other Non - Residential Assessment Tax Districts • State Enterprise Zone(s) p Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) • Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) 0 Redevelopment Project Area(s) Project I - Commerce Business Park Project 11 - Town Center (The Citadel) Project 111- Atlantic/Washington Project IV © 1999 by Kosmont &Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages Redevelopment assistance Request for Redevelopment proposal at Telegraph and Washington 1. No gross receipts tax 2. Excellent freeway and rail access 3. Ideal location near Downtown Los Angeles TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 46.0 interchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Los Angeles International Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service Commerce Municipal Bus Line Rail Transit Service Metrolink Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific A socia es, Inc. � 999 Cost of Doing Business Survey® Commerce, CA Case Study Costs for typical office, industrial, retail and apartment projects and occupants Developer Costs Specified Impact/Exaction Fees' Minimum Maximum Occupant/ Owner Costs Annual Local Taxes' A. 60,000 sq. ft. Office Building Typical Tenant: $0 $0 30,000 sq. ft. Law Firm $680 10,000 sq. ft. Advertising Agency $280 B. 50,000 sq. ft. Manufacturing Facility Typical Tenant: $0 $0 50,000 sq. ft. Electrical Equip. Firm $24,770 10,000 sq. ft. Auto Parts Manufacturer $4,980 C. 100,000 sq. ft. Distribution Facility Typical Tenant: $0 $0 100,000 sq. ft. Import /Export Firm $38,930 D. 125,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: $0 $0 45,000 sq. ft. Supermarket $39,340 3,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Outlet $2,690 E. 10,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: $0 $0 2,500 sq. ft. Restaurant $2,230 1,500 sq. ft. Hair Salon $1,330 F. 40 Unit Apartment Building $0 $0 Landlord Costs $34,690 2 Rounded to nearest $1,000. No specified entitlement fees. Excludes typical fees such as application, plan check, permit, inspection and similar fees, and water, sewer, drainage, and school fees. All projects may be subject to additional and /or substitute fees based on environmental review. See separate explanations for specific project assumptions. Rounded to nearest $10. Includes business license and payroll taxes, if any, utility user taxes, if any, and property taxes (except for office occupants) based on typical ad valorem rate for community. See explanation at end of chapter for specific occupant assumptions. © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved — modifying this image in whole or in put is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.lcosmont.com Assoc ates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey INDUSTRY Los Angeles County, California Cost Rating $$ 15651 East Stanford Street Industry, CA 91744 Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (626) 333-2211 (626) 333 -2211 (626) 968-3737 (626) 333 -2211 (626) 961-6341 Population (1998) 700 Population Growth 1990 -98 10.9% City Type Charter City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents 28.6 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) Activity Rating • BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee General Office Professional Office Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Personal Service Commercial Property Residential Property D Calculation Formulas 0000 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0000 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 000 O 000 10000 0000 City Designation /Rate Code Rate Comparison Annual fax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 of $10m 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% Per $1.000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 wwwJcosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES The city has no business taxes, but has a relatively high property tax rate. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 0.0% Telephone 0.0% Cellular 0.0% Gas 0.0% Water 0.0% Electric Distributor Southern California Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $86,304,643 Business License Taxes 0.0% Utility Taxes 0.0% Sales Taxes 24.1% Per Resident $123,292 Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $1,184,960,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.83331% 8.25% 0.0% 0.0% $1.10 per$1,000 Assoc a es, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar None Environmental Initial Study Fee $1,000 deposit Conditional Use Permit $1,000 deposit plus $250 filing fee Zone Change Fee $1,000 deposit plus $250 filing fee General Plan Amendment Fee None Specific Plan Fee None Development Agreement Fee None ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Industry Development Agency Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - RDA Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Not Applicable Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Property Tax Reimbursements Unlikely to be Available Utility Tax Discounts Not Applicable Financial Relocation Assistance Unlikely to be Available INDUSTRY Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees ■ Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee • Art in Public Places Fee • Other Special Fees SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) • Other Non - Residential Assessment Tax Districts • State Enterprise Zone(s) ■ Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) • Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) 0 Redevelopment Project Area(s) Project I Project 11 Project 111 © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages None Available No Response 1. No business license or utility taxes 2. Location (railroad & freeway accessibility) 3. Large labor pool adjacent to the City TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 1,28Unterchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Los Angeles International Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service LACMTA, Foothill Transit Rail Transit Service Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific AoKsmont ates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey Cost Rating $$ IRWINDALE Los Angeles County, California 5050 North Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (626) 962-3381 (626) 962-3381 (626) 962-3381 (626) 962-3381 (626) 962-3381 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 -98 1,170 11.4% City Type Charter City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents 50.4 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) Activity Rating BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rafe /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee General Office Professional Office Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Personal Service Commercial Property Residential Property Calculation Formulas 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ City Designation /Rate Code 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 5.08.470 Rate Comparison Annual fax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 $2,624 % of $10m 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% 0.026% Per $1.000 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $ 0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 5.08.470: $0 - $25,000 = $40.00 $25,000 - $50,000 = $75.00 $50,000 - $100,000 = $158.00 $100,000 - $150,000 = $311.00 $150,000 - $200,000 = $465.00 $200,000 - $300,000 = $617.00 $300,000 - $400,000 = $774.00 $400,000 - $600,000 = $1,230.00 $600,000 - $800,000 = $1,388.00 $800,000 - $1,000,000 = $1,544.00 Over $1,000,000 = $1,544.00, plus $.12 per $1,000 in gross receipts in excess of $1,000,000 © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates scheduled to change by CPI. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 7.5% Telephone 7.5% Cellular 7.5% Gas 7.5% Water 7.5% Electric Distributor Southern California Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $7,029,640 Business License Taxes 7.1% Utility Taxes 30.4% Sales Taxes 31.0% Per Resident $6,008 Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $40,077,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01250% 8.25% 0.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Assoc a es, Inc. 1 999 Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar Actual cost of time and materials Environmental Initial Study Fee $100 Conditional Use Permit $100 Zone Change Fee $150 General Plan Amendment Fee Actual cost of time and materials Specific Plan Fee Actual cost of time and materials Development Agreement Fee Actual cost of time and materials ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Planning Department/City Manager's Office Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Unlikely to be Available Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Unlikely to be Available Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Property Tax Reimbursements Unlikely to be Available Utility Tax Discounts Unlikely to be Available Financial Relocation Assistance Unlikely to be Available IRWINDALE Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact/Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee Art in Public Places Fee • Other Special Fees SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) 0 Other Non - Residential Assessment/Tax Districts Landscape, Lighting • State Enterprise Zone(s) • Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) Applying with San Gabriel Valley Commerce Consortium • Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) 0 Redevelopment Project Area(s) City Industrial Development Project - commercial /industrial © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages No Response No Response No Response TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 427.'interchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Ontario international Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service Foothill Transit Rail Transit Service None Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific A sKosmont ocia es,LInc. � 999 Cost of Doing Business Survey® Irwindale, CA Case Study Costs for typical office, industrial, retail and apartment projects and occupants Developer Costs Specified Impact/Exaction Fees' Minimum Maximum Occupant/ Owner Costs Annual Local Taxes' A. 60,000 sq. ft. Office Building Typical Tenant: 130,000 sq. ft. Law Firm $0 $0 10,000 sq. ft. Advertising Agency $15,230 $7,460 1 B. 50,000 sq. ft. Manufacturing Facility Typical Tenant: 150,000 sq. ft. Electrical Equip. Firm $0 $0 110,000 sq. ft. Auto Parts Manufacturer $36,380 1 $8,390 1 C. 100,000 sq. ft. Distribution Facility Typical Tenant: $0 $0 100,000 sq. ft. Import /Export Firm $56,560 D. 125,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: 145,000 sq. ft. Supermarket $0 $0 13,000 sq. ft. Fast Food Outlet $50,230 $5,010 E. 10,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Typical Tenant: 12,500 sq. ft. Restaurant 11,500 sq. ft. Hair Salon $0 $0 $3,720 $2,310 F. 40 Unit Apartment Building $0 $0 Landlord Costs $35,660 Rounded to nearest $1,000. No specified entitlement fees. Excludes typical fees such as application, plan check, permit, inspection and similar fees, and water, sewer, drainage, and school fees. All projects may be subject to additional and /or substitute fees based on environmental review. See separate explanations for specific project assumptions. 2 Rounded to nearest $10. Includes business license and payroll taxes, if any, utility user taxes, if any, and property taxes (except for office occupants) based on typical ad valorem rate for community. See explanation at end of chapter for specific occupant assumptions. © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved — modifying this image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com AKsmont ssoc a es,Inc. 1 999 Cost of Doing Business Survey SANTA FE SPRINGS Los Angeles County, California Cost Rating 11710 Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (562) 868-0511 Finance Dept. Ext. 276 Planning Dept. Ext. 211 Planning Dept. Ext. 211 Planning Dept. Ext. 211 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 -98 16,100 3.7% City Type General Law City Est. City Employees per 1,000 Residents 20.2 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) 9,484 Activity Rating • BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee General Office ❑ ❑ Professional Office ❑ ❑ Retail ❑ ❑ Wholesale ❑ ❑ Manufacturing ❑ ❑ Personal Service ❑ ❑ Commercial Property Residential Property ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Calculation Formulas City Designation /Rate Code Professional or Semi- Prof. (Sec. 13 -66) Professional or Semi- Prof. (Sec. 13 -66) Retail and Wholesaling (Sec.13 -67) Retail and Wholesaling (Sec.13 -67) Manufacturing (Sec. 13 -62) Professional or Semi- Prof. (Sec. 13 -66) Property Management Hotel, motels, Apartment, etc. (Sec.13 -60) Rate Comparison Annual tax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 $480 $500 %of$101n 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005 %. Per $1.000 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 PROFESSIONAL, SEMI - PROF., RETAIL, WHOLESALE SELLING, MANUFACTURING, PROP. MANAGEMENT: 1 - 5 employees = $100.00 6 - 299 employees = $4.00 per additional employee over 299 employees = $2.00 per additional employee HOTELS, MOTELS, APARTMENTS, ETC: $100 for first 9 units, plus $100 for 10 - 14 units, plus $100 for 15 - 19 units, plus $100 for 20 - 30 units, plus $100 for 30 units or over © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates not scheduled to change. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 0.0% Telephone 0.0% Cellular 0.0% Gas 0.0% Water 0.0% Electric Distributor Southern Califomia Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $23,840,647 Business License Taxes 3.0% Utility Taxes 0.0% Sales Taxes 77.2% Per Resident $1,481 Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $485,856,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01250% 8.25% 10.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Assoc ates, Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar None Environmental Initial Study Fee $300 Conditional Use Permit $1,500 Zone Change Fee $1,500 General Plan Amendment Fee $1,500 Specific Plan Fee $1,200 Development Agreement Fee $1,200 ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Community Development Division Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - RDA Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - RDA Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Unlikely to be Available Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Will Consider Transaction - RDA Property Tax Reimbursements Unlikely to be Available Utility Tax Discounts Not Applicable Financial Relocation Assistance Will Consider Transaction - RDA SANTA FE SPRINGS Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee p Art in Public Places Fee Note 1 ■ Other Special Fees Note 1: Art Fee: 1% of total building valuation SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) MI Other Non - Residential Assessment/Tax Districts Landscape, Lighting • State Enterprise Zone(s) ❑ Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) ❑ Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) 0 Redevelopment Project Area(s) Washington Blvd. - commercial Consolidated Project - industrial and commercial © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page in age in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages No Response 2,000,000 sq. ft. of new industrial spec development 1. Location 2. Business friendly city 3. Fast track approvals TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 18.6 interchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Los Angeles International Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldport and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service Santa Fe Springs Tram Rail Transit Service Norwalk /Santa Fe Center Rail Freight Service Burlington Northern, Union Pacific Assoc ates,Inc. 1999 Cost of Doing Business Survey Cost Rating $$ TORRANCE Los Angeles County, California 3031 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90503 www.ci.torrance.ca.us Administrative Office Business Licenses Economic Development Planning Department Redevelopment Agency (310) 618-5880 (310) 618 -5828 (310) 618 -5807 (310) 618-5990 (310) 618 -5990 Population (1998) Population Growth 1990 City Type Charter City Est. City Employees per 143,600 -98 7.9% 1,000 Residents 9.7 Crime Rate Per 100,000 Residents (1997) 3,978 Activity Rating BUSINESS TAXES Flat Rate /Other Payroll Employee Gross Receipts No Tax or Fee 1 General Office Professional Office Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Personal Service Commercial Property Residential Property ❑ ❑M❑❑ ❑ ❑o❑❑ ❑ ❑1510❑ ❑ ❑0❑❑ ❑ ❑ t51 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 1 0 1 5 1 0 E 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Calculation Formulas City Designation /Rate Code All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories All Categories Property Management Apartment House (Sec.33.18.1) Rate Comparison Annual fax for the first $10 million in receipts or the first 100 employees, as applicable. Other assumptions may apply. Total % of $10m Per $1.000 $4,344 $4,344 $4,344 $4,344 $4,344 $4,344 $4,344 $13,875 0.043% 0.043% 0.043% 0.043% 0.043% 0.043% 0.043% 0.139% $0.43 $0.43 $0.43 $0.43 $0.43 $0.43 $ 0.43 $1.39 ALL CATEGORIES, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: $148.00 base fee, plus $44.00 per employee Maximum = 2,500 employee count APARTMENT HOUSE RENTAL: $15.00 per unit fora units or more © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 wwwlcosmont.com BUSINESS TAX NOTES Tax rates scheduled to change by CPI. UTILITY USER TAXES Electric 6.5% Telephone 6.5% Cellular 6.5% Gas 6.5% Water 6.0% Electric Distributor Southern California Edison Special Notes CITY FINANCIAL DATA City General Fund Revenues (1995 -96) $94,134,795 Business License Taxes 5.6% Utility Taxes 22.9% 30.2% Per Resident $656 Sales Taxes Taxable Retail Store Sales (1997) $2,119,157,000 PROPERTY AND OTHER TAXES Ad Valorem Property Tax County Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Parking Tax Documentary Transfer Tax 1.01250% 8.25% 11.0% 0.0% $1.10 per $1,000 Kosmont & A 999 Associates, Inc. Cost of Doing Business Survey PLANNING FEES Site Plan /Development Review Fee or Similar None Environmental Initial Study Fee $814 Conditional Use Permit $1,269 Zone Change Fee $2,661 General Plan Amendment Fee $2,634 Specific Plan Fee N/A Development Agreement Fee N/A ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Business Retention /Attraction Program Administered by: Office of Economic Development Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Land, Acquisition or Construction Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Lease or Tenant Improvement Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Offsite Infrastructure Subsidies Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Business License Tax Waivers or Reductions Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Permit or Fee Waivers or Reductions Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Property Tax Reimbursements Will Consider Transaction - Citywide Utility Tax Discounts Unlikely to be Available Financial Relocation Assistance Will Consider Transaction - Citywide TORRANCE Los Angeles County, California DEVELOPMENT IMPACT /EXACTION FEES • Development Impact Fee • Public Facilities Fees • Scheduled Traffic Impact /Trip Fee • Signalization Fee • Major Thoroughfare /Bridge Fee • Art in Public Places Fee MI Other Special Fees Note 1 Note 1: Construction Tax 1.5% of project valuation SPECIAL ZONES • Business Improvement District(s) (BIDs) 0 Other Non - Residential Assessment/Tax Districts Landscape, Lighting • State Enterprise Zone(s) • Recycling Market Development Zone(s) • Foreign Trade Zone(s) MI Other Special Business or Incentive Zone(s) Hawthorne Blvd. Specific Plan Area MI Redevelopment Project Area(s) Skypark Meadow Park Downtown Industrial © 1999 by Kosmont & Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Modifying this page image in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. (213) 623 -8484 www.kosmont.com ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUOTES Special Incentive Programs and Services Notable Public /Private Transactions Business Advantages Economic investment fund grant program to offset moving, lease, improvement costs for new or expanding business City has implemented a 5 -year capital plan for infrastructure; the benefit will be increased capacity to serve businesses. Capital plan allowed for street and capacity improvement for Costco 1. No gross receipts tax 2. Low utility user tax 3. Class one fire department/Low crime statistics TRANSPORTATION AMENITIES Freeway Interchange Ratio 2.1 interchanges for each 100,000 residents Nearest Commercial Airport Los Angeles International Airport Nearest Port Facilities Los Angeles Worldporf and Long Beach Port Bus Transit Service Torrance Transit, Municipal Area Express Rail Transit Service Rail Freight Service Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 4-44 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager pgroup@earthlink.net GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP May 1, 1998 City of Vernon Invoice: #98 -3 March 1 through March 31 1998 April 1 through April 30, 1998 S. David Cobb - Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet March 1998 3 -1 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -2 -98 3.5 hrs 3 -3 -98 3.0 hrs 3 -4 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -5 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -10 -98 4.5 hrs 3 -11 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -12 -98 1.5 hrs 3 -17 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -18 -98 2.0 hrs 3 -13 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -19 -98 2.0 hrs 3 -20 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -25 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -26 -98 3.5 hrs 3 -30 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -31 -98 8.5 hrs Total Hours Preparation for Mtg. w /ACTA: Matrix Mtg. w/BM,MG,DB,KW: MTG w /ACTAt/ Calls, Research, Writing: Mtg. w/ BM Calls & Mtg. w /CR Calls & Mtg w/KW Mtg. w/LADOT RE: ACTA t% Calls Calls & ACTA Board Mtg. Calls: I -710 AtlanticL.Birri Interregional Roads Program Research: ACTA ✓ Calls: I -710 Atlantic /Bandini- Interregional Roads Program MTA Board & Attend Community Mtg. t� Calls Calls, MTABoard & Research Calls & Research Attend CTC Hearing in SF RE: Atlantic/Bandini Mtg. w /DY &PH 37.5 hrs 37.5 hrs @ $125.0= $4687.5 Expenses: LA -SF Airfare: Taxi: Parking: Total Expenses: March 1998 Total Balance Due = $5095.5 "ja,202 -- 5.9 6 $237.0 $ 60.0 $ 11.0 $ 308.0 RD4 EARLY CHECK RETUR : aRstrgam VIM 5 1998 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE CITY OF VERNON INVOICE 98 -3 April 1998 4 -1 -98 2.5 hrs Attend Compton Mtg. & Calls / 4 -2 -98 1.5 hrs Mtg. w/KW Re: AB & ACTA ✓ 4 -3 -98 2.0 hrs Calls, Research, Writing 4 -6 -98 1.5 hrs Calls & Research 4 -7 -98 3.0 hrs Attend CTC STIP Hearings @ MTA 4 -10 -98 2.0 hrs Attend Special MTA Board Mtg. MTG. w /JyITA Staff (DY) 4 -11 -98 2.0 hrs Calls & Research: Prep for SS Hearing 4 -12 -98 8.5 hrs Calls, Research & Prep. (Written Testimony) SS Hearing 4 -16 -98 6.0 hrs Attend MTA Mtgs. & Testify AT SS Hearings 4 -18 -98 6.0 hrs Mtg. w/EO; Mtg. w /City of Compton; Writing & Research 4 -20 -98 4.5 hrs Calls, Writing, Research and Prep. for SS Hearing 4 -21 -98 12.0 hrs Travel to Sacto & Testify at SS Hearings 4 -22 -98 7.0 hrs Travel to SF for CPUC Hearing on BNSF: Hobart Yard_Matter 4 -22 -98 3.0 hrs Mtg. w /Caltrans, MTA, KW & DB Re: I -710 Atlantic/Bandini 4 -23 -98 1.0 hrs MIA Board 4 -24 -98 3.0 hrs Calls, Research & Writing 4 -27 -98 1.5 hrs Calls, Research, Writing 4 -29 -98 3.0 hrs Mtg. w/ BM,MG,DB,KW Re: CTA 4 -30- 982.5 hrs Mtg. w /KW and Attend CBWD ACTA Mtg. Total Hours 74.5 hrs 74.5 hrs @ $125.0= $9312.5 Expenses LA -SACTO Airfare: $180.0 Parking: $15.0 LA -SF Airfare: $237.0 Taxi: $60.0 Parking: $9.0 Total Expenses: $503.0 TOTAL BALANCE DUE APRIL 1998: $9815.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE MARCH 1998: $5095.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE APRIL 1998: $9815.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE: $ 14,911.0 Please remit to: S. David Cobb c/o Lloyd Associates Ltd. 4904 Ocean Blvd. Suite 404 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 554 -44 -0574 kt f k • gYELQPME IA T GENCY OF . THE C Y T� )s p. • i - a Bg ns rl 3s �.