Claremont City Council Meeting Agenda

CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

City Council Chamber Tuesday 225 Second Street July 12, 2016 Claremont, CA 91711 6:30 PM

COUNCILMEMBERS

SAM PEDROZA MAYOR

JOSEPH M. LYONS COREY CALAYCAY LARRY SCHROEDER OPANYI K. NASIALI

CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & PRESENTATION

Shoes That Fit

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Recognition:

Isela Grant, for her assistance to the Claremont Police Department

Introduction:

Julie Medero, Traffic and Transportation Commissioner

Presentation:

Update on Proposed Interstate 10 Express Lane Construction, by Garry Cohoe, Director of Project Delivery, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)

CITY MANAGER REPORT

PUBLIC COMMENT This time has been set aside for persons in the audience to make comments on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council that ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. Page 2 City Council AGENDA July 12, 2016 Members of the audience will have the opportunity to address the City Council about ALL OTHER ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA at the time those items are considered.

Public Comment will be taken for 30 minutes following Ceremonial Matters and will resume later in the agenda if there are speakers who were not given an opportunity to speak because of the 30-minute time restriction.

Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from taking action on oral requests but may refer the matter to staff or to a subsequent meeting. The City Council will respond after public comment has been received. Please state your name. Each speaker will be limited to four (4) continuous minutes.

CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by one motion after public comment has been received. Most items have been previously considered by the Council or one or more commissions and/or committees. Only City Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion. Reading of resolutions and ordinances is waived and they will be adopted and numbered. Now is the time for those in the audience who wish to speak to items listed on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be limited to four (4) continuous minutes of comment on the consent calendar as a whole. 1. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY WARRANT REGISTER

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution allowing certain claims and demands specifying the funds out of which the same are to be paid, dated July 1, 2016. Attachment(s): Resolution Approving City Warrant Register dated July 1, 2016

2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2016

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and file the special and regular City Council meeting minutes of June 28, 2016. Attachment(s): Draft City Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016 Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016

3. SCHEDULED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AGREEMENT

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of $335,063.77 for the purchase of ten vehicles. Page 3 City Council AGENDA July 12, 2016

4. REQUEST AUTHORITY TO AWARD - PAVEMENT REPAIR PROJECT, C.I.P. 2016-5, FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED AREAS OF ASPHALT ON CLAREMONT BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council: A. Award the contract for the Pavement Repair Project, C.I.P. No. 2016-5, to All American Asphalt, of Corona, in the amount of $125,200.78, and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $12,520.08, for a total of $137,720.86; and B. Appropriate $37,720.86 from the State Gas Tax Fund to complete this project. 5. CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH INLAND URBAN FOREST GROUP FOR CONSULTING ARBORIST AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Inland Urban Forest Group through September 30, 2016, and increase the agreement amount by $30,000, for a total agreement cost of $90,000. Attachment(s): Amendment to Agreement

PUBLIC HEARING - None

ORDINANCE - None

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM

6. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY TRAIN HORN ISSUES AND QUIET ZONES Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to: A. Work with the Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commission in appointing an Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of three Commissioners and staff from the Community Development Department, to study and prepare a report to the City Council on the installation of Quiet Zones at the City's railroad crossings, including a detailed budget for safety measure installations at the crossings and analysis of liability issues, work with associated cities and local agencies on partnerships and cost sharing opportunities, and work as a liaison to community members on the issue of train horns and Quiet Zones; and B. Continue lobbying efforts to get revisions made to the Federal Train Horn Rule in an effort to decrease the train horn requirements associated with at-grade crossings. Attachment(s): 6/23/16 Traffic and Transportation Commission Staff Report Federal Train Horn Rule - City Comment Letter 6/23/16 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT This time is reserved for those persons who were unable to speak earlier in the agenda because Page 4 City Council AGENDA July 12, 2016 of the 30-minute time restriction.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Council Item

7. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING TO BE HELD AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council designate a voting delegate for the business meeting to be held at the League of California Cities 2016 Annual Conference. Attachment(s): League of California Cities Correspondence

Council Assignment Reports City Councilmembers may serve as representatives on regional organizations. This time is allocated for reports about their activities.

COMMISSIONS - One Vacancy

ADJOURNMENT

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON, JULY 26, 2016 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 225 SECOND STREET.

A LOOK AHEAD – Upcoming Meetings and Tentative Agenda Items

- Foothill Speed Survey - Application for Grant Funds for City Tree Planting - Award of Contract for Pooch Park Landscape Design Services - Appeal of Architectural Commission Decision #16-R06

MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA, ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT 207 HARVARD AVENUE, CLAREMONT, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 7 AM – 6 PM. SUBJECT MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - www.ci.claremont.ca.us. For more information, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 909-399-5461.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 0F 1990, THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRES A MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK AT 909-399-5461 “VOICE” OR 1-800-735-2929 “TT/TTY” AT LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE.

I, SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING AGENDA WAS POSTED AT CLAREMONT CITY HALL, 207 HARVARD AVENUE, ON JULY 7 , 2016 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2.

POST THROUGH: JULY 13, 2016 225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1603 Item No: 1.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY WARRANT REGISTER

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution allowing certain claims and demands specifying the funds out of which the same are to be paid, dated July 1, 2016.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

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

Submitted by:

Shelley Desautels City Clerk

Attachment: Resolution Approving City Warrant Register dated July 1, 2016

CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™

RESOLUTION NO. 2016-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID

NOW THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. That the list of claims and demands dated July 1, 2016, totaling $1,176,212.21 has been audited as required by law.

SECTION 2. That warrant numbers 2816 through 2829, 227013 through 227201, and 4775, inclusive, are hereby allowed in the amounts and ordered paid out of the respective funds.

SECTION 3. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July, 2016.

______Mayor, City of Claremont

ATTEST:

______City Clerk, City of Claremont

225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1604 Item No: 2.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council approve and file the special and regular City Council meeting minutes of June 28, 2016.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

Submitted by: Prepared by:

Shelley