- 3 • w P$ • i ## • 14 lAS /(Atj April 28, 1998 Mr. Julian Burke Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 -2932 Re: MTA/ACTA JPA Dear Mr. Burke: The cities of Compton and Vernon object to the draft Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). We respectfully request that you recommend its rejection should it come before the Board for approval. In proposing the JPA with the MTA, ACTA is using an oddly circuitous path to obtain legal authority it does not on its own possess. Armed with that authority, it proposes to position itself to take actions which the MTA on its own would not take. The exercise of the MTA's eminent domain powers for the acquisition of property unrelated to the MTA's legal mandate would be a precedent the municipalities in Los Angeles County - - -and the MTA itself- -- should not embrace. ACTA is asking the MTA to be a party to a JPA unlike any other anywhere in the state. With this JPA, the entity whose authority is being used - - -the MTA -- -would have no say on how, why, or whether its authority is used. You are being asked to simply give your authority to another entity and to then step aside. You would have no role in the exercise of your own authority, and the affected municipalities which are represented on the MTA Board but not on ACTA would have absolutely no MTA recourse in the event of the abusive exercise of the MTA's authority. In reality, you are not being asked to Mr. Julian Burke April 28, 1998 Page Two enter into a Joint Powers Agreement, which necessarily connotes the sharing of decision - making. You are being asked to enter into a legal myth for the sole purpose of delegating some of your power to an entity which, under law, does not have it. The MTA should not want to be a party to any effort to strip municipalities of their lawful functions. Should the draft JPA be adopted, affected municipalities along the Corridor would have their police powers seriously compromised and could lead to litigation in order to clarify the respective municipality's power to assert jurisdiction over that portion of the project which is within the respective municipality. Bear in mind, this is a project which does not yet have a Construction Management Plan or Construction Traffic Management Plan, as required by the Federal Record of Decision. It is not likely that such Plans will be forthcoming until final design. You can therefore appreciate that the cities along the Corridor are not even in a position to comment on planned construction and traffic management details. The proposed JPA would render our eventual comment meaningless. To say that its "program schedule requirements" might not be met if it has to follow existing legal procedures makes one ask just where ACTA has been for the past two years. Certainly the MTA should not give up its extraordinary police powers for the mere convenience of an agency which apparently forgot to tell the municipalities of its property requirements. Finally, the ACTA JPA proposal is a demonstration of extreme bad faith on ACTA's part. The MTA should not sanction it. For the past few months, ACTA has been actively negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with some of the Corridor cities, including the City of Compton. The Memorandum of Understanding includes language pertaining to the respective municipality's exercise of eminent domain. To leapfrog an ongoing negotiation to seek a hostile result elsewhere is a breach of common courtesy and symbolic, unfortunately, of the regard ACTA has for the cities most affected by construction of the project. You should know that ACTA has not broached the subject of the proposed JPA with either of our cities. For the MTA to accede to ACTA's JPA proposal would set a dangerous precedent for your agency and the municipalities in the County, would invasively strip five municipalities of their lawful project - related functions, would deny the MTA any oversight of the use of its own authority, and would serve no purpose which cannot be served under existing laws and procedures. We respectfully ask you and your Board to Mr. Julian Burke April 28, 1998 Page Three reject the proposal. Our respective City Attorneys are prepared to answer any questions you may have about our position. Compton City Attorney Legrand Clegg may be reached at (310) 605- 5500. Vernon City Attorney David Brearley maybe reached at (626) 336 -3408. Sincerely, Omar Bradley eonis C. Malburg Mayor Mayor City of Compton City of Vernon Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager gsgroup@earthlink.net int GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP May 1, 1998 City of Vernon Invoice: #98 -3 March 1 through March 31 1998 April 1 through April 3CD, 1998 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet March 1998 3 -1 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -2 -98 3.5 hrs 3 -3 -98 3.0 hrs 3 -4 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -5 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -10 -98 4.5 hrs 3 -11 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -12 -98 1.5 hrs 3 -17 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -18 -98 2.0 hrs 3 -13 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -19 -98 2.0 hrs 3 -20 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -25 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -26 -98 3.5 hrs 3 -30 -98 1.0 hrs 3 -31 -98 8.5 hrs Total Hours March 1998 Preparation for Mtg. w /ACTA: Matrix Mtg. w /BM,MG,DB,KW: MTG w /ACTA Calls, Research, Writing: Mtg. w/ BM Calls & Mtg. w /CR Calls & Mtg w /KW Mtg. w /LADOT RE: ACTA Calls Calls & ACTA Board Mtg. Calls: I -710 Atlantic /Bandini- Interregional Roads Program Research: ACTA Calls: 1 -710 Atlantic /Bandini - Interregional Roads Program MTA Board & Attend Community Mtg. Calls Calls MTA Board & Research Calls & Research Attend CTC Hearing in SF RE: Atlantic /Bandini Mtg. w/DY &PH 37.5 hrs 37.5 hrs @ $125.0= $4687.5 Expenses: LA -SF Airfare: Taxi: Parking: Total Expenses: Total Balance Due = $5095.5 $237.0 $ 60.0 $ 11.0 $ 308.0 INVOICE 98 -3 April 1998 4 -1 -98 2.5 hrs Attend Compton Mtg. & Calls 4 -2 -98 1.5 hrs Mtg. w /KW Re: AB & ACTA 4 -3 -98 2.0 hrs Calls, Research, Writing 4 -6 -98 1.5 hrs Calls & Research 4 -7 -98 3.0 hrs Attend CTC STIP Hearings @ MTA 4 -10 -98 2.0 hrs Attend Special MTA Board Mtg. MTG. w /MTA Staff (DY) 4 -11 -98 2.0 hrs Calls & Research: Prep for SS Hearing 4 -12 -98 8.5 hrs Calls, Research & Prep. (Written Testimony) SS Hearing 4 -16 -98 6.0 hrs Attend MTA Mtgs. & Testify AT SS Hearings 4 -18 -98 6.0 hrs Mtg. w /EO; Mtg. w /City of Compton; Writing & Research 4 -20 -98 4.5 hrs Calls, Writing, Research and Prep. for SS Hearing 4 -21 -98 12.0 hrs Travel to Sacto & Testify at SS Hearings 4 -22 -98 7.0 hrs Travel to SF for CPUC Hearing on BNSF: Hobart Yard Matter 4 -22 -98 3.0 hrs Mtg. w /Caltrans, MTA, KW & DB Re: 1 -710 Atlantic /Bandini 4 -23 -98 1.0 hrs MTA Board 4 -24 -98 3.0 hrs Calls, Research & Writing 4 -27 -98 1.5 hrs Calls, Research, Writing 4 -29 -98 3.0 hrs Mtg. w/ BM,MG,DB,KW Re: ACTA 4 -30 -98 2.5 hrs Mtg. w /KW and Attend CBWD ACTA Mtg. Total Hours 74.5 hrs 74.5 hrs @ $125.0= $9312.5 Expenses LA -SACTO Airfare: $180.0 Parking: $15.0 LA -SF Airfare: $237.0 Taxi: $60.0 Parking: $9.0 Total Expenses: $503.0 TOTAL BALANCE DUE APRIL 1998: $9815.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE MARCH 1998: $5095.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE APRIL 1998: $9815.5 TOTAL BALANCE DUE: $14,911.0 Please remit to: S. David Cobb c/o Lloyd Associates Ltd. 4904 Ocean Blvd. Suite 404 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 554 -44 -0574 March 5, 1998 TO: Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services & Water FROM: Chris Romero, Administrative Aide ?I* 4 SUBJECT: FHWA APPLICATION /ALAMEDA CORRIDOR STUDIES After a discussion with Mazen Dabboussi (Caltrans Local Projects), he is recommending that we mail him a draft of the application. SCAG and MTA have not yet approved the TIP and therefore Federal Funding is not available for the feasibility studies. Of the six cities along the corridor, Huntington Park has been the only city to submit their application. After Mr. Dabboussi reviews the application he will contact us with his comments. Please sign the cover letter, I will prepare and submit the application that was received from David Cobb. If you have any questions, please let me know. cc: B.U. Malkenhorst CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro -Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 March 5, 1998 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 Satish Chander State of California Department of Transportation, District 7 Office of Lbcal Assistance and Minor Projects 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 Dear Mr. Chander: DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581-1178 The City of Vernon is requesting funding for studies under the provisions of ISTEA Section 1 105 (h): NHSI -[PC Feasibility and Design Studies. The total funding request for the proposed work is $300,000. This funding will cover Rail Operations Studies, Traffic and Circulation Studies, and Environmental & Construction Mitigation Studies. We request that you review the draft version of the application and notify us as to which sections are complete or incomplete. Thank you very much for your comments and consideration on this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Romero at (213)583 -8811 extension 324. Very truly yours, S.1`Cevin Wilson Director of Community Services & Water SKW /cmr cc: Mazen Dabboussi CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro-Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 February 11, 1998 Mr. Jeff Kellogg, Chairman Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 Dear Chairman Kellogg: On December 8, 1997, I wrote to you regardinv engineering and technical issues related to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on the Alameda Corridor. In that letter, the City of Vernon raised many concerns about the siTnificant environmental impacts construction of the corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. At that time I highlighted one crucial matter. The City of Vernon anticipates the preparation of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. With construction poised to begin on the North -End Projects in the late spring and early summer of 1998, we again state our concern that ACTA will fail to complete the construction Management Plan as required by the Federal Record of Decision prior to the start of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. These issues were raised in the hope that the newly reconstituted ACTA Board would begin to address publicly the process to be undertaken for preparation and completion of a Construction Management Plan which addresses detour routes, train movements, the excavation and hauling of construction materials, noise and vibration, impacts on local businesses, fugitive dust and potential health impacts, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and contractor performance for the length of street closures. On January 15,1998, the ACTA Board approved the release of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section "Design - Build' Request for Proposals (RFP). It is our understanding that the 22 Volume RFP Document has now been Mr. Jeff Kellogg February 11, 1998 page 2 released to the six pre - qualified "design - build" teams. As we have stated previously, we support the goal of construction and completion of the Alameda Corridor. However, we note the release of the Mid Corridor "Design-Build" RFP occurred without a cursory review or meeting of your own Port - created Engineering Review Panel. At the September 11, 1997 Engineering Review Panel meeting, staff clearly indicated that the Engineering Review Panel would meet prior to the release of the "Design-Build" RFP. It now appears the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have abandoned even the pretense of the participatory nature of the Engineering Review Panel. The Federal Record of Decision anticipated the interests of the Corridor Cities would be maintained by their presence on the ACTA Board. MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM "The corridor cities are members of ACTA and their interests will be maintained through their active participation on ACTA. (May 6, 1996 Federal ROD, Page 10) Unfortunately, the Board "re-constitution" has frozen the Corridor Cities out of any meaningful role in shaping decisions that will affect their business districts and neighborhoods for years to come. The City of Vernon is increasingly concerned about the development of an institutional culture in which significant policy discussions and decision making occur only behind closed doors under the guise of ACTA "executive session." We again urge you to hold a full Board discussion about the completion of the required Construction Management Plan. The upcoming commencement of late spring and early summer construction activities increases the importance of the construction Management Plan, and any failure by ACTA to comply with the terms of the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will raise issues regarding the implementation of mitigation measures under 40 CFR Section 1505.3. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 583 -8811. Very truly yours, CITY OF VERNON /`"ii*7" Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator cc: ACTA Board Members Gil Hicks, ACTA Exec. Dir. BVM /gj o :FormLtr 13!1482'7{: February 11, 1998 Councilman Jeff Kellogg Chairman, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza, Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 Dear Chairman Kellogg: On December 8, 1997, I wrote to you regarding engineering and technical issues related to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on the Alameda Corridor, In that letter, the City of Vernon raised many concerns about the significant environmental impacts construction of the Corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. At that time, 1 highlighted one crucial matter, The City of Vernon anticipates the preparation of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. With construction poised to begin on the North -End Projects in the late spring and early summer of 1998, we again state our concern that ACTA will fail to complete the Construction Management Plan as required by the Federal Record of Decision prior to the start of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. These issues were raised in the hope that the newly reconstituted ACTA Board would begin to address publicly the process to be undertaken for preparation and completion of a Construction Management Plan which addresses detour routes, train movements, the excavation and hauling of construction materials, noise and vibration, impacts on local businesses, fugitive dust and potential health impacts, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and contractor performance for the length of street closures. On January 15, 1998 the ACTA Board approved the release of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section ' Design- Build" Request for Proposals (RFP). It is our understanding that the 22 Volume RFP document has now been released to the six pre-qualified "design build" teams. As we have stated previously, we support the goal of construction and completion of the AIameda Corridor. Post -It" Pax Note 7671 Co /Delp(. Phone Pax Date # of ■ PPge .� Z 7 4 Fax p FEB -10 -98 06:46 PM GSG Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg Page Two, February 11, 1998 13108276120 However, we note the release of the Mid Corridor "Design- Build" RFP occurred without a cursory review or meeting of your own Port- created Engineering Review Panel. At the September 11, 1997 Engineering Review Panel meeting, staff clearly indicated that the Engineering Review Panel would meet prior to the release of the "Design- Build" RFP It now appears the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have abandoned even the pretense of the participatory nature of the Engineering Review Panel. The Federal Record of Decision anticipated the interests of the Corridor Cities would be maintained by their presence on the ACTA Board. MITIGATION MONITORUNC AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM "The corridor cities are members of ACTA and their interests will be maintained through their active participation on ACTA, May 6, 1996 Federal ROD, Page l0 Unfortunately, the Board "re- constitution" has frozen the Corridor Cities out of any meaningful role in shaping decisions that will affect their business districts and neighborhoods for years to come, The City of Vernon is increasingly concerned about the development of an institutional culture in which significant policy discussions and decision making occur only behind closed doors under the guise of ACTA "executive session." We again urge you to hold a full Board discussion about the completion of the required Construction Management Plan. The upcoming commencement of late spring and early summer construction activities increases the importance of the Construction Management Plan, and any failure by ACTA to comply with the terms of the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will raise issues regarding the implementation of mitigation measures under 40 CFR Section 1505.3. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 583- 8811. Cordially, Bruce Malkenhorst CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF VERNON ACTA Board Members Gil Hicks, ACTA Executive Director CC:1 Councilman Jeff Kellogg Chairman, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza, Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 Oil Hicks Executive Director Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Center Plaza, Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 Councilman Rudy Svorinich City of Los Angeles 20014. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Supervisor Yvonne Burke Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 500 N, Temple Los Angeles, CA 90012 Commissioner Jon Thomas Port of Los Angeles 425 S. Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Commissioner George Murchison Port of Long Beach 925 Harbor Plaza Drive Long Beach, CA 90802 Larry Keller, Executive Director Port of Los Angeles 425 S. Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Richard Steinke, Executive Director Port of Long` Beach 925 Harbor Plaza Drive Long Beach, CA 90802 1'31082761 :2O Poet -it' Fax Not 7671 T`6Lo,6A ra- Co.Dept; Phone # MVP Fr co . frpa 61!►?a V3 -Sri -72.‘-4, Fax# �FvC. Ice l lo� �e� Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager gsgroup@earthlink.net GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP February 1, 1998 City of Vernon Invoice: #98 -1 January 1 through January 31, 1998 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet January 1998 1 -5 -98 0.5 hrs 1 -6 -98 1.0.hrs 1 -7 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -8 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -9 -98 1.0 hrs. 1 -10 -98 2.5 hrs 1 -12 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -13 -98 1.5 hrs 1 -13 -98 1.5 hrs 1 -14 -98 2.5 hrs 1 -16 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -22 -98 1.5 hrs 1 -25 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -26 -98 2.0 hrs 1 -27 -98 4.0 hrs 1 -28 -98 2.75 hrs 1 -30 -98 1.5 hrs Total Hours Phone Calls: ACTA Phone Calls: ACTA G. Hicks; MTA: Atlantic/Bandini Caltrans: Mtg. W/MTA Re: Atlantic/Bandini Mtg. w/ MG Re: ACTA; Phone Calls w/DB Calls w /FFlores @MTA w/MG Mtg. w /SSTH re: ACTA MTA Re: Atlantic /Bandini & MG Re: ATCA MTG w /SS Staff re: ACTA Mtg.w /KW Re: ACTA North End Study MTA Special Board Mtg. Re: Atlantic/Bandini & Phone Calls Mtg. W /FHWA Local Rep. Spencer Stevens & MG Re: ACTA MTA Planning & Programming Ltr. to J. Kellogg MTA Calls & Revisions to Letter FHWA Application Mtg w/ ACTA RE: North End Traffic Plan & DOT Calls MTA Mtg w/ VK & Phone Calls 32. 25 hrs @ $125.0= Total Balance Due: $4031.25 Please remit to: S. David Cobb c/o Lloyd Associates Ltd 2901 Ocean Blvd. Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 da, 0 /o w 5'9 CITY COUNCIL LEON'S C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro -Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 February 11, 1998. Mr. Jeff Kellogg, Chairman Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 egA DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330-5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 Dear Chairman Kellogg: On technical December issues s, 1997, Idrtoethe AlamedaaCorridorgTransportation technical issues relate Authority's (ACTA) progress on the Alameda Corridor. In that letter, the City of Vernon raised many concerns about the significant s businesses locatedcin ctohne irlel businesses locat adjacent neighborhoods. At that time the highlighted one of crucial matter. The Construction Management anticipates the preparation p Plan compliance May DOT Record Decision and he Mitigation Monitoring lan.With constructionpoisedtobegin on the North -End Projects in the late spring .andearly summer of 1998, we again state our concern that as ACTA Twllbfail to oecompletecthe of construction Management Plan required Decision prior to the start of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. These issues were gin raised in reconstituted Board would begin and completion of a ConstructioneManagement Plan whichng addresses detour routes, train movements, of construction rials, noi and vibration, a local bu siesses, fugitive dust and potenialhealthimpcts, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and contractor performance for the length of street closures. On January 15, 1998, the Board approved t Mid- Corridor dentSection"Design -Bu d' Request for Proposals (RFP) It is or understan ding that the 22 Volume RFP Document has now been Mr. Jeff Kellogg page 2 released to the six pre- qualified "design- build" teams. As we have stated previously, we support the goal of construction and completion of the Alameda Corridor. However, we note the release of the Mid Corridor "Design - Build" RFP occurred without a cursory review or meeting of your own Port - created Engineering Review Panel. At the September 11, 1997 Engineering Review Panel meeting, staff clearly indicated that the Engineering Review Panel would meet prior to 'the release of the "Design-Build" RFP. It now appears the Ports of Long Beach and Angeles shhave abandoned even the pretense of the participatory nature Engineering Review Panel. The Federal Record of Decision anticipated the interests of the Corridor Cities would be maintained by their presence on the ACTA Board. MITIGATION MONITORING AND PROGRAM "The corridor cities are members of ACTA and their interests will be maintained through their active participation on ACTA. (May 6, 1996 Federal ROD, Page 10) Unfortunately, the Board "re- constitution" has frozen the Corridor Cities out of any meaningful role in shaping decisions that will affect their business districts and neighborhoods for years The City of Vernon is increasingly concerned an institutional culture in which significant policy discussions and decision making. occur only behind closed doors under the guise of ACTA "executive session. We again urge you to hold a full Board discussion about the completion of the required Construction Management Plan. The upcoming commencement of late spring and early summer construction activities increases the importance of the construction Management Plan, and any failure by ACTA to comply with the terms of the Mayy 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring ngP1 an will es under issues regarding the implementation of mitigation CFR Section 1505.3. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213)583 -8811. February 11, 1998 cc: ACTA Board Members Gil Hicks, ACTA Exec. Dir. BVM /gjo :FormLtr Very truly yours, CITY OF VERNON 4~?-- Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator ; _ i:. III.' ii:.i` II 1 / ":EI 1¢ y !g II T .. II a•f� {t yi l St z� ; f ! L° GE Mpgf 1I I ! Fitst , e erg lte'TBnk �f Ca,i #ornif° . i i i lr} � e - I/I ¢ R iji:ji e ilL.g;ii��.11..�ll.11 ll l ._, N f �M <NUfFeRsi i ii ii I I --1If il.ii � it . il. 1 i i �� i • II • {I � I1 I IIII —� . { . {i i1-�" l li �l II ; Fl • , ��! .11 . .1I { III 1 „`�"°— • -;II I •••••• I ;� � II. I Il l �.. - -:11. 1 iI I 1-r I IIitij`I`I I f "I'Y«„vy \ i . L.,- �. LIteu'ruDrrcAccountancy) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 Strategic Planning • Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager gsgroup@earthlink.net 01101 01111 10101 ii•• GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP January 1, 1998 City of Vernon Invoice: #12 December 1 through December 31, 1997 S. David Cobb Global Strataeem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet December 1997 12 -1 -97 2.0 hrs 12 -2 -97 2.0.hrs 12 -3 -97 2.0 hrs 12 -8 -97 4.0 hrs 12 -9 -97 3.0 hrs. 12 -11 -97 1.0 hrs 12 -11 -97 2.0 hrs 12 -15 -97 0.5 hrs 12 -16 -97 0.5 hrs 12 -16 -97 3.0 hrs 12 -18 -97 3.0 hrs 12 -19 -97 1.5 hrs 12 -19 -97 3.0 hrs 12 -30 -97 0.5 hrs Total Hours Please remit to: Kellogg Letter Preparation Phone Calls w/DB Attend Long Beach Community Event Kellogg Letter Preparation Kellogg Letter Preparation ACTA Mtg. Special MTA Mtg. Board Meeting Phone Calls: MTA Atlantic /Bandini Phone Calls: MTA AtlanticBandini FHWA Application Preparation MTA Board Mtg. Phone Calls: MTA, Caltrans: AtlanticBandini Blvd. Mtg w /CSS -TH re: ACTA Phone Calls: KW re: Atlantic/Bandini Blvd. 28.0 hrs @ $125.0= Total Balance Due: $3500.0 S. David Cobb c/u Duban Accountancy (Ce ified Public Accountancy) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro -Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 December 8, 1998 Councilman Jeff Kellogg Chairman, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza, Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 Dear Chairman Kellogg: DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 Duane Kenagy, Final Design Manager, Alameda Corridor Engineering Team (ACET), ACET staff and ACET sub - consultants met with Kevin Wilson, City of Vernon Director of Community Development and City Engineer, Vernon staff and consultants on October 7th, 20th, 28th and November 6, 1997. The meetings were held to discuss engineering and technical issues related to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on'the Alameda Corridor. The discussions included technical issues associated with ACTA's North -End Traffic Management Plan, initial plans for traffic management and utility relocation associated with the Mid- Corridor Trench Section, overall project scheduling, and other issues related to the upcoming issuance of the "Design- Build" Request for Proposals (RFP) in January 1998. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Vernon, I want to express our appreciation for the information provided to us in those meetings. As you know, the City of Vernon fully supports construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. With the upcoming January 1998 release of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section "Design- Build" Request for Proposals, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project will take an important step towards construction and completion. We support that goal. Despite their strong support for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, the Mayor and City Council members remain concerned about the significant environmental impacts construction of the Corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Given their concerns, I want to take this opportunity to highlight one crucial matter. The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Program incorporated by U.S. DOT into the ROD require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan which addresses efforts by ACTA to mitigate and manage the significant environmental impacts of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. December 8, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Two We are concerned about the preparation of the Construction Management Plan inasmuch as the initial concept presented for traffic management during Mid - Corridor construction was on its face inadequate -- failing to address critical questions such as detour routes, train movements, the excavation and hauling of construction materials, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and certainty regarding contractor performance for the length of street closures. Traffic management during construction is of paramount concern to the City of Vernon, and is the most problematic topic of discussion between ACET and City of Vernon staff. Based upon information that has been presented to us, Mid - Corridor construction will occur for thirty-six to forty months from approximately October 1998 through September 2001. Construction of the Redondo Junction, Washington Blvd. and Santa Fe Ave. North -End Projects will begin in early Spring of 1998 and will overlap with the construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench Section. The potential for serious economic disruption to occur during these three years is quite real. Furthermore, there is a high probability given the size and scope of the Corridor Project that construction will continue beyond thirty-six to forty months. The City of Vernon anticipates the preparation of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. With construction poised to begin on the North -End Projects inthe early spring and summer of 1998, we are understandably concerned that ACTA will fail to complete the Construction Management Plan as required by the Federal Record of Decision prior to the start of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. Failure to complete the Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities would raise issues regarding the implementation of mitigation measures under 40 CFR Section 1505.3. The process undertaken for preparation, and the timetable for the completion of a Construction Management Plan and its Traffic Management sub - component are significant policy matters which can only benefit from the special attention of the ACTA Board. At our last meeting on November 7th 1997, the City of Vernon agreed to Duane Kenagy's request that the City of Vernon. transmit its concerns in writing to ACET respecting the initial plans for traffic management, utility relocation, right -of -way acquisition and other technical matters. It has been communicated to us that in order to insure that ACTA is able to make an apples to apples" comparison of responses to the "Design- Build" RFP, it would be helpful for the City of Vernon to provide an early resolution of critical technical issues such as allowable street closures and design parameters for utility relocation. It is our understanding ACTA is interested in identifying local technical issues and permitting requirements in order to include this information in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP currently being prepared for issuance in January 1998. December 8, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Three The City of Vernon submits this initial preliminary response (See Attachment A) in a spirit of cooperation. However, the City of Vernon reserves all rights to augment or change these comments at any time. In addition, Vernon anticipates submitting additional comments to ACET as information is made available to us regarding the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. In closing, the initial exchange of information between the City of Vernon and ACET staff has been quite helpful in identifying and resolving certain utility relocation and other technical issues. Continuing with regularly scheduled meetings to address technical issues will help bring us all closer to our shared goal of construction and completion of the Alameda Corridor. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an initial response to engineering and technical issues associated with traffic management, utility relocation, local permitting requirements, and other technical matters of concern related to the construction of the Alameda Corridor. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 583 -8811. Cordially, Bruce Malkenhorst CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF VERNON CC: ACTA Board Members Gil Hicks, ACTA Executive Director ATTACHMENT A City Of Vernon Initial Responses To ACTA Engineering And Other Technical Matters City of Vernon Approvals and Local Permitting Requirements for Trench Construction: ACTA and /or its General Construction Contractor will require the following approvals and local permits: • Franchise Agreements • Encroachment License Agreements • Encroachment Permits • Building Permits ACTA will require Franchise Agreements, Encroachment License Agreements, and Encroachment Permits from the City of Vernon for those areas in which the Mid- Corridor Trench Section, or the UP /SP Drill Track encroaches into streets within the City of Vernon. Vernon staff await final design drawings from ACET in order to determine the specific approvals necessary. It should also be noted that any Traffic Management Plan for the Alameda Corridor must take into consideration the State - Mandated City of Vernon 1989 General Plan Infrastructure Element and June 16, 1992 Vernon Master Plan of Streets. Finally, the Construction Contractor will require building permits from the City of Vernon which will require the presence of City of Vernon on -site construction inspectors. Traffic Management: The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring. Program incorporated by U.S. DOT into the ROD require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan which addresses the following: A Construction Management Plan will be developed to include specific measures targeted to individual businesses. Access to residences, business and schools will be maintained during construction. All reasonable efforts will be made to restrict construction related parking, hauling of construction materials, excavation activities, and staging of construction vehicles in close proximately to schools. U.S. DOT ROD, Pages 9 &10 1 ATTACHMENT A In addition, the ACTA Mitigation Monitoring Program provides: A Construction Management Plan will be developed and implemented. Lane closures will be minimized; workable detours will be provided. A public information program will be implemented to disseminate construction information and respond to local concerns. MMP S -42 A Construction Management Plan will be developed and implemented. Included in the Plan will be provisions appropriate to the protection of school children, school crossing guards (in locations of nearby proximity to the project) and security fencing. Local Jurisdiction transportation department criteria will be used to establish the need for crossing guards. MMP S -42 The 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan anticipate the inclusion of traffic management planning as a part of the larger Construction Management Plan. The City of Vernon offers assistance and cooperation in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. To date, ACET has presented only an initial concept for traffic management during construction of the Mid Corridor Trench Section (as well as a Traffic Management Plan for the North -End Projects). The initial concept failed to account for basic traffic factors such as planned detour routes, train movements, haul routes, concurrent construction projects, and emergency vehicle operations. While Vernon awaits the preparation of the Construction Management Plan, we provide these comments to the initially presented traffic management concepts. Closure of Vernon Ave. at Alameda Street: The City of Vernon has serious concerns about the full closure of Vernon Avenue at Alameda Street. The initial proposal anticipated closure for 3 to 4 months. The City of Vernon would require additional traffic management and modeling information including project scheduling and cost saving data in order to determine the appropriate course of action for Vernon Avenue. Closure of 38th & 55th Streets at Alameda Street The City -of Vernon is willing to consider the closure of 38th & 55th Streets at Alameda Street for up to 90 days as part of a comprehensive traffic management program with appropriate mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with Corridor construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for street closures at these locations beyond 90 days. 2 ATTACHMENT A One Way Couplet along Alameda Street between 25th Street and Vernon Avenue: The City of Vernon is concerned about the functionality of the One -Way Couplet as proposed. Issues to be addressed include: 1) Inclusion of left turn lane pockets in the current design to prevent left turn movements from blocking traffic and creating significant queuing. 2) Extraordinary difficulty in removing any vehicle stranded in the single south -bound lane due to a breakdown or traffic accident. 3) Access to local businesses by emergency vehicles. 4) Preparation of a plan for detouring existing north/south traffic along routes parallel to Alameda Street. Partial Closure of Slauson Avenue for 180 days: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design-Build" RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for delays in the 180 day partial closure of Slauson Avenue. BNSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street: To date, no information regarding traffic management plans for the detouring around the BNSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street has been presented. Vernon will have serious concerns about any lane closures at 26th and Soto Street. Other Concurrent Construction Projects: ACET should note that during North -End and Mid Corridor Trench construction, Los Angeles County will be seismically retrofitting the Soto Street and Bandini Blvd. Bridges over the Los Angeles River. The retrofit of the Bandini Blvd. Bridge will require Bandini Blvd. to be partially closed to one lane in each direction for at least a year. In addition, the BNSF is embarking on a major expansion at Hobart Yard. There will be a significant increases in truck traffic in and around site. The cumulative increase in traffic, especially truck traffic should be included in traffic modeling carried out in support of the Construction Management Plan. 3 ATTACHMENT A Haul Routes: The City of Vernon awaits information regarding the removal and disposal of excavated dirt and other materials. Initial calculations indicate approximately 1000 trucks per day will be necessary to remove excavated materials. A plan must be developed for thedisposal of these materials, and proposed haul routes identified. The City of Vernon anticipates designating specific haul routes as a part of the construction encroachment permitting process. Local Improvements: In general, the City of Vernon believes that the construction footprint along Alameda Street, and the concomitant full and partial closures of Alameda Street at Vernon Avenue, 38th Street, and 55th Street will create conditions seriously impeding east -west traffic flow through the City. Similarly, the. partial closure of Slauson Avenue to one lane in each direction for at least 180 days will create bottleneck conditions encouraging east -west traffic to move north -south along Santa Fe Avenue and Soto Street seeking a way to cross east -west across Alameda Street. The following projects will help mitigate the impacts created by the increased traffic congestion caused by the construction of the Corridor. In addition, Vernon believes these projects will ultimately help ACTA address such issues such as the location of staging areas, haul routes, and emergency vehicle operations. 1) Signal System Improvements: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include Signal Systems Improvements along Alameda Street, Washington Blvd., Vernon Ave., Santa Fe Ave., and Soto Street in the "Design-Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. These improvements will help traffic move more efficiently along north -south routes parallel to Alameda Street. ACET and Vernon Staff should meet to discuss specific standards and specifications. 2) Widen Soto Street from Washington Blvd. to 26th Street: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to Soto Street in the "Design- Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. Alternatives for consideration should include construction of two south- bound lanes, three north -bound lanes and a two -way left turn median. ACET staff, City of Los Angeles Staff and Vernon staff should meet to discuss possible alternatives. 4 ATTACRMENT A Local Improvements (con't) 3) 26th St. Improvements/Widening of the 26th St. LA River Bridge Of paramount concern to the City of Vernon is the significant traffic disruption associated with the blockage of east -west routes through the City. Improvements to 26th Street and the widening of the 26th Avenue Bridge at the Los Angeles River will create a route with adequate capacity to handle east -west traffic through the City during construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to 26th Street and the widening of the 26th Avenue Bridge over the Los Angeles River in the "Design- Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. ACET and Vernon staff should meet to discuss specific project parameters. Miscellaneous Technical Items: • The City of Vernon will require ACTA to re- monument center lines along any reconstructed streets. • The City of Vernon will require East Alameda Street and West Alameda Street to be fully reconstructed to city standards with new pavement, curbs and gutters, sidewalks and 60 ft. curb returns where physically possible. • The City of Vernon will require that two -way left turn pockets be provided along the length of West Alameda Street. • 'The City of Vernon will require left turn lane pockets at all signalized intersections of East Alameda Street, and the intersection of East Alameda Street and 37th Street. Railroad Operations: The City of Vernon has requested basic information detailing how rail operations will proceed during construction. To date, we have received very little, if any information. Given the fact that the Alameda Corridor project is an intemodal transportation project, information regarding rail operations is by definition relevant. The City of Vernon believes this information is particularly essential to the development of a comprehensive traffic management plan for construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench. This is a policy matter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board. 5 ATTACHMENT A Drill Track: The City of Vernon is anxious to assist in the resolution of issues related to the relocation or reconstruction of the UP Drill Track. The City has become particularly concerned about this issue since Vernon staff have begun to receive complaints from local businesses who have been contacted by the Union Pacific Railroad and informed that their service will be eliminated (See Exhibit One). At a minimum, business and property owners should be financially compensated for the loss of spur track service. Vernon staff awaits additional information and direction from ACET staff on this issue. Since there is the general public perception that the construction of the Alameda Corridor will create better rail access for businesses located along the Corridor, Vernon believes this is a policy matter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board. Utility Relocation: In general, the City of Vernon will require that all municipal utility relocation including water, wastewater, storm drains, electric utilities, or natural gas distribution shall be accomplished at ACTA's expense. Sanitary Sewers: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange the relocation of the Main County Sanitation Line to East Alameda Street. This design approach allows utility,relocation to occur without the construction of sanitary sewer siphons or pumping facilities which create operational issues. In addition, this approach would allow ACTA to install 21 inch sanitary sewer pipe along Alameda Street from 37th Street to Vernon Avenue. The City of Vernon opposes any utility relocation design which provides for the construction of sewer siphons or pumping facilities which create additional local maintenance costs. Water Lines: The City of Vernon provides potable water to all businesses operating within the City of Vernon. Of particular concern are the many food processing companies operating within the City. Given the significant public heath and safety issues associated with food processing there must be absolute protection of the potable water supply. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for any breach or contamination of the potable water supply in the City of Vernon. ATTACHMENT A Storm Drains: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange for re- sizing the Los Angeles County Box Culvert at 25th Street. Electric Utilities: The City of Vernon encourages the early identification of any utility poles which must be relocated due to street widening or other construction. Relocation will occur at the expense of ACTA. Gas Distribution System: The City of Vernon will shortly begin the construction of a City -wide gas distribution system. Of concern is the protection of gas lines directly adjacent to trench construction. Vernon staff have provided a fmal set of drawings to ACET staff for their review and incorporation into the final design of the Mid- Corridor Trench Section. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid- Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for any damage to the new gas distribution system. Protections for Impacted Vernon Businesses The City of Vernon has not yet been provided with any information or plans for the protection of businesses in Vernon from environmental and economic impacts associated with construction. Of particular concern are those businesses directly adjacent to, and in the footprint of the construction zone. Impacts could include such items as loss of revenue, damage to buildings or other facilities, equipment damage from vibrations, or disruption of production processes from heavy dust. These are all items which must be addressed as part of the Construction Management Plan required under the U.S. DOT Record of Decision, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Hours of Operations The City of Vernon awaits information regarding proposed hours of construction within the City. To date no plan has been presented. 7 EXHIBIT ONE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY BUSI EDWARD A. RHODES INNDUSTRA MANAGER IAL OPMENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 069 100 542 Caltex Plastics 2322 East 51st St. Vernon, CA 90058 UNION PACIFIC nnu August 28, 1997 RE: Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement - none Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Gentlemen: 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DR.. 1329 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 (213) 980-6822 FAX (213) 9806859 Our service records indicate that your company receives rail cars on the above- referenced spur track, and that 55 cars were delivered on this track in 1996, and 23 cars to date in 1997. We have not been able to locate any current Industrial Track Agreement for your company at this location. As you may be aware, construction on the Alameda Corridor in the vicinity of your spur track is scheduled to begin in approximately two years. The actual timing of construction will be decided by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Please be advised that we intend to permanently terminate rail service to your spur track when construction on the Corridor begins. The level of traffic indicated above does not constitute active and substantial use of the spur track when compared to the cost and difficulty of continuing service during and after Corridor construction. Therefore, upon start of construction, we will exercise our right to terminate service on and over this industry track. You will be contacted by our Marketing and Sales team in the near future to discuss how we can arrange to handle your business at another location prior to the time this spur track is taken out of service. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. Ed Rhodes Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT ONE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY EDWARD NE RHODES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 069 100 545- UNION PACIFIC August 28, 1997 1200 CORPORATE CENTER OR.. 0329 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 (213) 9604822 FAX (213) 9806859. Nathan Smooke • 405 Mateo Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 RE:. Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. 31106 and 2 Third Party Agreements (Riccobon and Company, Nelson Distributors, Inc.) Track Number (‘SPINS) 1461 Gentlemen: Our service records indicate that no rail cars have been delivered to or received from the above - identified industry spur track in the past two years by you or your tenants. In accordance with the terms of the agreement referenced above, Union Pacific Railroad (successor to Sduthern Pacific Transportation Company) hereby exercises its right to terminate the agreement effective immediately. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. r Sjncerely, .! Ed Rhodes Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT ONE SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVESTMENT CO. 405 MATEO STREET LOS ANGET-FS, CALIFORNIA 90013 -2219 (213) 624 -8361 OFFICE • (213) 624-5736 FAX CERTIFIED MAIL Return Receipt Requested September 8, 1997 Mr. Ed Rhodes UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1200 Corporate Center DR. #329 Monterey Park, CA 91754 RE: San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. 31106 Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Dear Mr. Rhodes: As per our telephone discussion of September 5, 1997, Union Pacific Railroad Company's (UPRR) notice to terminate the referenced Track Agreement seems to have been based on faulty service records. Our information is that 8 rail cars are currently on this spur track, 26 cars so far this year and that 52 cars were delivered to the track in 1996. This is contrary to your letter of August 28, 1997 to Nathan Smooke, which stated that there has been no rail car activity at this track during the past two years. Based on this information, UPRR has no basis to terminate the Track Agreement. San Leandro Blvd. Investment Co. (SLBICO), successor to Nathan Smooke, hereby . requests that UPRR immediately rescind its termination action and confirm that the subject track will remain in active service in correspondence to SLBICO at the address.shown above. Sincerely, SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVESTMENT CO. By Paul Wren Cc: V Itex Plastics, Inc. Page 3 of 3 CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro -Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 December 8, 1998 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 Councilman Jeff Kellogg Chairman, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority One Civic Plaza, Suite 600 Carson, CA 90745 DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 Dear Chairman Kellogg: Duane Kenagy, Final Design Manager, Alameda Corridor Engineering Team (ACET), ACET staff and ACET sub - consultants met with Kevin Wilson, City of Vernon Director of Community Development and City Engineer, Vernon staff and consultants on October 7th, 20th, 28th and November 6, 1997. The meetings were held to discuss engineering and technical issues related to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on'the Alameda Corridor. The discussions included technical issues associated with ACTH's North -End Traffic Management Plan, initial plans for traffic management and utility relocation associated with the Mid - Corridor Trench Section, overall project scheduling, and other issues related to the upcoming issuance of the "Design - Build" Request for Proposals (RFP) in January 1998. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Vernon, I want to express our appreciation for the information provided to us in those meetings. As you know, the City of Vernon fully supports construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. With the upcoming January 1998 release of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section "Design- Build" Request for Proposals, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project will take an important step towards construction and completion. We support that goal. Despite their strong support for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, the Mayor and City Council members remain concerned about the significant environmental impacts construction of the Corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Given their concerns, I want to take this opportunity to highlight one crucial matter. The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Program incorporated by U.S. DOT into the ROD require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan which addresses efforts by ACTA to mitigate and manage the significant environmental impacts of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. December 8, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Two We are concerned about the preparation of the Construction Management Plan inasmuch as the initial concept presented for traffic management during Mid - Corridor construction was on its face inadequate -- failing to address critical questions such as detour routes, train movements, the excavation and hauling of construction materials, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and certainty regarding contractor performance for the length of street closures. Traffic management during construction is of paramount concern to the City of Vernon, and is the most problematic topic of discussion between ACET and City of Vernon staff. Based upon information that has been presented to us, Mid - Corridor construction will occur for thirty-six to forty months from approximately October 1998 through September 2001. Construction of the Redondo Junction, Washington Blvd. and Santa Fe Ave. North -End Projects will begin in early Spring of 1998 and will overlap with the construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench Section. The potential for serious economic disruption to occur during these three years is quite real. Furthermore, there is a high probability given the size and scope of the Corridor Project that construction will continue beyond thirty-six to forty months. The City of Vernon anticipates the preparation of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. With construction poised to begin on the North -End Projects in The early spring and summer of 1998, we are understandably concerned that ACTA will fail to complete the Construction Management Plan as required by the Federal Record of Decision prior to the start of construction of the Alameda Corridor Project. Failure to complete the Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities would raise issues regarding the implementation of mitigation measures under 40 CFR Section 1505.3. The process undertaken for preparation, and the timetable for the completion of a Construction Management Plan and its Traffic Management sub - component are significant policy matters which can only benefit from the special attention of the ACTA Board. At our last meeting on November 7th 1997, the City of Vernon agreed to Duane Kenagy's request that the City of Vernon transmit its concerns in writing to ACET respecting the initial plans for traffic management, utility relocation, right -of -way acquisition and other technical matters. It has been communicated to us that in order to insure that ACTA is able to make an "apples to apples" comparison of responses to the "Design- Build" RFP, it would be helpful for the City of Vernon to provide an early resolution of critical technical issues such as allowable street closures, and design parameters for utility relocation. It is our understanding ACTA is interested in identifying local technical issues and permitting requirements in order to include this information in the Mid- Corridor "Design - Build" RFP currently being prepared for issuance in January 1998. December 8, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Three The City of Vernon submits this initial preliminary response (See Attachment A) in a spirit of cooperation. However, the City of Vernon reserves all rights to augment or change these comments at any time. In addition, Vernon anticipates submitting additional comments to, ACET as information is made available to us regarding the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. In closing, the initial exchange of information between the City of Vernon and ACET staff has been quite helpful in identifying and resolving certain utility relocation and other technical issues. Continuing with regularly scheduled meetings to address technical issues will help bring us all closer to our shared goal of construction and completion of the Alameda Corridor. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an initial response to engineering and technical issues associated with traffic management, utility relocation, local permitting requirements, and other technical matters of concern related to the construction of the Alameda Corridor. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 583 - 8811. Cordially, Bruce Malkenhorst CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF VERNON 9 CC: ACTA Board Members Gil Hicks, ACTA Executive Director ATTACHMENT A City Of Vernon Initial Responses To ACTA Engineering And Other Technical Matters City of Vernon Approvals and Local Permitting Requirements for Trench Construction: ACTA and /or its General Construction Contractor will require the following approvals and local permits: • Franchise Agreements • Encroachment License Agreements Encroachment Permits Building Permits ACTA will require Franchise Agreements, Encroachment License Agreements, and Encroachment Permits from the City of Vernon for those areas in which the Mid - Corridor Trench Section, or the UP /SP Drill Track encroaches into streets within the City of Vernon. Vernon staff await final design drawings from ACET in order to determine the specific approvals necessary. It should also be noted that any Traffic Management Plan for the Alameda Corridor must take into consideration the State - Mandated City of Vernon 1989 General Plan Infrastructure Element and June 16, 1992 Vernon Master Plan of Streets. Finally, the Construction Contractor will require building permits from the City of Vernon which will require the presence of City of Vernon on -site construction inspectors. Traffic Management: The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Program incorporated by U.S. DOT into the ROD require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan which addresses the following: A Construction Management Plan will be developed to include specific measures targeted to individual businesses. Access to residences, business and schools will be maintained during construction. All reasonable efforts will be made to restrict construction related parking, hauling of construction materials, excavation activities, and staging of construction vehicles in close proximately to schools. U.S. DOT ROD, Pages 9 &10 1 ATTACHMENT A In addition, the ACTA Mitigation Monitoring Program provides: A Construction Management Plan will be developed and implemented. Lane closures will be minimized; workable detours will be provided. A public information program will be implemented to disseminate construction information and respond to local concerns. MMP S -42 A Construction Management Plan will be developed and implemented. Included in the Plan will be provisions appropriate to the protection of school children, school crossing guards (in locations of nearby proximity to the project) and security fencing. Local Jurisdiction transportation department criteria will be used to establish the need for crossing guards. MMP S -42 The 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan anticipate the inclusion of traffic management planning as a part of the larger Construction Management Plan. The City of Vernon offers assistance and cooperation in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. To date, ACET has presented only an initial concept for traffic management during construction of the Mid Corridor Trench Section (as well as a Traffic Management Plan for the North -End Projects). The initial concept failed to account for basic traffic factors such as planned detour routes, train movements, haul routes, concurrent construction projects, and emergency vehicle operations. While Vernon awaits the preparation of the Construction Management Plan, we provide these comments to the initially presented traffic management concepts. Closure of Vernon Ave. at Alameda Street: The City of Vernon has serious concerns about the full closure of Vernon Avenue at Alameda Street. The initial proposal anticipated closure for 3 to 4 months. The City of Vernon would require additional traffic management and modeling information including project scheduling and cost saving data in order to determine the appropriate course of action for Vernon Avenue. Closure of 38th & 55th Streets at Alameda Street The City -of Vernon is willing to consider the closure of 38th & 55th Streets at Alameda Street for up to 90 days as part of a comprehensive traffic management program with appropriate mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with Corridor construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for street closures at these locations beyond 90 days. 2 ATTACHMENT A One Way Couplet along Alameda Street between 25th Street and Vernon Avenue: The City of Vernon is concerned about the functionality of the One -Way Couplet as proposed. Issues to be addressed include: 1) Inclusion of left turn lane pockets in the current design to prevent left turn movements from blocking traffic and creating significant queuing. 2) Extraordinary difficulty in removing any vehicle stranded in the single south -bound lane due to a breakdown or traffic accident. 3) Access to local businesses by emergency vehicles. 4) Preparation of a plan for detouring existing north/south traffic along routes parallel to Alameda Street. Partial Closure of Slauson Avenue for 180 days: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for delays in the 180 day partial closure of Slauson Avenue. BNSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street: To date, no information regarding traffic management plans for the detouring around the BNSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street has been presented. Vernon will have serious concerns about any lane closures at 26th and Soto Street. Other Concurrent Construction Projects: ACET should note that during North -End and Mid Corridor Trench construction, Los Angeles County will be seismically retrofitting the Soto Street and Bandini Blvd. Bridges over the Los Angeles River. The retrofit of the Bandini Blvd. Bridge will require Bandini Blvd. to be partially closed to one lane in each direction for at least a year. In addition, the BNSF is embarking on a major expansion at Hobart Yard. There will be a significant increases in truck traffic in and around site. The cumulative increase in traffic, especially truck traffic should be included in traffic modeling carried out in support of the Construction Management Plan. 3 ATTACHMENT A Haul Routes: The City of Vernon awaits information regarding the removal and disposal of excavated dirt and other materials. Initial calculations indicate approximately 1000 trucks per day will be necessary to remove excavated materials. A plan must be developed for the`'disposal of these materials, and proposed haul routes identified. The City of Vernon anticipates designating specific haul routes as a part of the construction encroachment permitting process. Local Improvements: In general, the City of Vernon believes that the construction footprint along Alameda Street, and the concomitant full and partial closures of Alameda Street at Vernon Avenue, 38th Street, and 55th Street will create conditions seriously impeding east -west traffic flow through the City. Similarly, the partial closure of Slauson Avenue to one lane in each direction for at least 180 days will create bottleneck conditions encouraging east -west traffic to move north -south along Santa Fe Avenue and Soto Street seeking a way to cross east -west across Alameda Street. The following projects will help mitigate the impacts created by the increased traffic congestion caused by the construction of the Corridor. In addition, Vernon believes these projects will ultimately help ACTA address such issues such as the location of staging areas, haul routes, and emergency vehicle operations. • 1) Signal System Improvements: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include Signal Systems Improvements along Alameda Street, Washington Blvd., Vernon Ave., Santa Fe Ave., and Soto Street in the "Design - Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. These improvements will help traffic move more efficiently along north -south routes parallel to Alameda Street. ACET and Vernon Staff should meet to discuss specific standards and specifications. 2) Widen Soto Street from Washington Blvd. to 26th Street: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to Soto Street in the "Design - Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. Alternatives for consideration should include construction of two south- bound lanes, three north -bound lanes and a two -way left turn median. ACET staff, City of Los Angeles Staff and Vernon staff should meet to discuss possible alternatives. 4 ATTACHMENT A Local Improvements (con't) 3) 26th St. Improvements/Widening of the 26th St. LA River Bridge Of paramount concern to the City of Vernon is the significant traffic disruption associated with the blockage of east -west routes through the City. Improvements to 26th Street and the widening of the 26th Avenue Bridge at the Los Angeles River will create a route with adequate capacity to handle east -west traffic through the. City during construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to 26th Street and the widening of the 26th Avenue Bridge over the Los Angeles River in the "Design- Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. ACET and Vernon staff should meet to discuss specific project parameters. Miscellaneous Technical Items: • The City of Vernon will require ACTA to re- monument center lines along any reconstructed streets. • The City of Vernon will require East Alameda Street and West Alameda Street to be fully reconstructed to city standards with new pavement, curbs and gutters, sidewalks and 60 ft. curb returns where physically possible. • The City of Vernon will require that two -way left turn pockets be provided along the length of West Alameda Street. • The City of Vernon will require left turn lane pockets at all signalized intersections of East Alameda Street, and the intersection of East Alameda Street and 37th Street. Railroad Operations: The City of Vernon has requested basic information detailing how rail operations will proceed during construction. To date, we have received very little, if any information. Given the fact that the Alameda Corridor project is an intemodal transportation project, information regarding rail operations is by defmition relevant. The City of Vernon believes this information is particularly essential to the development of a comprehensive traffic management plan for construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench. This is a policy matter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board. ATTACHMENT A Drill Track: The City of Vernon is anxious to assist in the resolution of issues related to the relocation or reconstruction of the UP Drill Track. The City has become particularly concerned about this issue since Vernon staff have begun to receive complaints from local businesses who have been contacted by the Union Pacific Railroad and informed that their service will be eliminated (See Exhibit One). At a minimum, business and property owners should be financially compensated for the loss of spur track service. Vernon staff awaits additional information and direction from ACET staff on this issue. Since there is the general public perception that the construction of the Alameda Corridor will create better rail access for businesses located along the Corridor, Vernon believes this is a policy matter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board. Utility Relocation: In general, the City of Vernon will require that all municipal utility relocation including water, wastewater, storm drains, electric utilities, or natural gas distribution shall be accomplished at ACTA "s expense. Sanitary Sewers: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange the relocation of the Main County Sanitation Line to East Alameda Street. This design approach allows utility relocation to occur without the construction of sanitary sewer siphons or pumping facilities which create operational issues. In addition, this approach would allow ACTA to install 21 inch sanitary sewer pipe along Alameda Street from 37th Street to Vernon Avenue. The City of Vernon opposes any utility relocation design which provides for the construction of sewer siphons or pumping facilities which create additional local maintenance costs. Water Lines: The City of Vernon provides potable water to all businesses operating within the City of Vernon. Of particular concern are the many food processing companies operating within the City. Given the significant public heath and safety issues associated with food processing there must be absolute protection of the potable water supply. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for any breach or contamination of the potable water supply in the City of Vernon. ATTACHMENT A Storm Drains: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange for re- sizing the Los Angeles County Box Culvert at 25th Street. Electric Utilities: The City of Vernon encourages the early identification of any utility poles which must be relocated due to street widening or other construction. Relocation will occur at the expense of ACTA. Gas Distribution System: The City of Vernon will shortly begin the construction of a City -wide gas distribution system. Of concern is the protection of gas lines directly adjacent to trench construction. Vernon staff have provided a fmal set of drawings to ACET staff for their review and incorporation into the fmal design of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for any damage to the new gas distribution system. Protections for Impacted Vernon Businesses The City of Vernon has not yet been provided with any information or plans for the protection of businesses in Vernon from environmental and economic impacts associated with construction. Of particular concern are those businesses directly adjaeent to, and in the footprint of the construction zone. Impacts could include such items as loss of revenue, damage to buildings or other facilities, equipment damage from vibrations, or disruption of production processes from heavy dust. These are all items which must be addressed as part of the Construction Management Plan required under the U.S. DOT Record of Decision, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Hours of Operations The City of Vernon awaits information regarding proposed hours of construction within the City. To date no plan has been presented. 7 EXHIBIT ONE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY EDWARD A. RHODES BUSINESS MANAGER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 069 100 542 Caltex Plastics 2322 East 51st St. Vernon, CA 90058 August 28, 1997 RE: Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement - none Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Gentlemen: 1200 CORPORATE CENTER DR.. 0329 MONTEREY PARK. CA 91754 (213) 980-6822 FAX (213) 980 -6859 Our service records indicate that your company receives rail cars on the above- referenced spur track, and that 55 cars were delivered on this track in 1996, and 23 cars to date in 1997. We have not been able to locate any current Industrial Track Agreement for your company at this location. As you may be aware, construction on the Alameda Corridor in the vicinity of your spur track is scheduled to begin in approximately two years. The actual timing of construction will be decided by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Please be advised that we intend to permanently terminate rail service to your spur track when construction on the Corridor begins. The level of traffic indicated above does not constitute active and substantial use of the spur track when compared to the cost and difficulty of continuing service during and after Corridor construction. Therefore, upon start of construction, we will exercise our right to terminate service on and over this industry track. You will be contacted by our Marketing and Sales team in the near future to discuss how we can arrange to handle your business at another location prior to the time this spur track is taken out of service. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. hicerel \\ Ed Rhodes Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT ONE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY EDWARD A. RHODES BUSINESS MANAGER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 069 100 545- Nathan Smooke 405 Mateo Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 UNION PACIFIC August 28, 1997 1200 CORPORATE CENTER OR., 0329 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 (213) 9808822 FAX (213) 980-6859. RE: Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. 31106 and 2 Third Party Agreements (Riccobon and Company, Nelson Distributors, Inc.) Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Gentlemen: Our service records indicate that no rail cars have been delivered to or received from the above- identified industry spur track in the past two years by you or your tenants. In accordance with the terms of the agreement referenced above, Union Pacific Railroad (successor to Sduthern Pacific Transportation Company) hereby exercises its right to terminate the agreement effective immediately. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. Sincerely, Ed Rhodes Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT ONE SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVESTMENT CO. 405 MATEO STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 -2219 (213) 624 -8361 OFFICE • (213) 624 -5736 FAX CERTIFIED MAIL Return Receipt Requested September 8, 1997 Mr. Ed Rhodes UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1200 Corporate Center DR. #329 Monterey Park, CA 91754 RE: San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. 31106 Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Dear Mr. Rhodes: As per our telephone discussion of September 5, 1997, Union Pacific Railroad Company's (UPRR) notice to terminate the referenced Track Agreement seems to have been based on faulty service records. Our information is that 8 rail cars are currently on this spur track, 26 cars so far this year and that 52 cars were delivered to the track in 1996. This is contrary to your letter of August 28, 1997 to Nathan Smooke, which stated that there has been no rail car activity at this track during the past two years. Based on this information, UPRR has no basis to terminate the Track- Agreement. San Leandro Blvd. Investment Co. (SLBICO), successor to Nathan Smooke, hereby requests that UPRR immediately rescind its termination action and confirm that the subject track will remain in active service in correspondence to SLBICO at the address.shown above. Sincerely, SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVESTMENT CO. By Paul Wren Cc: vCcItex Plastics, Inc. Page 3 of 3 ruse Malkenhorst (213) 581 -7924 David Breerley (626) 330 -5818 evin Wilson (213) 588 -2761 Mike Gagan (213) 624 -0123 Phone: 310 -780 -8999 or 310 - 827 - 2338 F *x Phone: Dwt$r December 3, 1997 Ite: CC: 0 Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Please feel free to make any comments that you believe will make this a better document. --DC r t1082761‘2.0 DRAFT; ONLY December 3, 1998 Councilman Jeff Kellogg Chairman, Alameda" Corridor Transportation Authority (7ne.Civic Plaza, Suite 600 Carson;:.CA :90745 airman „Kellog, Duane Kenagy,'Finai Design Manager,, Alameda Corridor Engineering Team (ACET), ACET ata#'f and ACET sub- consultants met with Kevin Wilson, City of Vernon Director of Community Development and City Engineer, Vernon staff and consultants on October 7Th 20th, 28th and November 6, 1997. The meetings were held to discuss engineering and technical issues related to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on the Alameda Corridor. The discussions included technical issues associated with ACTA 's North -End Traffic Management Plan, initial plans for traffic management and utility relocation associated with the Mid- Corridor Trench Section, overall project scheduling, and other issues related to the upcoming issuance of the Design -Build Request for Proposals (RFP) in January 1998. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Vernon, 1 want to express our appreciation for the information provided to us in those meetings. As you know, the City of Vernon fully supports construction of the Alameda Corridor `i'ransportation Project. With the upcoming January 1998 release of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section "Design-Build' Request for Proposals, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project will take an important step towards construction and completion. We support that goal. Despite their strong support for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, the Mayor and City Council members remain concerned about the significant environmental impacts construction of the Corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods, Given their concerns, I want to take this opportunity to highlight one crucial matter. The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Program incorporated by U.S. 1)0T into the ROD require the preparation of a Constniction Management Plan which addresses efforts by ACTA to mitigate, and manage the significant environmental' impacts of construction of the Alameda Corridor. We are concerned about the preparation of the Construction Management Plan since the initial concept presented for the Traffic Management Plan component of the CMP was on its face inadequate -- failing to address critical questions such as detour routes, train movements, the excavation and hauling of construction materials, the location of staging areas, emergency vehicle operations, concurrent construction projects, and approaches for ensuring contractor performance for the length of street closures. December 3, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Tw Traffic Management during construction is of paramount conccru to the City of Vernon, and is thc most problematic topic of discussion between ACET and City of Vernon staff. Based upon information that has been presented to us construction will occur for thirty -six to forty months from approximately July 1998 through September 2001. r"urthcnnorc, it should be noted that construction of Redondo Junction, Washington Blvd. and Santa Fe Ave. North F,nd Projects will overlaptwith the construction of the Mid-Corridor Trench Section. The potential for serious eco lomlc`disruption during these three years is quite real. Purthertt ore, there is a high probability given the size and scope of titc Corridor Project, that construction will continue Beyond thirty-six to forty months. The City of Vernon anticipates the preparation of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May, 6, 1996 May, 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Record of Decision. The process to be undertaken in preparation, and the timetable for thc completion of a comprehensive Construction Management Plan and its Traffic Management sub- component are significant policy matters which can only benefit from thc special attention of the ACTA Board. At our last meeting on November 7th 1997, the City of Vernon agreed to Duane Kenagy's request that the City of Vernon transmit its concerns in writing to ACET respecting the initial plans for traffic management, utility relocation, right -of -way acquisition and other technical matters. h has been conununicated to us that in order to insure that ACTA is able to make an "apples to apples" comparison of responses to the Design -Build RFP, it would be helpful for the City of Vernon to provide an early, resolution of critical technical issues such as allowable street closures and design parameters for utility relocation. It is our understanding ACTA is interested in identif'in local technical issues and permitting requirements in order to include this information in the Mid- Corridor Design -Build RFP currently being prepared for issuance in January 1998. The City of Vernon submits this initial preliminary response (Sec Attachment A) in a spirit of cooperation. However, the City of Vernon reserves all rights to augment or change these conunents at any time_ In addition, Vernon anticipates submitting further comments to ACET as additional ,information is made available to us regarding the preparation of the Construction Management Plan in compliance with the May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Reeord of Decision. In closing, the initial exchange of information between the City of Venion and ACET staff has been quite helpful in identifying and resolving certain utility relocation and other technical issues. Continuing with regularly scheduled meetings to address technical issues will help bring us all closer to our shared goal of construction and completion of the Alameda Corridor. p8?'Y61' ATTACHMENT A City Of Vernon Initial Responses TO ACTA Engineering And Other Technical Matters Cityeif Vernon 'Anproyals and 1;ocal Permitting Requirements` for Trench Construction: ACTA and /or its Gencral Construction Contractor will require the following approvals an. d local permits: Franchise Agreements Encroachment License Agreements' Encroachment Permits Building Permits` ACTA will require Franchise Agreements, Encroachment License Agreements, and Encroachment Permits from the City of Vernon for those areas in which the Mid - Corridor Trench Section, or the UP /SP Drill Track encroaches into streets within the City of Vernon. Vcrnorr stair await fmal`design drawings from ACET in order to determine the specific approvals necessary. It should also be noted that any Traffic Management Plan for the Alameda Corridor must take into consideration the State - Mandated City of Vernon 19 ## (Kevin ?) General Plan Circulation Element and Twenty -Year Master Plan of Streets. Finally, the Construction Contractor will require building permits from the City of Vernon which will include the presence of City of Vernon on -site construction inspectors. Traffic Management: The May 6, 1996 U.S. DOT Federal Record of Decision (ROD) on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, and the Alameda Corridor Mitigation and Monitoring Program incorporated by U.S. DOT into the ROD require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan which addresses the following: A Construction Management Plan will be developed to include specific measures targeted to individual businesses. Access to residences, business and schools will be maintained during construction. All reasonable efforts will be made to restrict construction related parking, hauling of construction materials, excavation activities, and staging of construction vehicles in close proximately to schools. U.S. DOT ROD, Pages 9 &10 8'276 In addition, the ACTA Mitigation Monitoring Program provides: A Construction Management Plan will be developed and intl?letnented lane closures will De;niinittticed; workable detours will be provided. A public information program will be implemented to disseminate construction information and respond to local concerns. MMP S -42 A Construction Management Plan will be developed and implemented included in the Plan will be provisions appropriate to the protection of school children, school crossing` guards (m Locations of nearby Fromm ;ttely to the project) and 9ccurity: fencing, Local Jurisdiction. transportation department criteria will be used to establish the need for crossing guards. MMP S -42 The 1996 U.S.' DOT Record of Decision and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan anticipate the inclusion of traffic management planning as a part ofthc larger Construction Management Plan. The City of Vernon offers assistance and cooperation in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan. To date, ACFT has presented only an initial concept for traffic management during construction of the Mid Corridor Trench Section. The initial concept failed to account for such basic traffic factors such as planned detour routes, train movements, haul routes, concurrent construction projects, and emergency vehicle operations. While we await the preparation oldie Construction Management Plan, we provide these comments to the initially presented traffic management concepts. Closure of Vernon Av@. atAlnmeda Street: The City of Vernon has serious concerns about the full closure of Vernon Avenue at Alameda Street. The initial proposal anticipated closure fora to 4 months The City of Vernon would require additional traffic management and modeling information including project scheduling and costs saving data in order to determine the appropriate course of action for Vernon Avenue. Closure of 38th & 55'h Avenues at Alameda Street The City of Vernon is willing consider the closure of 38t1i & 55th Avenues at Alameda Street for up to 90 days as a part of a comprehensive traffic management program with appropriate mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with Corridor construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for street closures at these locations beyond 90 days. One Way Couplet along Alameda Street between 25th and Street and Vernon Avenue: The City of Vernon is concerned about the functionality of the One -Way Couplet as proposed. Issues to be addressed include: 3 Tncititsion of left turn lane pockete into design to prevent lefi turn rnovornotit3 from blocking traffic and creating significant queuing. Yr1 t:. C co-s 2) Extraordinary difficulty in removing any vehicle stranded in the single south hound Iane due to a breakdown, or traffic accident: 3) Access to local businesses by emergency vehicles. 4) Preparation of plan for detouring existing north/south traffic along routes parallel to Alameda Street. Partial Closure of Slauson Avenue for 1$0 days: T7 a City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid- Corridor "L7 esigiS- Bu0ld'` RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for delays in the 180 day partial closure of Slauson Avenue. BNSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street: To date, no uiformation regarding traffic management plans for the detouring around the B1\iSF Bridge over Soto Street north of 26th Street has been presented. The City of Vernon will have serious concerns about any lane closures at 26th and Soto Street. Other Concurrent Construction Projects: ACET should note that during North -End and Mid Corridor Trench construction, Los Angeles County will be seismically retrofitting the Soto Street and Bandini Blvd. Bridges over the Los Angeles River. The retrofit of the Bandini Blvd. Bridge will require Bandini Blvd, to be partially closed to one lane in each direction for at least a year, In addition, the BNSF is embarking otr a major expansion at Hobart Yard. There will be a significant increases in truck traffic in and around site. The cumulative increase in traffic, especially truck traffic should be included in traffic modeling carried out in support of the Construction Management Plan. Haul Routes: The City of Vernon awaits information regarding the rernoval and disposal of excavated dirt and other materials. initial calculations indicate approxiinatcly 1000 trucks per day will be necessary to remove excavated materials. A pian must developed for the disposal of these materials, and proposed haul routes identified. The City of Vernon does anticipate designating specific haul routes as a part of the construction encroachment permitting process. Local Improvements: In general, the City of Vernon believes that the construction footprint along Alamda Street, and the concomitant full and partial closures of Alameda Street at Vernon Avenue, 38thStreet, and 55th Street will create conditions seriously impeding east -west traffic flow through the City. Similarly, the partial closure of Slauson Avenue to one lane in each` direction for at least 180 days will create bottleneck conditions encouraging east -west traffic to move north -south along Santa Fe Avenue and Soto Street seeking a way to cross east -west across Alameda Strcct. 2781' S4-1 CV"rt The following projects will help mitigate the impacts created by the increased traffic congestion caused by the construction of the Corridor. In addition, Vernon 'believes these projects will ultimately help ACTA address such issues such as the location of staging areas, haul routes, and — emergency vehicle operations`; S S u. t. 1)' Signal �rrrds-arrI� The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include Signal Systems Improvements along Washington Blvd., Washington Blvd., Vernon Ave., Santa Fe Ave., and Soto Street in the "Design - Build" RFP for the Mid- Corridor Trench Section. 'T'hese improvements will help traffic move more efficiently along North- South routes parallel to Alameda Street. ACET and Vernon Staff ` should meet to discuss specific standards and specifications. 2) Widen Soto Street from Washington Blvd. to 26th Strcct: The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to Soto Street in the "Design - Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. Alternatives for consideration should include construction of two south bound lanes, three north bound lanes and a two -way left turn median. ACET staff, City of Los Angeles representatives and Vernon staff should meet to discuss possible alternatives. 3) 1m rovements to 26th St. /Widcnin' of the 26t1i St. Brid e over the LA River: Of primary concern to the City of Vernon is the significant traffic disruption associated with the blockage of east -west routes through the City. Improvements to 26th Street and the widening of the 26th • Avenue Bridge at the Los Angeles River will create a route with adequate capacity to handle east -west traffic through the City during construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include improvements to 26`th Street and the widening of the 26th Avenue Bridge over the Los Angeles River in the "Design- Build" RFP for the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. Miscellaneous Technical Items. The City of Vernon will require ACTA to re- monument center lines along any reconstructed streets. The City of Vernon will require East Alameda Street and West Alameda Street to be fully reconstructed to city standards with new pavement, curbs and gutters, sidewalks and 60 ft, curb returns where physically possible. The City of Vernon will require that left turn lane pockets be provided at all signalized intersections of West Alameda, as well as at the intersection of 37t and East Alameda Street, ;j. 'r. 1 tt 082Z�ri2E Railroad Operations: The City of Vernon has requested basic information detailing how rail operations will proceed during construction. To date, we have received very little, if any information. Given, the Alameda Corridor project is an intemodal transportation project, information regarding rail operations is by definition relevant. The City, of Vernon believes this information is particularly essential to the development of a comprehensive traffic management plan for construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench. This is a policy natter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board, grill Track: The City of Vernon is anxious to assist in the resolution of issues related to the relocation, or reconstruction of the LIP Drill Track. The City has become particularly concerned about this issue since Vernon staff have begun to receive complaints from local business who have been contacted by the Union Pacific railroad and informed that their service will be eliminated (Sec Exhibit One). At a minimum, business and property owners should be financially compensated for the loss of spur track service. Vernon staff awaits additional information, and direction from ACET staff on this issue, Since there k the general public perception that the construction of the Alameda Corridor will create better roil access for businesses located along the Corridor, Vernon believes this is a policy matter which should be reviewed by the ACTA Board. Utility B,eIQC; ttIQn; In general, the City of Vernon will require that all municipal utility relocation including water, wastewater, electric utilities, or natural gas distribution shall be accomplished at ACTA 's expense. Sanitary Sewers: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange the relocation of the Main County Sanitation Line. to East Alameda Street. This design approach allows utility relocation to occur without the construction of sanitary sewer siphons, or pumping facilities which create operational issues. The City of Vernon opposes any utility relocation design which provides for the construction of sewer siphons or pumping facilities which create additional local nttiintenance costs: Water Lines; The City of Vernon provides potable water to all businesses operating within the City of Vernon. ' Of particular concern are the many food processing companies operating within the City. Given the significant public heath and safety issues associated with food processing there must be absolute protection of the potable water supply. The City of C cAA,) Water- Lines (cont) ' Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid- Corridor "Design.Build" RFP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for any breach or contamination of the potable water supply in the City of Vernon. Storm Drains: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange for re- sizing the Los Angeles County oX Culvert at 25 Street. Electric Utilities: The City of Vernon encourages the early identification of any utility poles which must be relocated due to street widoning or other construction, Relocation will occur at the expense of ACTA. Gas Distribution System: The City of Vernon will shortly begin the construction of aCity -wide gas distribution system, Of paramount concern is the protection of gas lines directly adjacent to trench construction. Vernon staff have provided a final set of drawings to ACET staff for their review and incorporation into the final design of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid Corridor "Design - Build" RFP which provide significant monetary penalties for any damage to the new gas distribution system, Protections for Impacted Vernon Businesses The City of Vernon has not yet been provided with any information or plans for the protection of businesses in Vernon from environmental and economic impacts associated with construction. Of particularly concern are those businesses directly adjacent to and in the footprint of the construction zone. Impacts could include such items as loss of revenue, damage to buildings or other facilities, equipment damage from vibrations, or disruption of production processes from heavy dust. These are all items which must he addressed an a part of the Construction Management Plan required under the U.S. DOT Record of Decision, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Hours of Qperations The City of Vernon awaits information regarding proposed hours of construction within the City. To date no plan has been presented. `o;v 2t5�i)1, $ 41I Of'3 • SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVE$TMENT co. 407 MA7EO srierr LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA" 90013.2219 ts (217) 624 -361 OFFICE • (2t3) 4245736 FAX CERTIh18P MAIL turn Roc&ost Reaueatad September , 1997': nnr.." Ed Rhodes UN1ON PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1200 Corporate Center DR. #329 Monterey Perk, CA 91754 RE: San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. 31106 Track Number (SPINS) 1481 Dear Mr. Rhodes: As per our tclophone :diScueeion of September 5, 1997, Union Pacific Railroad Company's (UPRR) notice to terminate the referenced Track Agreement seems to have been based on faulty service records. Our information is that 8 fall cars pro currently on this spur track, 26 cars so far this year and Char 52 cars were delivered to the track 41 1996_ This is contrary to your letter of August 28, 1997 to Nathan Smooke which stated that there has bean no rail car activity at this track during the pat two years. Based on this information, UPRR he; no basis to terminate the Track Agreement. San Leandro Blvd. Investment Co. (SLBICOI, successor to Nathan Smookc, hwrcby ragIrasts that UPRR immediately rescind its termination action and confirm that the subject track will remain in active service in correspondence to SLBICO at the address Shawn above, Sincerely, SAN LEANDRO BLVD. INVESTMENT CO. By Paul Wren r:' VCekes Plastics, Inc, 5a` !OWAPO!A. RM E8 1114J1*E38 MIIMAns, iNOI ina�f, PMIHT a w S8 13 e) 82"7612'0'` x213 388.2-7131 VERNON COMM. 31'8 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY August 2a, 1,997 RTrF IW M.MJJ 7'UR7N RECEIPT REOI)ESTl D 069100 545 to Stteei cics GSA 90013 RE: Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement No. M106 and 2 Third Party Agreements (Riccobon And Company, Nelson Distributors, Inc.) Track Number (SPINS) 1461 00 Qi 1 COFIROAATE CENTER OR.. opal ariIh PAPS. CA il'b& FAY ilQN49 Gentlemen; Our service records indicate. that 00 rail cars have been delivered to or received from the above- identified industry spur track in the past two years by you or your tenants. In, accordance with the terms of' the agreement referenced above, Union Pacific Railroad (successor to .Southern Pacific Transportation Company) hereby exercises its right to tenrninate the agreement effective immediateiy. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. r S ncerely, r) Ed Rhodes COWaM. R{lCO $ M MAnAQ INeurrout. orvuQP 1T 21$ "5 5 2/131 V'ERNO COMM SE `S' '%982 612 L � L Ft UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 111111 August 28, 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL fiETEIrtIS RECEIPT REO Esll tp P 069 100 542 traltti Plastics L322 East 51st St. S%ernon, CA 90053 00 17W COOAQAA't CEN1r) OMQO MQNTEFP PARA. CA Ai 1,4 (219)0804U2 FAX (213) 080 Ea? 1 RE! Notice of Termination - San Pedro Branch Industrial Track Agreement - none Track Number (SPINS) 1461 Gentlemen: Our service records indicate that your company receives rail cars on the above' referenced spur track, and that 55 cars wr.re delivered on this track in 1996, and 23 cars to date in 1997. We have not been able to locate any current Industrial Track Agreement for your company at this location. M inn may be aware, coustrUCtion on the Alameda Corridor In the vicinity u[ your spiv track is scheduled to begin in approximately two years. The actual tinning of construction will be decided by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Please be advised that we intend to permanently terminate rail service to your spur track when construction on the Corridor begins. The level of traffic indicated above dot's not constitute active and substantial use of the spur track when Compared to the cost and difficulty of continuing service during and after Corridor construction. Therefore, upon start 01 construction, rye will exercise our right to terminate service on arid over this industry crack. You will be contacted by our Marketing and Sales team hi the near future to discuss how wc can arrange to handle your business at another location prior to the time this spur track is taken out or service. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions about this notice. ctrel Ed Rhodes o: Bruce Malkenhorst (213) 581- 7924 From: David Cobb David Breartey (626) 330 -5818 Kevin Wilson (213) 588 -2761 FAX 310- 827 -6120 Mike Gagan (213) 624 -0123 Phone 310 - 780 -8999 or 310- 827 -2338 Fax: Phone: Date November 26, 1997 Re: CC: _ D Urgent 0 For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle Given the recent settlement offer to Compton, 1 expect that Bruce will be contacted shortly by the Ports. Please call me with your comments on the letter, especially where we need additional information, 1 would like to complete this letter before Bruce leaves next week on Wednesday. DC S� = 13 0827`61'i DRAFT ONLY November 26, 1998 Councilman Jet/ Kellogg Chairnian, Alameda CorridorTransportation Authority t)rie Civic Pla4a,' Suite G00 (^ irtm CA 90745 Dear.Chairman Kellogg: lluane Kenag+y, Final,, Design Manager, Alarneda Corridor Engineering Team (ACET), ACET staff and ACET sub - corisultailt;i ttiet with Kevin Wilson, City of Vernon Director of Community Development and City Engineer, Vernon Ntaff arid' "consultants on October 7 rt' , 20i', 28 did November 6, 1997. The meetings were held to diacuuu engineering and technical issues related to the Alz incdu Corridor Transportation Authority's (ACTA) progress on the Alameda Corridor. Thc discussions included technical issues associated with ACTA's North -Fnd Traffic Management Plan, initial plans for tr,rflic inanagcnrcnt and utility relocation associated with the Mid Corridor Trench Sectloii, overall project scheduling, and other issues related to the upcoming issuance of the Design-Build Request for Proposals (KIT) in January 1998. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council Members of the city of Vernon, , I want to express our appreciation for the information provided to us in those meetings. As you know, the City of Vernon fully supports construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project. With the upcoming January 1998 release of the Mid- Corridor Trench Section ''Design- Huild" Request for Proposals, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project will take important stern towards construction and completion. We support that goal At our last meeting on November 7's 1997, the City of Vernon agreed to Duane Kcnagy's request for the City of Vernon to transmit its response in writing to ACa T's initial plans for traffic management, utility relocation, right -of- way acquisition and other technical matters of concern_ It has been communicated to us that in order to insure ACTA is able to make an "apples to apples" comparison of responses to the Design -Build RFP, it would be helpful for the City of Vernon to provide an curly resolution of critical technical issues such as allowable street closures, and design parameters for utility relocation. It is our understanding ACTA is interested in identifying local technical issues and permitting requirements in order to include this information in the Mid- Corridor Design -Build RFP currently being prepared for issuance in January 1998. The City of Vernon submits this initial response (Sec Attachment A) in a spirit of cooperation. However, in no way should Attachment `A be construed as being inclusive of all City of Vernon permitting requirements or technical matter of Concern, nor in submitting this initial list of requirements is the City of Vernon waving any rights to (David Brearley to provide language.) Furthermore, we anticipate submitting additional information to ACTA regarding City of Vernon local permitting requirements and other technical mailers as additional information is made available from ACTA and ACET. Despitc their strong support fur the Alaitleda Corridor Transportation Project, the Mayor and City Council members remain concerned about the significant environmental impacts construction of the Corridor will have on the businesses located in the City of Vernon, and on the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Given their concerns, 1 want to take this opportunity to 1tighlight one crucial matter. Tn our view, the initial traffic management plan presented for the construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench Section was on its face inadequate. Traffic management during construction it the most problematic topic of discussion between ACET staff and City of Vernon IT The issue is of paramount concern due to th v 36 to 40 months construction window from approximately July 1998 through September 2001. This significant policy matter deserves the special attention of the ACTA hoard. 2.761'2,0 November 26, 1997 Letter to Councilman J. Kellogg, Page Two Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide yolk with an initial response to engineering and technical issues associated with traffic: management. utility relocation, local permitting requirements, and other technical matters of concern related to the construction of the Alameda Corridor. If you have any questions regarding this communication, or should you wish to discuss any other matters associated with the construction of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 5S3 -11R1 1'. rtit. a entiorst 1TY AIaIvITNIS'i' t.4'1'Ult:. CITY OT VERNON CC: ACTA Board Members GiL Hicks, ACTA Executive Director Fete Mancha, XXXXXXXX ra6.%Zia ATTAC?IIMENT A CITY OF VERNON INITIAL RESPONSES TO AC'IA ENGINEERING AND OTIIER TECHNICAL MATTERS Necessary City of Vernon Easements/Approvals for Trench Construction: AC 1'!1 will require local encroacluucnt licenses from the City of Vernon for those areas in which the Mid- Corridor Trench Section, or the FiNSF Drill "Track encroaches into streets within the City of Vernon. Vernon staff await finial design drawings from At'h: t in order to determine the specific encroachment licenses necessary. The Construction Contractor will require construction encroachment permits from the City of Vernon which will include the presence of on -site construction inspectors. Other Permits (David, Eddie, Keviu, Bruce, Michael?) Traffic Munalentcnt: In general, initial the traffic management plan presented for the Mid Corridor Trench Section was inadequate. The initial plan fails to accotut for such basic traffic factors such as train movements, haul routes, and etncrgencyvehicle movements. However; we provide these initial comments. Closure of Vernon Ave, at Alameda Street: The City of Vernon has serious concerns about the full closure of Version Avenue at Alameda Street. The initial proposal anticipated closure tor 3 to 4 months, The City of Vernon would require additional (raftic management and modeling information including project scheduling and costs saving data in order to determine the appropriate course of action for Vernon Avenue, Closure of 41" & 55l' Avenues at Alameda Street The City of Vernon is will consider the closure of 41° & 55`h Avenues at Alameda Street for up to 90 days RS a part of a comprehensive traffic management program with appropriate mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with Corridor construction. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design- Build" RFP which pi ovide significant monetary penalties for street closures beyond 90 days. Creation of One Way Couplet. along Alameda Street North of Vernon Avenue (Kevin, I nerd some help here) Partial Closure of Slauson Avenue for 180 days Penultiv' for delay in 180 80 day partial closure of Slauson Ave. (David Cobh will complete) Ufa J-Iaul Routes: The City of Vernon awaits information regarding the removal and disposal of excavated dirt and other materials, =Initial calculations indicate approximately 1 Orin trucks per day will necessary to remove excavated materials, A plan mast developed for the disposal of these materials, and proposed haul routes identified. The City of Vernon flues anticipate designating specific haul routes as a part of the construction encroachment permitting process: Local improvements: (David Cobb will complete) Signal Standards and Linkages:' Washington Blvd., Santa Fe Ave., Vernon Ave., Soto Street improvements to :Santa Fe Ave. and Soto Street Widen Soto Street Dridgc_ Widen 26'.h Street Bridge over LA River Atlantic/Bandini - 710Freeway Interchange Improvetnent Project (David Brearlcy we should discuss the inclusion of this Item). MisCei(aneous Technical Items: • _ The City of Vernon will require the re- monunlentotion of center lines along any reconstructed streets. • •" The City of Vernon will require the frill compliance with (Kevin, what kind ?) Pavement Reconstruction Standards Utility Relocation' Sanitary Sewers: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to altange the relocation of the Main County Sanitation Line to East Alameda Street. This design approach allows utility relocation to occur without the construction of sanitary sewer siphons, or pumping facilities which create operational Issues. The City of Vernon opposes, any utility relocation design which provides tor the construction of sewer siphons or pumping facilities which creak additional local maintenance costs. (Kevin- Any Sewer Line Upgrades ?) Water Lines: the City of Vernon provides potable water to all businesses operating within the City of Vernon. Of particular concern arc the many food processing companies operating within the City, Given the significant public heath and safety issues associated' with food processing there must be absolute protection of potable water supply. The City of VGmoit encaui ages ACTA to include measures in the Mid - Corridor "Design. Build" REP which provide significant and substantial monetary penalties for any breach or contamination of the potable water supply in the City of Vernon. Storm Drains: The City of Vernon encourages ACET to arrange for re- sizing the 1•os Angeles County Box Culvert at 25th Street to (Kevin, please provide size and other information). Elec$is Utilities: Kevin -what issues if any to we want to include here. For example, Downsize Sidewalks along tittle Alameda(,), Gas.Diion System: The City of Vernon will shortly begin the construction of a City-wide gas distribution system. Of paramount concern is the protection of gas lines directly adjacent to trench construction. Vernon staff have provided a final set of drawings to ACET sluff for their review and incorporation into the final design of the Mid - Corridor Trench Section. The City of Vernon encourages ACTA to include measures in the Mid Corridor "ticsign- guild" RFP which, provide significant monetary penalties for any damauc to ihc new gag dietributiozl system. is f082-76't;' liailroad. Operations; The City of Vernon has requested basic information detailing how rail operations will proceed during construction. To date, we have received very little, If any information Given, the Alameda Corrklur project is an iritenrodcd transportation project, information regarding rail operations is by definition relevant. The City of Vernon believes this information is particularly essential to the development of a cornprehei sive,trafYic management plan for construction of the Mid-Corridor 'I'rench. This is a policy tnattet whiclishould -be reviewed by the ACTA Board. rill Ti`ac T,he City of Vernon is anxious to assist in the resolution any issues related to the relocation, or 'reconstruction of tite UP Drill "i'rack. Finalizing plans for the UP 1)rill Track will allow final design to proceed and assist the progress of the Project to construction and completion. Vernon staf'!'awaits additional "'information, and direction from ACET staff on this issue. Protections for impacted, Vernon Businesses The City of Vernon has not yet been provided with any information or purrs for the protection of businesses in Vernon from ecotioinic and construction impacts. Of particularly concern are those businesses directly adjacent to and in the footprint of the construction zone. Impacts could include such items as loss of revenue, damage to buildings or other facilities, equipment damage from vibrations, or disruption of production processes from heavy dust. Hours of 9Dcrations The City of Vernon awaits information regarding proposed hours of construction within the City. To date no plan ha "s been presented, 13108276120 OCT-21 -97 11:40 AM GSG Tv: Bruce Malkenhorst 13108276120 P.01 From David Cobb City Administrator, City of Vernon Fax: (213) 581 -7924 Pages: 5 pages (including Cover) Phone: Rot (310) 780 -8999 or (310) 827 -2338 FAX 3104827 -6120 Date: October 21, 1997 CC: ❑ urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Bruce, this memo Is for our meeting this afternoon on the Alameda Corridor. I wanted to be certain you had the opportunity to review it before our meeting. r look forward to seeing you later today. DC 0 tAAN_I 11-\cx.r., IF (DJ caAo( dLSO,9 Crt (51c--- d'h�� 0164,...o — `11-14/kS Global Stratagem Group OCT -21 -97 11:40 AM GSG 13108276120 October 20, 1997 To: Bruce Malkenhorst, City Administrator David Brearley, City Attorney From: Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Development David Cobb. Global Stratagem Group Michael Oagin. Rose & Kindel Subject: The Alameda Corridor & The City of Vernon : Current Status, Issues and Recommendations PRO.W..CT SCITEDULING North End Prolects: Redondo Junction, Wuslrington Blvd., & Santa Fc Ave. Projects The Redondo Junction, Washington Blvd., and Santa Fe Ave. Projects were scheduled to move ahead with actual construction in the Fall and Winter of this year. Alameda Corridor }Engineering Team (ACET) personnel now inform us that the Redondo Junction Project will not proceed to construction tultil sometime between January and April of 1998. The Washington Blvd. & Santa Fe Ave. Projects ore not expected to move ahead to construction until September /October of 1998. These three projects will take approximately 24 months to constrict; Delays are linked to difficulties in acquiring ROW in full compliance with FHWA rcgulutivns. It should be noted construction of thc. Washington Blvd. and Santa Fe Ave. Projects will overlap with initial utility relocation associated with Mid - Corridor Trench construction. P.02 M1d Co or: `I'reneb Section ACET staff have stated they are working towards a year 2001 completion date for the AIarncda Con-idor. According • to ACET Staff, the Project Financial Plan fails to work if construction continues beyond the year 2001 duc to Projected increases in construction costs and increased interest payments on revenue bonds. In order to meet thic very tight timeline, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), Port of Long Beach (POL.B) and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) have embarked on a plan which fast tracks the Project by using a Design -Build approach for the construction of the Mid- Corridor Trench section of the Project. An initial Request for Qualifications for interested Design -Build Teams was issued on August 15. 1997. Submittals were due back September 30, 1997. An initial list of qualified teams will he approved by ACTA hoard at their November 13, 1997 Hoard Meeting. ACTA & ACET Staffhave indicated that up to seven Design -Build Teams (D/B Teams) submitted initial Statements of Qualifications, ACTA & ACET Staff are working to issue an initial Request for Proposals (RFP) to the successful pre - qualified teams on January 9, 1998. Proposals are due back to ACTA on July 1, 1998, with final selection and contract award scheduled for September 10, 1998. Many observers believe this timeline is extremely ambitious given the many remaining tecluucal, legal and regulatory issues still to be resolved. However, ACET staff indicate they will continue to work towards resolution of outstanding issues after the January 9, 1998 RFP release, and simply inform qualified bidders of new information during thv six month period between the RFP release and the date responses are due on July 1, 1998. Initial utility relocation work within the City of Vernon could begin as early as October/November 1998. However, actual trench work is not expected to begin until May /June of 1999. ACF.T personnel anticipate a 30 to 36 month construction schedule. Project completion would occur in the fall or winter of2001. OCT -21 -97 11:41 AM GSG DESIGN -BUILD ISSUES 13108276120 P.03 Corridor _Cite Issue ACTA & ACET Staff are working to complete the initial RFP for release to the pre- qualilicd design - build teams on January 9, 1998. in order to ensure all 1) /13 'Teams are responding on an level playing field, AC-IA has been engaged in an effort resolve outstanding issues with the six corridor cities. To date, settlements have been reached with Huntington Park and South Gate. It is unclear if the City of Carson has reached a final settlement. The City of Compton has been approached with a initial settlement proposal. It is anticipated that the City of Vernon is next to be approached with a settlement proposal. The City of Lynwood will likely be approached last. Since the actual response to the Design- iluild RFP will be a hard dollar bid, a fundamental principle of thc Design- Build approach for large scale infrastructure projects is a clear delineation of construction parameters, and project scope. L) /11" Teams will base their 'hard dollar bids on their understanding Of matters such the project timeline, allocation of rink, and required mitigation of construction impacts. The goal of the Project Owner (ACTA; PUI .A & POi.I3) is to keep change orders to a ininirnum in order to maintain the financial benefits of the Design -Build hard dollar bid process. ACTA leadership is anxious to have matters resolved with the Corridor Cities so that a uniform approach to local permitting, traffic management, and utility relocation can be included in the T)esign.Build RFP. This will both help ensure that all D/B Team responses can be compared on an "apples to apples" basis and minimize change orders which otherwise (night derive from a multiplicity of local jurisdiction requirements. FINANCING/RAILROAD iSSUES Section 1105 DOT Federal Loan The 5400 million federal loan secured by the POLA, POLR, and ACTA is in place, and the first draw -down of $140 trillion occurred in September of 1997. LACMTA Memorandum of Understanding The final MOU between ACTA and the M'I'A regarding the MTA's 5350.0 million contribution to the Project has been completed, but as of last Friday, October 10, 1997 it had not been executed. Despite an anticipated radical reconstruction of the MTA's 20 year i.ong Range Plan, it is expected interim Director Julian Btu•ke will acquiesce to MTA Board pressure and execute the final agreement in thc very near term. At a Joint Senate /Assembly Hearing on the Alameda Corridor last week, MTA personnel indicated that the MOU could be signed as early as this week. Railroad Participation Ongoing railroad negotiations are perhaps the most critical part of the current Alameda Corridor equation. It is believed there are three major areas of discussion: 1) Adequate Secut ity or Revenue BoasUro an,c; The initial agreement with the Railroads committed them to use the Alameda Corridor, and to charge a $15.00 per TEU (20 Foot Equivalent) container fee. This revenue flow would be used to fund the issuance of up to 5600 million in revenue bonds. Thcrc is a question about whether or not thc agreement provides adequate security for the issuance of the revenue bonds. Most observers believe something closer to a traditional "take or pay" at'a-ai ge :mineat would required by the fulitucial markets in order to issue the revenue bonds. It is possible tuft ACTA bond counsel and financial advisors may have found a way around this through the use of credit enhancement techniques. 2 OCT -21 -97 11:42 AM GSG 13108276120 2) North -End Projects Waivers for Mid Corridor Trench The initial MOUs between the Ports and the Railroads required the completion of improvements to Redondo Junction, Washington Blvd., and Santa Fc Ave. prior to the start of Mid-Corridor Trench construction. Given the delays on the North Pend Projects, ACTA will require waivers from the Railroads in order to proceed with the Mid- Corridor Trench construction schedule currently proposed. ) Additional ACTA Contributions for Railroad "Costs" 'There arc "rumors" that the Railroads are negotiating for up to $70 million in 'operational improvements" to provide additional capacity, or address other engineering issues along the Alameda Corridor (Just about the same amount it will cost UP /SP to deal with the Drill Track). There have also been "Honors" that the BNSF is interested in the addition of a third track to the Corridor. Finally, there have been "nunors" that the Railroads are discussing foHning a new short haul railroad fur the purpose of handling joint dispatching operations along the Corridor. The two certainties in the ACTA/Railroad negotiations are: (1) The Railroads will extract the highest price possible for any concessions they make to ACTA and the Ports; (2) The Railroads are acutely aware the short timeline associated with the L)esign -Huitd RFQ/RFP process places the Ports and ACTA at a disadvantage vis -a -vis the ongoing negotiations. P.04 IRS Private Letter Ruling The 1'Ot .A, POT.R and ACTA had previously sought a private letter ruling from the IRS regarding their ability to issue tax - exempt revenue bonds for the Project. To date, no new information is available regarding the status anti outcome of their request. it had been assumed thal the IRS would allow certain portions of the Project to use tax free debt instruments. ISSUES OF IMPORTANTANCE TO THE CITY OF VERNON Necessary City of Vcruon Easetnents /ADnrovals for Trench Construction: 'ACTA will require easements from Vcrnon in order to construct the Mid - Corridor Trench Traffic Management: Closure of Vernon Ave. at Alameda Street Closure of 41' Street at Alaineda Street Closure of 55`h Street at Alameda Street Creation of Oue Way Couplet along Alameda Street North of Vernon Ave. Utility Relocation: Sanitary Sewers- Relocation of Main County Line to East Alameda Street Water Lines- Absolute Protection of Potable Water Supply Electric Utility- Pole Relocation, Undergrounding (?) Storm Drains- Resize County Box Culvert @ 25`t' Street New Gas Distribution System- Protection of Lines adjacent to Trench Construction Downsize Sidewalks along Little Alameda ( ?) Railroad Operations: Modeling of Traffic Impacts Drill Track: gesolution of Rrlucution issues 3 OCT -21 -97 11:43 AM GSG 13108276120 Eminent`Domnin Lv islotion: Who is Target? City of Vernon, City of Compton or Private Property Owners Access to City of Vernon Share of Sl.8 million in Fl TWA Funds FHWA/Caltrans Resolution of Six City Split & Negotiation of Vernon Scope of Work Determents Widen Soto Street Bridge Up};rade Size of Alameda Street Sewer Lines Atlantic/Banditti - 7101;reeway Interchange Improvement Project Widen 26'h Street Bridge over LA River RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY OF VERNON'S 1. The Design-Build RFP process gives the City of Vernon the opportunity to have certain items included in the RFP (scheduled for release in January 1998). Items which ACTA can insert into RFP include: A. Contractor penalties for delays exceeding 90 days re; Closure of Vernon Ave. ; 41' Street; 55'h Street R. Signal Standards and Linkages: Washington Blvd., Santa Fe Ave., Vernon Ave., Soto Street C. Penalties for delay in 180 day partial closure of Slauson Ave. & Improvements to Santa Fe Ave. for Impacts of Diversion D. No Pumps or Siphons for Sewer Relocation E. Severe Contractor Penalties for Disruption/Contamination of Potable Water Supply F. Re-sizing of County Box Culvert at 25th Street G. Contractor Penalties for Damage to New Gas Distribution System II. Protections for Impacted Vernon Businesses I. Haul Route Restrictions J. Ilou s of Operations K. Re- tnottumentation of Center Line l.. Pavement Reconstruction Standards M. Betterments: Scwer Line Upgrades; Widen Soto Street Bridge 2. The City of Vernon should agree to participate in three way discussions with ACTA and the Union Pacific regarding the location of the Drill Track. 3 The City of Vernon should continue to press for information regarding the impact of ongoing rail operations on as a part of the Traffic Management Plans. 4. The City of Vernon should press for the establishment of a Vernon/ACTA Working Group to review ongoing issues during design and construction of the Project in the City of Vernon. 5. The City of Vernon should prepare to fight state legislation which may grant ACTA eminent domain authority over property controlled by the City of Vernon. 6. The City of Vernon should proceed with traffic studies to model the impacts of the proposed Traffic Management Plan for the Mid- Corridor Trench Section. P.05' 9 " 5 i 1a 21 [ F • ,- 3 i El i t '� 1 $ E y k D Q S ._ I .. _ t 3 ,. t i _ . $H t .. i �7 iF tti � ':1� it -_ grggeg: !: 3. 3, °... ai� a Ft • ii.a E i t: i 4 C$ i t 1 f aE F e j Fa t;" i €, iS 1� 3 F Fa i" 1i " fi !i iF h 7 i {F - it - 9 t� � t i i F 3 5 V i , t i- 4 F p 1 1 { y{ 55 i 3 3 4 .,..,, i $ . i 1. �"'d % S " 1 3 :. 1 —111',". s 1 ! . -� .; I � i F �,F $ as � togg is t a � 4 F a yy 3{{ 1 $..g .P #$ .� }}°"`"°F9 �"°'�� �$ $ F g 7711 i t .1 i IF:: " " q -@ 2 a a' � • s {' i €a ., • ,F 9 .9; €sv. . ; i 7;1;1 ew- Liat 4 i�10 /7 /9�a� � - - � �, ' ,. { . .i# i %,......."." F i i' 1 1f i i �P3 3 3i I IM F Fi 7e a3- a3 A '9 ${UF H HF��5 8 8', -- i i$INVOI .°"g"g'.D S S.C�R eQ I °O �`{AN�Q.�aJOR.J�.[��I�VgO .fVp $ $�.ACCi7: -. ' ' $ $i $ $� tG�OSSS$ aka: D DIS'FCOU$NTFi $ $1 ('A =iNFT:d '°°:i ,,.,, 2� l l 221p, [ ? 5 {{ll 1 Services IFor 8 8/97 ` `� � � ,a $ $2,437 , ,0 . E1 ' 1 11 [ ? + i 1 .._ 3 Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager gsgroup@earthlink.net August 26,1997 TO: GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP Bruce Malkenhorst ✓ David Brearley Eddie Olivo Copies: K. Wilson FROM: David Cobb SUBJECT: City of Vernon Litigation with BNSF: Trucking Issues in the Vernon Area. Before he left for China, David Brearley asked me to review background information on trucking issues in Vernon. This short memo is to provide you with information that may be helpful in developing a strategy for dealing with the Vernon/BNSF hearing before the CPUC. I have reviewed the Gateway Cities Trucking Study (December 1996) prepared by Meyer,Mohaddes Associates (MMA) for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (by the way the City of Vernon should attempt to have a Council Person appointed to the COG). The following issues stick out: 1) Growth in Truck Traffic Truck Traffic for the POLA and POLB will grow by 30,000 to 35,000 truck movements per day by the year 2020 representing a 136% to 160% rate of growth. It is important to note that this significant rate of growth takes into account the use of on -dock rail facilities in both Ports. The POLA estimates that even with 60% of the container cargo moving via on -dock rail by 2020, the remaining containers will move via truck for local markets. (See Attachment A) Truck Movements 1996: 22,000 Truck Movements per day 2020: 57,000 Truck Movements per day (Note: We need information on how many containers are coming into the BNSF Yards from the East & Mid -West which make an intermodal transfer resulting in local deliveries by trucks. I understand from the Port of Tacoma that substantial volumes of container traffic travel west to the local markets in Southern California.) 2) Number of Trucking Accidents Per maintained arterial mile of roadway, the Cities of Vernon, Commerce and Santa Fe Springs had the highest number of truck accident ratios per mile. The accident rate per mile in Vernon was nearly "four reported truck accidents per mile per year." In comparison, the next highest "trucking accident rate per City" was the City of Commerce with 1.2 truck per mile per year. The per mile rates in Vernon and Commerce are considerably higher than the remaining cities (See Attachment B). Page Two, Memo to Bruce Malkenhorst August 27, 1997 3) Certain Mitigations Significantly Improve Truck Traffic Conditions Improvements (e.g. 12 foot travel lanes, 35 foot curb, radii, optimal signal timing) to inadequate design standards can improve average vehicle (truck) delays from 10 seconds to 1 seconds based upon test study conducted by MMA. This could form the basis of a requirement for BNSF to pay for certain street and traffic improvements. 4) Alameda Corridor Fails to Adequately Absorb Growth in Overall Truck Traffic The BNSF Yard Expansion illustrates why the Alameda Corridor will not address the overall growth in truck traffic in the Gateway Cities. The expansion is precisely the type of intermodal connection point which can be expected to generate increases in truck traffic. It can not be argued that the Alameda Corridor will come close to mitigating growth in port related truck traffic. The MMA Report prepared for the Gateway COG concludes as follows: "Even with the major improvements provided by the [Alameda] Corridor, truck traffic will continue to grow substantially due to increases in shipping activity as well as the general economic growth in the Gateway Cities and the SCAG six county region." 5) Entrance to Santa Fe Yard Identified as Problematic/Washington Blvd. Targeted MMA interviewed representatives of the trucking and transportation industry. The entrance to the Santa Fe Yard is identified by members of the industry as needing a left turn signal to prevent backup along Washington Blvd. In addition, Washington Blvd. from the City of Vernon east to the City of Whittier has been identified as a possible Sub - Regional Trucking Route. I believe that these items may be able to help in the effort before the CPUC. Items like truck accidents are tangible and real, something the CPUC staff and Commissioner can put their arms around. And to the extent we are able to show that the BNSF yard will be a significant " intermodal connection point," our case is made (This should probably be one of the R.L. Banks tasks) Finally, I believe it would be possible (and maybe relatively inexpensive) to take much of the data in the MMA Report and convert to great presentation material using current Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. This could help spice up the CPUC presentation to the extent you are able to work this information into the hearing. Ai-H-pdevv,€.3f Gateway Cities Trucking Study SECTION 5. PORTS AND TRUCKING Truck trips are generated by local commercial, industrial, warehousing, distribution and intermodal land uses in the Gateway Cities, and also by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The trucking activity generated by the ports is very specialized in terms of truck types, destinations, and routes. The ports generate trips destined for many types of local land uses as well as intermodal yards throughout the Gateway Cities. In addition, some trips are oriented towards a limited number of major destinations including the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Southern Pacific Railroad yard, the East LA (Union Pacific Railroad) yard, and the Hobart (Santa Fe Railroad) yard. The exhibits throughout the report illustrate the location of the major rail / intermodal yards in and adjacent . to the Gateway Cities. Data from the Alameda Corridor EIR indicates that approximately 5 percent of weekday truck traffic generated by the ports is destined for the ICTF and 10 percent is destined to the Hobart and East LA yards combined. The remaining trips are made to local land uses including many smaller intermodal transfer facilities, or are longer distance trips outside of the Gateway Cities area. Cargo Tonnage Moved Per Day and Associated Truck Traffic The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles do not keep statistics related to truck trip generation per day or during peak hours. However, several other types of data are collected by the Ports that can be used to estimate truck travel into and out of the Ports. The types of information collected by the Ports include metric revenue tons of cargo shipped per year (broken down by cargo type), traffic and truck counts on key streets, estimates of future cargo throughput and estimates of changes in travel patterns due to on- dock rail facilities. Using a combination of these data it is possible to estimate daily and peak period traffic flow (including trucks) into and out of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The following types of cargo are moved through the ports: • Containerized Cargo - Any cargo transported in a box that can be transferred directly from a ship to a truck chassis. Each Container carries an average of approximately 1.83 TEU's. • Roll-on/Roll-off-cargo that is driven on and off a vessel such as automobiles. • Neo -Bulk - This type of cargo includes large heavy units such as iron, steel, etc. • Break -bulk This type of cargo is typically moved on pallets, and includes fruit, bagged grains and other food products. • Dry Bulk - Cargo shipped without a package or container, such as coal and petroleum coke, salt and other minerals, scrap metal, etc. • Liquid Bulk - Liquid cargo shipped with or without a package or container such as crude petroleum, refined petroleum and other chemicals. Much of this cargo is carried by pipeline. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 42 1 Gateway Cities Trucking Study Port of Long Beach Data was obtained from both ports regarding current and projected future cargo throughput. In 1995 the Port of Long Beach generated the following container cargo tonnage and related trucking activity: • Containers — Approximately 5,300 containers are moved per day on average' (estimated 1995). Approximately 15 percent of the container traffic is carried directly via rail with no truck movement involved, with the balance, or 4,500 containers, moved by truck. Each container generates on average two truck trips, one trip by a tractor rig dropping the empty container and one trip with a loaded container. Therefore, container activity in 1995 generated an average of 9,000 truck movements per day. Note that many containers also are moved to container depots near, but not at, the ports. This total number of containers represented approximately 55.3 million metric revenue tons of cargo moved by container. • Other General Cargo (steel, vehicles, lumber, etc.) -9,500 metric revenue tons of other general cargo is moved per day. Assuming that 80 percent of that general cargo moves by truck, about 600 (inbound plus outbound) truck trips per day are generated by general cargo (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). • Petroleum /Liquid Bulk- 88,180 metric revenue tons per day (nearly all is carried by pipeline). I • Dry Bulk Cargo - 25,440 metric revenue tons of dry bulk is moved per day. Assuming 70 percent of the dry bulk moves by truck, approximately 1,425 truck trips per day are generated by dry bulk movements (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). IPort of Los Angeles I In fiscal year 1995/1996 the Port of Los Angeles generated the following container cargo tonnage and related trucking activity: I • Containers— Approximately 4,700 containers are moved per day on average. Approximately 45 percent of the containers are for local /regional consumption and are moved by truck. The remaining containers are intermodal, and are destined for inland regions via rail. Some II of those are shipped to a final destination in the region, while others are first shipped by truck to intermodal yards in the Gateway Cities area where they are loaded onto trains, or to other local intermodal companies which break down the cargo into separate containers or trucks for further rail or truck distribution. The Port has estimated that approximately one half of the 55 percent that is ultimately moved by rail is first moved by truck to the ICTF, while the other half is first moved by truck to the Hobart or ELA rail yards (the Port of Los Angeles has no operating on -dock rail facilities, however some are currently being Pdesigned). This total number of containers represented approximately 43.9 million metric 111 1 Daily cargo throughput data (existing and forecast) are generated from annual tonnage divided by 292 "equivalent working days" (260 weekdays plus weekends representing 30% of weekday capacity) Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 43 Gateway Cities Trucking Study revenue tons of cargo moved by container. Using the same assumption as above for the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles generates approximately 9,400 truck movements per day on average related to container activity. • Other General Cargo (steel, vehicles, lumber, etc.) — Approximately 10,170 metric revenue tons of other general cargo is moved per day. Assuming 50 percent moves via truck, this generates about 400 truck trips per day generated by general cargo (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). • Petroleum /Liquid Bulk - 59,250 metric revenue tons per day (nearly all is carried by pipeline). • Dry. Bulk Cargo - 15,070 metric revenue tons of dry bulk is moved per day. Assuming 70 percent of the dry bulk moves by truck, approximately 845 truck trips per day are generated by dry bulk movements. (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). Total Existing and Forecast Port- Related Truck Movements Based on these estimates, a total of approximately 11,000 truck trips per day on average are generated by each Port, for an existing total of approximately 22,000 truck trips per day on average to and from the Ports (combination of full and empty loads). It is important to note that the daily truck movement estimates presented in this section represent typical or average days, and account for the movements that occur on weekends. It is recognized that there are peak days of the week, and that peak days vary depending on when ships arrive and depart. Actual truck movements are likely to be somewhat higher than these estimates on some weekdays and lower on others, depending on specific conditions. The growth of truck trips generated by the two ports will depend on many factors, including the economy of Southern California, growth throughout the country, emerging trends in shipping /foreign exchange and other factors. The ports are able, however, to generate estimates of possible cargo volumes based on low and high trade forecasts. Containerized cargo in the Port of Long Beach, for example, is projected to increase from 2,843,500 TEU (20 -foot equivalent units) currently to between 5,420,000 and 9,200,000 TEU's in 2020. This represents an increase of between 90 percent to 225 percent. Other types of cargo (autos, dry bulk, break -bulk) would increase to lesser degrees. The Port of Los Angeles forecasts an average annual rate of container growth of between 3.3 and 3.9 percent to 2020. This would equal 24 year growth rates of between 118 and 150 percent, or between 5,425,700 and 6,225,000 TEU's in 2020. On -dock rail is also being implemented by both ports. On -dock rail facilities bring the rail line directly up to the marine terminal, where cranes lift containers more directly from the vessel to the rail car, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate transport by truck on surface streets. This strategy is emphasized in the two port's planning documents to assist inefficient goods movement and reduce truck trips. The Port of Los Angeles estimates that by 2020, up to 60 percent of intermodal containers will be moved via on -dock rail, while 40 percent will continue to be moved via truck to a local destination. Since the number of containers will likely more than double, even with on -dock rail truck trips are Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Gateway Cities Trucking Study expected to increase due to the overall demand for imports and exports and the need for localized goods movement that can not be accommodated by rail. The Alameda Corridor Environmental Impact Report contains statistics which indicate that Port of Long Beach truck trips would increase by approximately 260 percent by 2020 with no on -dock rail, and by 150 percent with on -dock rail. Similarly, for the Port of Los Angeles, growth estimates range from 210 percent without on -dock rail to 140 percent with on -dock rail. Forecasts without on -dock rail are not realistic considering that several new on -dock rail facilities have gone on -line in the last few years since the Alameda Corridor EIR was completed and several other are in the design /construction phase. Based on these forecasts and current 1995 estimates of truck traffic, it is therefore estimated that Port of Long Beach truck traffic could increase by approximately 150 percent, or an additional 16,500 truck trips per day. Port of Los Angeles truck trips are expected to increase in roughly similar proportions, adding approximately the same number of trucks to the transportation system (the Port of Los Angeles is currently undertaking a cargo forecast which will be available in 1997). The total estimated increase in truck traffic to and from the ports could reach approximately 30,000 to 35,000 truck trips per day (both directions combined) by Year 2020 with the Alameda Corridor in operation, for a total of 52,000 to 57,000 port- related truck trips per day in 2020. This compares to the 22,000 trucks trips per day currently to and from the two Ports. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 45 Gateway Cities Trucking Study SECTION 5. PORTS AND TRUCKING Truck trips are generated by local commercial, industrial, warehousing, distribution and intermodal land uses in the Gateway Cities, and also by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The trucking activity generated by the ports is very specialized in terms of truck types, destinations, and routes. The ports generate trips destined for many types of local land uses as well as intermodal yards throughout the Gateway Cities. In addition, some trips are oriented towards a limited number of major destinations including the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Southern Pacific Railroad yard, the East LA (Union Pacific Railroad) yard, and the Hobart (Santa Fe Railroad) yard. The exhibits throughout the report illustrate the location of the major rail /intermodal yards in and adjacent to the Gateway Cities. Data from the Alameda Corridor EIR indicates that approximately 5 percent of weekday truck traffic generated by the ports is destined for the ICTF and 10 percent is destined to the Hobart and East LA yards combined. The remaining trips are made to local land uses including many smaller intermodal transfer facilities, or are longer distance trips outside of the Gateway Cities area. Cargo Tonnage Moved Per Day and Associated Truck Traffic The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles do not keep statistics related to truck trip generation per day or during peak hours. However, several other types of data are collected by the Ports that can be used to estimate truck travel into and out of the Ports. The types of information collected by the Ports include metric revenue tons of cargo shipped per year (broken down by cargo type), traffic and truck counts on key streets, estimates of future cargo throughput and estimates of changes in travel patterns due to on- dock rail facilities. Using a combination of these data it is possible to estimate daily and peak period traffic flow (including trucks) into and out of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The following types of cargo are moved through the ports: • Containerized Cargo Any cargo transported in a box that can be transferred directly from a ship to a truck chassis. Each Container carries an average of approximately 1.83 TEU's. • Roll-on/Roll-off-cargo that is driven on and off a vessel such as automobiles. • Neo-Bulk - This type of cargo includes large heavy units such as iron, steel, etc. • Break -bulk - This type of cargo is typically moved on pallets, and includes fruit, bagged grains and other food products. • Dry Bulk - Cargo shipped without a package or container, such as coal and petroleum coke, salt and other minerals, scrap metal, etc. • Liquid Bulk - Liquid cargo shipped with or without a package or container such as crude petroleum, refined petroleum and other chemicals. Much of this cargo is carried by pipeline. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 42 Gateway Cities Trucking Study Port of Long Beach Data was obtained from both ports regarding current and projected future cargo throughput. In 1995 the Port of Long Beach generated the following container cargo tonnage and related trucking activity: • Containers— Approximately 5,300 containers are moved per day on average' (estimated 1995). Approximately 15 percent of the container traffic is carried directly via rail with no truck movement involved, with the balance, or 4,500 containers, moved by truck. Each container generates on average two truck trips, one trip by a tractor rig dropping the empty container and one trip with a loaded container. Therefore, container activity in 1995 generated an average of 9,000 truck movements per day. Note that many containers also are moved to container depots near, but not at, the ports. This total number of containers represented approximately 55.3 million metric revenue tons of cargo moved by container. • Other General Cargo (steel, vehicles, lumber, etc.) -9,500 metric revenue tons of other general cargo is moved per day. Assuming that 80 percent of that general cargo moves by truck, about 600 (inbound plus outbound) truck trips per day are generated by general cargo (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). • Petroleum /Liquid Bulk - 88,180 metric revenue tons per day (nearly all is carried by pipeline). • Dry Bulk Cargo- 25,440 metric revenue tons of dry bulk is moved per day. Assuming 70 percent of the dry bulk moves by truck, approximately 1,425 truck trips per day are generated by dry bulk movements (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). Port of Los Angeles In fiscal year 1995/1996 the Port of Los Angeles generated the following container cargo tonnage and related trucking activity: • Containers — Approximately 4,700 containers are moved per day on average. Approximately 45 percent of the containers are for local /regional consumption and are moved by truck. The remaining containers are intermodal, and are destined for inland regions via rail. Some of those are shipped to a final destination in the region, while others are first shipped by truck to intermodal yards in the Gateway Cities area where they are loaded onto trains, or to other local intermodal companies which break down the cargo into separate containers or trucks for further rail or truck distribution. The Port has estimated that approximately one half of the 55 percent that is ultimately moved by rail is first moved by truck to the ICTF, while the other half is first moved by truck to the Hobart or ELA rail yards (the Port of Los Angeles has no operating on -dock rail facilities, however some are currently being designed). This total number of containers represented approximately 43.9 million metric Daily cargo throughput data (existing and forecast) are generated from annual tonnage divided by 292 "equivalent working days" (260 weekdays plus weekends representing 30% of weekday capacity) Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 43 Gateway Cities Trucking Study revenue tons of cargo moved by container. Using the same assumption as above for the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles generates approximately 9,400 truck movements per day on average related to container activity. • Other General Cargo (steel, vehicles, lumber, etc.) — Approximately 10,170 metric revenue tons of other general cargo is moved per day. Assuming 50 percent moves via truck, this generates about 400 truck trips per day generated by general cargo (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). • Petroleum /Liquid Bulk - 59,250 metric revenue tons per day (nearly all is carried by pipeline). • Dry Bulk Cargo- 15,070 metric revenue tons of dry bulk is moved per day. Assuming 70 percent of the dry bulk moves by truck, approximately 845 truck trips per day are generated by dry bulk movements. (assumes an average of 50,000 pounds per vehicle). Total Existing and Forecast Port- Related Truck Movements Based on these estimates, a total of approximately 11,000 truck trips per day on average are generated by each Port, for an existing total of approximately 22,000 truck trips per day on average to and from the Ports (combination of full and empty loads). It is important to note that the daily truck movement estimates presented in this section represent typical or average days, and account for the movements that occur on weekends. It is recognized that there are peak days of the week, and that peak days vary depending on when ships arrive and depart. Actual truck movements are likely to be somewhat higher than these estimates on some weekdays and lower on others, depending on specific conditions. The growth of truck trips generated by the two ports will depend on many factors, including the economy of Southern California, growth throughout the country, emerging trends in shipping /foreign exchange and other factors. The ports are able, however, to generate estimates of possible cargo volumes based on low and high trade forecasts. Containerized cargo in the Port of Long Beach, for example, is projected to increase from 2,843,500 TEU (20-foot equivalent units) currently to between 5,420,000 and 9,200,000 TEU's in 2020. This represents an increase of between 90 percent to 225 percent. Other types of cargo (autos, dry bulk, break -bulk) would increase to lesser degrees. The Port of Los Angeles forecasts an average annual rate of container growth of between 3.3 and 3.9 percent to 2020. This would equal 24 year growth rates of between 118 and 150 percent, or between 5,425,700 and 6,225,000 TEU's in 2020. On -dock rail is also being implemented by both ports. On -dock rail facilities bring the rail line directly up to the marine terminal, where cranes lift containers more directly from the vessel to the rail car, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate transport by truck on surface streets. This strategy is emphasized in the two port's planning documents to assist in efficient goods movement and reduce truck trips. The Port of Los Angeles estimates that by 2020, up to 60 percent of intermodal containers will be moved via on -dock rail, while 40 percent will continue to be moved via truck to a local destination. Since the number of containers will likely more than double, even with on -dock rail truck trips are Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Gateway Cities Trucking Study expected to increase due to the overall demand for imports and exports and the need for localized goods movement that can not be accommodated by rail. The Alameda Corridor Environmental Impact Report contains statistics which indicate that Port of Long Beach truck trips would increase by approximately 260 percent by 2020 with no on -dock rail, and by 150 percent with on -dock rail. Similarly, for the Port of Los Angeles, growth estimates range from 210 percent without on -dock rail to 140 percent with on -dock rail. Forecasts without on -dock rail are not realistic considering that several new on -dock rail facilities have gone on -line in the last few years since the Alameda Corridor EIR was completed and several other are in the design /construction phase. Based on these forecasts and current 1995 estimates of truck traffic, it is therefore estimated that Port of Long Beach truck traffic could increase by approximately 150 percent, or an additional 16,500 truck trips per day. Port of Los Angeles truck trips are expected to increase in roughly similar proportions, adding approximately the same number of trucks to the transportation system (the Port of Los Angeles is currently undertaking a cargo forecast which will be available in 1997). The total estimated increase in truck traffic to and from the ports could reach approximately 30,000 to 35,000 track trips per day (both directions combined) by Year 2020 with the Alameda Corridor in operation, for a total of 52,000 to 57,000 port- related truck trips per day in 2020. This compares to the 22,000 trucks trips per day currently to and from the two Ports. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 45 Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles California 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager gsgroup @earthling.. net GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP May 9, 1997 City of Vernon Invoice: #5 April 1 -30, 1997 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet April 1997 4 -4 -97 1.0 hrs 4 -9 -97 2.0 hrs 4 -10 -97 0.5 hrs 4 -16 -97 2.0 hrs 4 -18 -97 2.0 hrs 4 -23 -97 1.5 hrs. 4 -23 -97 1.5 hrs 4 -24 -97 2.0 hrs 4 -26 -97 1.5 hrs. 4 -28 -97 3.0 hrs 4 -30 -97 0.5 hrs J .77 Mtg w/ T.Soto Re: Strategy for Alameda Corridor Mtg. w/ T. Soto, M. Gagin, A. Robles Re: Corridor Strategy Follow -up Calls w/ T.Soto, M. Gagin MTA Planning and Programming Committee Mtg w /Steve Torres @ Advance Mtg. W/D. Brearley Attend MTA Board Mtg. Meet w/ MTA Staff Mtg. W /Jaime Casso, Cong. Torres Chief of Staff Calls w/D. Brearley, M.Gagin, T. Soto Mtg. w/ B. Malkenhorst, D. Brearley Re: Alameda Corridor Atlantic/Bandini -710 Calls D. Brearley, M. Gagin Total Hours 17. 5 hrs @ $125.0= $2185.0 Total Balance Due: $2185.0 Please remit to: S. David Cobb c/o Duban Accountancy (Certified Public Accountancy) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 Total paid to date under terms of Letter of Agreement: $8125.0 e#4 /o2a -S9G� First .Interstate Bank of California Vernon ,s; ce .. 4580 Pacit'" Bivd Vernon .A 90058 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF VERNON ors 0 0 AMOUNT $3,125.00 CHECK NUMBER -1.005 Pay:...: PAY TO ORDER, OF S: David Cobb - .c/o Duban Accountancy (CPA) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Executive Director 000 /00 SP ': 2 2000 2 Lai: L6 26980 L00 L L PURCHASE ORDER NO. INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION AND /OR INVOICE NO. ACCOUNT NO. GROSS AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT 022 - 501 - 1022 -5967 ServiceR For 12/9h - 1/97 $3,125.00 sv Strategic Planning Tactical Operations Alliance Development 444 S. Flower Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles (,rli %or;rirr 90071 213.312.2842 Tel 213.623.0824 Fax 310.845.0666 Pager g) ronp(aearibliuk.nel uui GLOBAL STRATAGEM GROUP City of Vernon Invoice #1: January 31, 1997 S. David Cobb Global Stratagem Group City of Vernon Billing Sheet December 1996 December 5 December 10 December 12 December 17 December 17 December 27 2.0 hrs. MTA Board Mtg. & Workshop on 20 Year Long Range Plan 2..0 hrs. Mtg. W /Malkenhorst, Brearley and Gagin Re: Call for Projects /Corridor Strategy 2.0 hrs MTA Planning and Programming Meeting Re: MTA ACTA $140.0 Million Acceleration 0.5 hrs. Phone Calls 1.0 hrs. Writing Talking Points and Board Conditions 1.0 hrs Research and Review of MTA Call for Projects Documents December 1996 Sub -Total 8.5 hrs January 1997 January 7 January 9 January 15 January 15 January 16 January 21 January 22 Tanuary 23 January 27 i 3.0 hrs. Attend MTA Call for Projects Staff Presentation 1.5 hrs. Mtg. W/ David Brearley RE: Call for Projects Strategy 1.5 hrs MTA Call for Projects Committee 1.5 hrs Meet w/ MTA Capital Planning Staff 0.5 hrs Calls: M. Gagin; M. Myers 1.5 hrs Mtg. W/M.Gagin; M. Myers RE: Review of Call for Projects Application 2.0 hrs Review Alameda CoITidor EIR/EIS & ROD Re: Development of Corridor Cities Program Management Program in response to $1.8 million FHWA Announcement 3.0 hrs New SECTA Board Mtg. 1.5 hrs Mtg w /B. Malkenhorst; D. Brearley; M. Gagin; M. Myers 0.5 hrs Calls to B. Cashin & D. Yale RE: Mtgs for Week of February 3`d, 1997 January 1997 Sub -Total 16.5 hrs Total Hours 25.0 hrs @ $125.0= $3125.0 Please remit to: Total Balance Due: $3125.0 S. David Cobb c/o Duban Accountancy (Certified Public Accountancy) 4250 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 -3508 Please note for your records: Taxpayer I.D. 553 -23 -0572 Total paid to date under terns of Letter of Agreement: $0.0 CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro -Tem Wm. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator /City Clerk FAX: (213) 581 -7924 CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (213) 583 -8811 February 11, 1997 DAVID B. BREARLEY City Attorney FAX: (818) 330 -5818 KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (213) 588 -2761 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Light & Power FAX: (213) 583 -1983 DAVE TELFORD Fire Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1385 LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ Police Chief FAX: (213) 581 -1178 Linda Bohlinger Interim Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 ATTENTION: Wanda Knight 1997 TIP APPLICATION Dear Ms. Bohlinger: The City of Vernon appreciates the opportunity to participate in the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) 1997 Transportation Improvement Program: Call for Projects. Enclosed please find our completed application for the I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Interchange Improvements Project. The I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Interchange Improvements Project . addresses the serious need for improved access to the I -710 at the Atlantic /Bandini Intersection. The I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Intersection is a crucial goods movement link serving the heavily commercial and industrial surrounding areas. The City of Vernon strongly believes that the improvements to the I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Intersection are vital to the future economic viability of the surrounding ,;locales. Therefore, the City of Vernon has committed the full local match of $8.15 million necessary to fund the total $23.3 million project. In addition, should the City of Vernon's Call for Projects Application receive an MTA funding commitment, the City of Vernon is prepared to advance funds for the expedited preparation of the Project Report, Preliminary Engineering (PS &E), and the Environmental Impact Report, provided those costs may be included as a part of their local match. Ms. Bohlinger -2- February 11, 1997 Furthermore, although the I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Interchange Improvements Project has been submitted under the Regional Surface Transportation Improvements category, the City of Vernon is prepared to accept FY 2003/2004 and FY 2004/2005 Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR)funds to be programmed, as a part of the. 1998 State Transportation Improvement Plan (1988 STIP). Should the I -710 Atlantic /Bandini Interchange Improvements Project be included in the 1997 STIP, the City of Vernon; would seek to advance the Project using the AB 3090 mechanism. Once again, the City of Vernon is pleased to submi I -710 Atlantic Bandini Interchange Improvements Project Application for the MTA's 1997 Transportation Improvement Program: Call for Projects. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding our application, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Ser(rices at (213)583- 8811. BVM:DC:ps Very truly your' Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator TIP Call for Projects Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1997 TIP Call for Projects PROJECT FUNDING APPLICATION Part I General NOTE TO APPLICANT: Your completed application must consist of three parts for each project: I- General, II- Financial, and III - Modal. Project study reports, plans, brochures, or other literature will not be accepted in lieu of a completed MTA application. All questions must be answered. PART I - GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 1. PROJECT TITLE (Do not exceed 60 characters, including summary listings): I -710 Atlantic/Bandini Interchange Improvements 2. PROJECT SPONSOR: spaces - for use on all MTA Lead Agency Name /Address: City of Vernon, 4205 Santa Fe Ave., Vernon, CA 90058 Contact Name & Title: Kevin Wilson, Director, Dept. Of Community Services Phone # and Fax #: 213 -583 -8811 (Phone) 213 - 588 -2761 (FAX) 3. MODAL CATEGORY (select ONE only and include Part III of application beginning on page indicated): Applicant's Priority within Category ❑ Freeways - HOV Lanes, TSM, and Gap Closures (Page 26) Priority No. _of _ • Regional Surface Transportation Improvements (Page 32) Priority. No. : of j. ❑ Signal Synchronization & Bus Speed Improvements (Page 39) Priority No ❑ Transportation Demand Management (Page 47) Priority No. of _ ❑ Bikeways & Pedestrian Improvements (Page 57) Priority No. _of ❑ Transit Capital (Page 64) Priority No. _of_ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY (Do not exceed 180 character, including spaces - for use on all MTA agenda items and reports): ! Reconfigure on and off ramps at I -710 Atlantic/Bandini interchange, extend 26th Street to 1st Street, to improve truck access and the intersection of Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards. TIP Call for Projects Part I - General 5. PROJECT LOCATION & LIMITS OR SERVICE AREA Located at the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard in the Cities of Vernon and Bell and includes I -710 on and off ramps in the intersection area. 6. TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES: $23,284 (From Part II, Line 17 - In thousands ($000) and in FY 1996 -97 dollars) 7. TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $15,135 (From Part II, Line 38 - In thousands ($000) and in FY 1996 -97 dollars) Note: Total Funding Requests from any Sponsoring Agency must not Exceed the Modal Category Funding Target. (Targets will be provided at a later date.) 8. PROPOSED PROJECT START DATE: November 2000 (Construction) 9. PROJECT DURATION (months): 22 months 10. OTHER PARTICIPANTS & DESCRIPTION OF INVOLVEMENT (List other agencies /organizations providing financial or other support to the project and describe involvement. City of Bell - right -of -way and oversight (project is partially, within_the;.City of Bell) Caltrans - Approving agency 11. FUNDING SOURCES EXCLUSION (Identify any special project or applicant characteristics which preclude the use of potential funding sources listed in Appendix A, and the funding source precluded. Precluding a funding source may adversely affect MTA's ability to fund the project.): None 1 City is willing to accept FCR funds. TIP Call for Projects PART II. PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN (ATTACH): Complete and attach the financial plan for the project. Clearly identify all funding sources as either COMMITTED or UNCOMMITTED. All figures must be in THOUSANDS ($000) and reflect FY 1996 -97 DOLLARS. PART III. MODAL CATEGORY INFORMATION (ATTACH): Complete and attach the project information applicable to the modal category selected in Item 3 (Page 20). CERTIFICATION: A person duly authorized to sign for the organization (city manager, general manager, executive director, or high ranking officer) must sign the application. The applicant is responsible for meeting the terms and conditions in the St Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Letter of Agreement (LOA). will be provided at the January 8Workshop.) Bruce Malkenhorst Date City Administrator Title Cosponsors: idard ie MOU/LOA Signature /Title Date Signature /Title Date Signature /Title Date PART II: PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1997 TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS 1. PROJECT FINANCIAL EXPENSES TOTAL ($000) CO to N u> N ,- O 4s). Ln N - in co ar $23,284 BEYOND 2000 -01 ($000) N $252 0) 0) FY 2000 -01 ($000) 000'i$ $252 $4,252 FY 1999 -00 ($000) 0) n CO co. N CV `P+ -=.N =. 01 x-' 0) O } CO O 0) v r. 0) n Cr) FY 1997-98 ($000) PROJECT EXPENSES * 7 Administration 8 Operating Costs 9 Maintenance 10 Marketing OTHER EXPENSES (Specify): 17 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES 0 0 d 0. 0 0 0 0 O d C. W 0 « o. o o -e° cn d:...0' -c « d 0 0 C 0) O 0 0 a 0 E 0 0 0. 0 M r I" .E of ° m 'v 0 w c 0 0 w .o rn o; 0.. a 0. 0 X 0 O _ r c 0 o v. 3 PART 1I: PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1997 TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS 2. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES [OTHER THAN FUNDING REQUESTED UNDER THIS TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS] J • 0 L 0 O O 0 z9 O O O O O CO ILI N 0) u) CO O yr 0) W >- co O U O 0 0) 0) N M to Indicate if ALL PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES * co 0) 0 O 0) O a7 [OTHER THAN FUNDING REQUESTED UNDER THIS TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS] Federal (Specify): State (Specify): Committed CO 0 4-, t D) •0 N • .1G C C LL 0) 10 7 � C C a) ._ O U E "Cu 0 ID E' J O J contribution. L71 0 0 01 c :T 0. o. 8 al a) o 3'w O a. cc 0 J y CO 0) 0 N CO ch Lo O N co 0) O r N r- �- N N N N N N N N N N CO CO Cf) C) PART II: PROJECT FINANCIAL PLAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1997 TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS 3. PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2 TOTAL ($000) a 00 N C7 N a) •:1 .- 00 yy La M O. 0) N N 0) 0) 0 YC 00 0( M 0) 0 0. N' N 00 L) 00 CD Fti )0 N ct n 'd N O }} a) ° LL a) 0 O -. N e ,- $4,885 ($13,25 0) LL CO O cri c ^ M 0) I-. (Th 4/} v 00 .. O 6}L N O O O PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY 35 Total Project Expenses (Line 17) • 36 Total Project Funding (Line 34) [OTHER THAN FUNDING REQUESTED UNDER THIS TIP CALL FOR PROJECTS] 37 Total Project Funding Shortfall (Line 36 minus Line 35) [There must be a shortfall for a project to be eligible for funding under this. TIP Call for Projects] PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST LL O 0 WN CO c J • W W 7 p 0 0 Ce ui U. c.0 Z.' J 0 rz , oS o LL.'Q W , 11.! oC� F °c W P ®'2 N F.0 0 E f0 0 0 0) 0 t m 0. 1/1 0 y.; v c 0r, " en 10 0) 0 0 W /) 0_ c l0 t 0 0. a) cc 4-, 0 a) •O 0. a) L 0 0 (0' 1`0 0) a O a) X a) 0) -p c o U) CL ` TIP Call for Projects Application Part III - Regional Surface PART III - REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Project Title: I -710 AtlanticBandini Interchange Improvements (from Part I, Question 1) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On an attached sheet, provide a detailed description of the project for which funding is requested. Also attach an 8 1/2" x11" black & white map atilt project location & limits or service area. Map must be clear and legible. PROJECT TYPE: ❑ New Interchange • Goods Movement • Ramp Intersection Improvement • Major Arterial Improvement • Interchange Improvement • Grade Separation O Other 1. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (Up to 30 points) Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume:' Atlantic/Bandini Intersection = 95,450 I -710 mainline = 209,100 Future ADT (post - 2005): Atlantic/Bandini Intersection = 100,500 I -710 mainline = 225,800 Reduction in hours of daily delay in 2010: 3,230 hours /day Current number of lanes each direction: 2 lane on -ramp / 2 lane off-ramp Number of lanes each direction after improvement: 2 lane on -ramp / 4 lane off -ramp Functional Classification: ❑ CMP Route ❑ Freeway • Designated Major Arterial ❑ Railroad ❑ Functions as Major Arterial • Other Freeway On /Off Ramps On an attached sheet, address the following: a) Describe how this project provides mobility and congestion relief, particularly on the CMP network. b) Is the project part of a regional (MTA or SLAG) or multi jurisdictional plan? c) Identify any regional trip generators, such as airports, ports, and other regional activity centers, to which access would be enhanced. 'If an entirely new facility is proposed, provide ADT for whatever existing facility currently carries the largest volume in the corridor. 1 TIP Call for Projects Application c) Identify any regional trip generators, such as airports, ports, and other regional activity centers, to which access would be enhanced. d) Describe how this project will contribute to a balanced and integrated. transportation' system for the movement of goods and people e) Describe how this project will improve transfers and/or eliminate conflicts between travel modes or between transportation services provided by different agencies. (Provide data as appropriate, such as truck or train volumes. f) Identify if the project is on a truck route, and provide the number of trucks per day and trucks as a percentage of total daily traffic. g) Describe how this project creates economic benefit to the region. 2. COST EFFECTIVENESS (Up to 15 points) Local Match (Page 25, Line 36 _ Line 35): 35 % On an attached sheet, address the following: a) Provide information and projections regarding the relative benefit per dollar expended on this project, and per MTA dollars expended on this project. Include at a minimum :: ♦ the daily increase in capacity per dollar. ♦ the cost per daily hour of delay reduced. 3. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY (Up to 10 points) On an attached sheet, address the following: a) Describe how this project supports local land use goals, air quality, and energy conservation. Specifically describe how this project is included in your adopted General Plan and Community Plans, including the Land Use, Circulation/Transportation, Air Quality, and Energy elements. b) Describe any land use - related policies and actions by your agency to encourage use of travel modes other than driving alone. c) Describe any other policies and actions (such as parking policies, increased transit operations) within your jurisdiction which encourage use of travel modes other than alone and/or shift travel to non -peak periods. 2 TIP Call for Projects Application 4. BENEFIT TO TRANSIT USERS (Up to 5 points) Part. III - Regional Surface Identify fixed -route transit lines that will utilize the proposed improvement or benefit from its existence. Operator Line Number(s) MTA 260 On an attached sheet, address the following: a) Describe how this project will increase transit system use, and enhance the quality, safety and security of the transit system. 5. PROJECT NEED, LONG TERM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEMS (Up to 25 points) Provide the existing AM Peak Period (6 - 9 am) Level of Service (LOS)2: Atlantic/Bandini Blvds. - F SB I -710 Off -ramp @ Bandini - D On an attached sheet, address the following: a) Describe how this project eliminates or corrects transportation service deficiencies on the route and in the corridor it serves such as existing service gaps, poor LOS, poor travel times, etc. (Provide available data such as currert or future peak hour volume, volume /capacity, peak hour speed, peak period duration, number of accidents, etc.) b) Provide the length of the proposed project and how it closes a gap or improves a greater system c) Describe how the project is important to the effective maintenance and management of existing facilities and /or systems or services? d) Describe the specific policies and commitments that have been adopted by the responsible agencies to provide long-term continuation of the project and to ensure long -term maintenance for the project? e) Describe the project's potential long term value, including right -of -way preservation. 2If an entirely new facility is proposed provide LOS for whatever existing facility currently carries the largest volume in the corridor. TIP Call for Projects Application 6. PROJECT READINESS (Up to 15 points) 1 Part III - Regional Surface Indicate the proposed project schedule below. Please indicate any milestones that are complete or in progress: Project Study Report (PSR) or Equivalent: Environmental Clearance: Governing Body Approval: Name of Approving Governing Body: Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS &E): Right -of -Way Certification: Start of Construction: Project Completion: On an attached sheet, provide the following: a) Provide any other evidence that project funding will result in timely completion. b) List all projects in this category funded in the past by the that are "currently experiencing major delay of six months or more in meeting milestones and deadlines specified in the project's MOU or LOA and any project in this category that MTA lapsed. Describe why the projects are behind schedule. Explain how you will correct any situation that has caused the delays and how you will prevent delays from reoccurring (Applicant's prior performance in timely project delivery and progress reporting will be considered in this evaluation for up to 51 points) c) Identify any other agencies who will be required or necessary participants "in the project, and address any positions or actions by then regarding this project. If they have an official position, include relevant information. If they have not taken an action, include your process and timeline for obtaining the needed approvals and/or other supporting activities. Include the name of the agency /organization and, if available, the name of the contact person and their telephone number. 2/1997 (date) 4/1997 (Neg Dec) 1 6/2000 8/2000 4/2001 9/2002 1 City is willing to advance funds for preparation of Project Report (including Environmental Clearance) and PS &E, so long as those funds count toward their local match. 4 L6 -91 -1' 6Mp.60. - cipsd/ po v z v o -S 6(/ 7 \ \\ \\ \ s� 0 / 1/ 1 /Q' / / / _c � / / / /. / /J�/ / / /p /. / / / // / 1 / /\ / / / /. < / /zap. \ / / / om /m/ / / / / / /, / /0,6//// /. /� \ \ NOT TO SCALE L6 -91 -1 6mpyo,d- giOsd /po3/Z60-S6V TIP Call for Projects Application Supplemental Sheet No. 1 1. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Part III - Regional Surface a) Although Atlantic Boulevard is not officially designated as part of the CMP network, the I -710 and I -5 Freeways are, and Atlantic Boulevard serves the regional connection between these two freeways for the northbound -to- southbound movements between these freeways. The configuration of the I- 710 /I -5 freeway -to- freeway interchange is such that direct connection ramps are not provided between the northbound I -5 and southbound I- 710, nor between the northbound I -710 and southbound I -5. The Figure below illustrates that these connections are made via Atlantic Boulevard. All traffic connecting between these two freeways in the northbound -to- southbound TIP Call for Projects Application Part III - Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 2 direction must pass through the Atlantic /Bandini intersection/interchange. The section of Atlantic Boulevard between the I -710 and I -5 functions as a part of the freeway system and therefore as if part of the CMP network. The improvements proposed to the northbound Atlantic Boulevard off -ramp and at the Atlantic /Bandini intersection, will reduce congestion and facilitate the connections between these two freeways. The project provides mobility and congestion relief by reconfiguring three ramps at this interchange which currently cause back -ups and congestion problems. The Atlantic /Bandini interchange has a complex configuration of six on/off ramps providing access to two arterial highways, which intersect in a diagonal orientation in the immediate vicinity of the interchange. The intersection of Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards, which includes immediately adjacent ramps to /from Route 710, currently operates under extremely congested conditions during both AM and PM peak hours. The congestion is largely due to the unusual design of the northbound Route 710 on -ramp in the center of Atlantic Boulevard and the very heavy volume of truck traffic (up to 19 percent of total traffic on Bandini) in this interchange area, particularly on this steep ramp. The on -ramp frequently backs up into the center of the Atlantic /Bandini intersection. It is necessary to relocate this on -ramp away from the intersection to provide additional queuing and storage capacity. The relocation of the on -ramp from the center of the intersection will also provide additional right -of -way on Atlantic Boulevard within the intersection which will be used to improve lane configurations and increase the capacity of the intersection. The limited storage length on the southbound Bandini Boulevard off -ramp, after the gore point where the ramp .to Atlantic Boulevard splits off from this joint exit ramp, results in queues of cars and trucks extending back to beyond the gore point. This interferes with the free flow of traffic to Atlantic Boulevard. The extension and widening of the Bandini. Boulevard off -ramp will provide additional storage space on the ramp and reduce the likelihood of queues extending back to the gore point. An operational problem related to weaving maneuvers in the southeast quadrant of the Atlantic- Bandini intersection results in significant congestion at the terminus of the northbound Atlantic Boulevard off -ramp. This weaving problem results from the need for northbound Atlantic Boulevard -bound traffic exiting the ramp to cross over traffic on northbound Atlantic Boulevard which is attempting to turn east onto Bandini Boulevard. The implementation of a right turn only lane extending from the off ramp to Bandini Boulevard and the continuation of the two lane configuration of this ramp back to the freeway mainline, would remove the off- ramp -to- Bandini bound vehicles from this weaving situation. The improvements proposed in this project include: (1) reconfiguration of the northbound TIP Call for Projects Application Part III- Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 3 Route 710 on -ramp from Atlantic /Bandini Boulevards to provide more efficient freeway access for heavy vehicles, (2) reconfiguration of the southbound Bandini Boulevard off.. ramp to improve traffic flow and ease congestion at the ramp terminal at Bandini Boulevard, (3) widening of the northbound Route 710 off -ramp to facilitate traffic flow onto Atlantic Boulevard and right turns from northbound Atlantic Boulevard to eastbound Bandini Boulevard, (4) improvements to the Atlantic /Bandini intersection, and (5) extension of 26th Street across Atantic Boulevard to First Street, as an alternate access route to the new loop ramp and /or a bypass around the interchange area. (1) Reconfiguration of the northbound Route 710 on -ramp from Atlantic / Bandini Boulevards will be accomplished by construction of an approximately 400 meter - long loop ramp, located approximately 300 meters north of the Atlantic /Bandini intersection. The new ramp crosses Atlantic Boulevard on a new bridge structure connecting to the existing on -ramp west of Atlantic Boulevard. Due to its longer length and shallower grade, this ramp would provide more storage capacity and more efficient heavy vehicle access to the northbound Route 710. Alternative access to this new loop ramp is provided by extending F irst Street north of Bandini Boulevard and connecting to the loop ramp. (2) The loop portion of the short southbound Route 710 off -ramp to Bandini Boulevard is reconfigured. The ramp is extended west from the divergence point, behind the existing Fire Station property on the south side of Bandini Boulevard, around the station building, terminating at a location approximately 120 meters west of the existing ramp terminus. In addition, to provide adequate storage capacity, the new ramp is proposed to be a two -lane facility west of the divergence point, eventually widening to four lanes at its terminal point on Bandini Boulevard. (3) The northbound off -ramp to Atlantic - north/Bandini -east has one "exit - only" and one optional exit lane from the freeway. These two lanes subsequently merge into one lane approximately 60 meters north of the gore point It is proposed to widen the off -ramp on the outside to accommodate two full lanes for' the entire length of the ramp. After the off - ramp merges into Atlantic Boulevard, the additional right lane will continue as an exclusive right -turn lane from Atlantic onto eastbound Bandini Boulevard. (4) Currently, there are six northbound approach lanes on Atlantic Boulevard; one left turn lane, two through lanes feeding the on -ramp, two through and one shared through /right turn lane on Atlantic. Following the relocation of the on- ramp, these approach lanes will be reconfigured to provide one left turn lane, three through lanes, one shared through /right turn lane, and one exclusive right turn lane. Nortl of the intersection, at the new loop on -ramp, the four northbound lanes will TIP Call for Projects Application Part III- Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 4 (5) become an exclusive right turn only lane onto the on -ramp, a shared through/right turn lane, and two through lanes. North of the ramp!, the three ro thbound lanes will merge to two, before passing under the railroad bridge. The relocation of the northbound on -ramp will also provide the opportunity for the redesign of the westbound Bandini Boulevard approach to the intersection. Currently, there is only one westbound through lane on Bandini, with the second westbound approach lane on Bandini feeding traffic onto the on -ramp. The relocation of the on -ramp will redirect the on -ramp -bound traffic on this approach, either to a right turn movement or to First Street, removing it from the intersection altogether. This will allow the intersection approach to operate with two westbound lanes. It can also be restriped to include dual left -turn lanes. The extension of 26th Street across Atlantic Boulevard on a grade separation parallel to the railroad bridge, to First Street will provide another way for traffic from Vernon to access the new loop on -ramp. It will allow vehicles approaching the interchange from the west to turn off of Bandini Boulevard and utilize 26th Street to reach the new on -ramp. This removes traffic from the Atlantic / Bandini intersection. It also provides an alternate through route for east -west travel around the interchange area via the First Street -26th Street route, which can be used by both eastbound and westbound trips, thereby removing even more traffic from the interchange area. The proposed project can easily be built in phases because the ramp and roadway improvements are located in separate quadrants of the existing interchange. If it were to be built in phases, the preferred phasing of the project is as follows: Phase 1: Right of way purchase in the northeast quadrant of the interchange and construction of the 26th Street and First Street roadway extensions to provide an arterial bypass route around the interchange. Cost: $8,817,840 Phase 2: Construction of the new loop on -ramp and reconstruction of the Atlantic /Bandini intersection. Cost: $10,428,000 Phase 3/4: Construction of the two off -ramp improvements, in one phase or two, project evaluation study. Cost: $4,038,160 b) This project is included in the Gateway Cities Trucking Study prepared by the Gateway Cities subregion as part of the SCAG subregional planning effort. The study identifies improvements to mitigate the impacts of trucks and foster the economic benefits " of the trucking industry on the Gateway Cities Subregion. TIP Call for Projects Application Supplemental Sheet No. 5 Part III- Regional Surface c) Many of the trucks which pass through this interchange are making connections between the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Union Pacific and Santa Fe railroad yards which are located just north of the interchange area and accessed via Atlantic Boulevard. These rail yards are two of the major inter -modal transfer facilities in the Los Angeles basin where containers and tractor trailers are transferred to /from railroad cars and trucks to /from the two Ports. They are located at the northern terminus of the Alameda Corridor, making the proposed interchange improvments a complementary project to the Alameda Corridor project. The I- 710 -to- Atlantic Boulevar route is a key link in the land bridge between the Ports and the rail yards. Also, directlyadjacent to the Atlantic /Bandini interchange is a U.S. Postal Service mail distribution facility. The proposed project will enhance access to this regional trip generator. d) Much of the development in the Cities of Vernon and Bell is industrial -based land use. As such, it generates a significant amount of employment and results in a large volume of truck traffic bringing raw materials /supplies into the project area and transporting manufactured goods out of the area. This project will facilitate the movement of employees into and out of the area and the movement of the raw materials and finished products into and out of the area. One of the key benefits of this project is that it will accommodate truck traffic by providing improved on/off ramps with better gradients and will allow the trucks to better coexist with automobile (employees) traffic by providing additional lanes which can serve as truck bypass lanes on the ramps. e) This project will remove the back ups of trucks from the middle of the Atlantic / Bandini intersection which occur as a result of the steep ramp which begins in the center of the intersection. Trucks constitute 8.4 and 8.8 percent of the total traffic at this intersection in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The highest percentage of trucks on any single turning movement occurs in the AM peak hour, when trucks constitute 36 percent of the traffic on the eastbound left -turn movement from Bandini Boulevard to the northbound I -710 on -ramp. The reconfigured loop on -ramp will not only remove the back -ups of trucks from the center of this intersection, but will allow the movements onto the northbound on -ramp to be made via a free right turn and in two lanes, so that trucks in the right lane can be passed by autos in the left lane. g) Both Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards are heavily utilized designated truck routes in the Cities of Vernon and Bell. The number of trucks per day on Atlantic Boulevard is approximately 4,500, 11.5 percent of the average daily traffic volume. On Bandini Boulevard, the daily volume of trucks is 1,375, 12.9 percent of the daily volume. These are some of the highest truck percentages in the area. The proposed project provides economic benefit to the region in the following ways: It improves connectivity between the Long Beach and Santa Ana Freeways, two TIP Call for Projects Application Part III - Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 6 strategically important freeways in the industrial portion of the region. • It improves the connection between the Ports Area and the railyards, just north of the interchange area, thereby improving the competitiveness of the region in the international trade arena. It also complements the investment in the Alameda Corridor. It improves access to the Vernon and Bell areas where a significant employment base, which relies on expedited goods movement, is _located. 2. COST EFFECTIVENESS This project will create an increase in capacity and a reduction in delay. The capacity benefit per dollar expended was calculated by assuming a lane capacity of 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The increase in the number of lanes at the SB 710 off -ramp at Bandini Boulevard from 2 lanes to 4 lanes provided an increase in freeway exit capacity of 43,200 vehicles per day (assuming 50% green time at the ramp terminal intersection). At the northbound off -ramp at Atlantic Boulevard, the capacity also increased 43,200 vehicles per day due to increasing the number of lanes from 1 to 2, and allowing them to flow freely onto Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards. The extension of 26th Street across Atlantic Boulevard provides a new east - west connection through the project area, a significant capacity enhancement for east -west travel in the project area. This two -lane, two way roadway could accomodate 3,000 vehicles per hour (at 1,500 per lane) or 72,000 vehicles over 24 hours. A total increase in capacity of 158,400 vehicles per day will be realized. Factoring in the estimated project cost of $23,284,000, results in a daily increase in capacity of 0.0068 vehicles per day per dollar. This is a conservative estimate because it is difficult to quantify the capacity increase associated with replacement of the sub - standard northbound on -ramp with an improved loop on -ramp, since both are two lane on -ramps leading to a single entry lane onto the freeway. The reduction in delay was calculated using the delay numbers obtained from the level of service calculations performed for the Project Study Report for this project for the no build condition and for the proposed improvements for the year 2020. The total daily reduction in delay was calculated to be approximately 3,230 hours. Factoring in the project cost of $23,284,000 results in a cost of $7,209 per daily hour of delay reduced. Spread over the approximate 20 -year life of the project and based on weekday reduction delays only (250 days per year), this equates to $1.44 per hour of delay reduced. Given that a high percentage of this travel time reduction will accrue to trucks carrying time- sensitive goods, and the hourly operating cost of a truck, the expenditure of $1.44 to save an hour of trucking time is a cost - effective expenditure. 3. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY TIP Call for Projects Application Part III - Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 7 a) Both Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards are designated as imajor arterials in the land Use /Circulation Element of the Cities of Vernon and Bell. Improvements to these intersection of these two major arterials and their access to the regional freeway system will therefore, further the objectives of the cities' General Plans. The reduction of congestion and improved flow of vehicles, particularly trucks, will also reduce emissions and further air quality goals of the cities and region. b) The City of Vernon encourages transportation demand management Measures at all employment sites within the City. In order to set a positive example, the City itself initiated a 4 -40 work week (10 -hour work days), so that City employees will commute outside the typical peak hour and 20% of the time (one out of five workdays) will not commute at all during peak commute time periods. This project will improve travel time on one of the MTA's key routes, line 260, within the City. 4. BENEFIT TO TRANSIT USERS This project will constitute a bus speed enhancement project because it will reduce delay at the intersection of Atlantic Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard, reducing travel time for all vehicles including transit vehicles. In addition, the relocation of the northbound on -ramp will provide additional capacity for the ramp and will remedy the present situation of large trucks queuing into the Atlantic / Bandini intersection. This will provide additional reduction in delay and improve safety for transit vehicles. Line 260, which is located along Atlantic; Boulevard extends from the Artesia Metro Blue Line station on the south to Pasadena and Altadena on the north and passes under the Metro Green Line. It serves many low - income, transit-dependent riders who live and work along this routes and /or transfer to it from the east -west bus or rail lirs:. Service is provided from approximately 4:00 AM until Midnight at 10- minute headways during the peak hours and 15- to -20- minute headways in off -peak hours. This level of service is reflectttive of Line 260's importance as a regional commute route. 5. PROJECT NEED, LONG TERM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEMS The intersection of Atlantic Boulevard with Bandini Boulevard currently operates at Level of Service F in both the AM and PM peak hours. In the AM peak hour, the Volume /Capacity (V /C) ratio is 1.026 and in the PM peak hour, the V/C ratio is 1.022, indicating that the intersection is operating at capacity and there is no capacity available to accommodate additional growth in the project area or region. The intersection of the southbound I -710 off -ramp at Bandini Boulevard operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour (V /C +0.875) and at LOS C in the TIP Call for Projects Application Part III - Regional Surface Supplemental Sheet No. 8 PM peak hour (V /C = 0.733), but in both peak hours the queue of vehicles from the intersection extends back to the diverge point between the southbound Bandini and Atlantic off ramps, often blocking these ramps. a) Without any improvements at the Atlantic /Bandini interchange, the intersection at Atlantic /Bandini Boulevards will worsen to V/C ratios in the AM and PM peak hours of 1.261 and 1.418 respectively. This means that with no improvements, the intersection will operate at 26 to 40 percent over capacity in the future as a result of regional and local growth, further exacerbating the delays to both regional and local travel through this project area. In addition, the intersection at the Bandini Boulevard ramp terminal from the southbound I -710 off -ramp will worsen to LOS F (V /C = 1.065) in the AM peak hour and LOS E (V /C = 0.922) in the PM peak hour. With the proposed improvements, the levels of service at the Atlantic /Bandini intersection will be 'improved' to LOS E in both peak periods, and the intersection at the southbound off -ramp to Bandini Boulevard will be improved to LOS D in both peak periods. This will significantly improve travel through both intersections. b) The proposed project does not result in a gap closure, but rather an improvement to an existing facility, but since that existing facility serves as an arterial equivalent to a freeway- freeway connection, in essence a gap closure, the proposed project does improve conditions on a freeway gap closure and precludes the need for a more expensive freeway -to- freeway improvement. If the missing ramp connections between the I -710 and I -5 were to be provided, there would be extensive land use impacts and the cost would be many times the cost of the proposed improvements to the Atlantic / Bandini interchange. c) The project results in a significant improvement in traffic circulation in the Atlantic /Bandini interchange area. This will be important to the management of existing facilities in that it will improve traffic flow on the regional freeway system, improve the connection between two freeways, enhance access to an important industrial area, and improve safety. d) The interchange ramps will be maintained by Caltrans, as are the existing ramps which will be improved or replaced. Part of the improvements being provided through this project are maintenance turnouts on the ramps, so that Caltrans maintenance crews will be better able to maintain the interchange area without disrupting traffic. The ramps will also include concrete termini which will be longer - lasting and require less maintenance than asphalt pavement. The Cities of Vernon and Bell will continue to maintain the arterial streets, Atlantic and Bandini Boulevards. e) The project includes the extension of First Street to 26th Street, north of the new loop on- ramp. This extension will provide an alternate route to the on -ramp and divert some of the traffic from Bandini Boulevard, further improving the Level of Service at the TIP Call for Projects Application Supplemental Sheet No. 9 Part III - Regional Atlantic /Bandini intersection. The extension of .26th Street will be via a grade separation over Atlantic Boulevard, adjacent to the existing railroad bridge. First`IStreet may be further extended to the south in the future in the City of Bell to provide access to a large undeveloped parcel south if Bandini Boulevard. The proposed project also' has long -term value to the region in that it improves the arterial connection between the Long Beach and Santa Ana Freeways, thereby potentially deferring the need to construct additional direct connector ramps in the southwest quadrant of that freeway -to- freeway interchange, a costly and difficult project to implement. f) There have been no previous MTA commitments to this project. 6. PROJECT READINESS a) The City of Vernon has prepared a Project Study Report for the proposed project which was approved by Caltrans in February, 1997. [Please refer to the attached cover page the PSR.] The City also intends to advance funds for the expedited preparation` of the Project Report and preparation of the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the project out of its General Fund revenues, so long as these funds count as part of the local match. This illustrates the commitment of the City of Vernon to the completion of this project. b) The MTA has not funded any similar projects in the City of Vernon in the past. c) The other agencies which will participate in the project are The City of Bell and Caltrans. Both have participated on the Project Development Team (PDT) for the preparation of the PSR. Caltrans has approved the Project Study Report, indicating their support for this project. The City of Bell has also indicated their support for and commitment to the project in the letter provided herein. The contact persons in these two agencies are the following: Caltrans Mr. Mel Hodges 213 - 897 -4637 City of Bell Annette S. Peretz Development Services Director 213 -588 -6211 07-LA-710 KP 34.9/35.7 PROJECT STUDY REPORT E F H J A B C D E F G H J A lakiNt17 Ai atai ESQ ����I�• � _ T viii hill1 UM Old APPROVED: ON ROUTE 710 ©1995 Thomas Bros. Maps At Atlantic Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard Interchange DOUGLAS R. FAILING DISTRICT DIVISION CHIEF, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY: .001KIWAEOL, ./ ARSHAD RASHEDI PROJECT MANAGER Caltrans'` 1 e tric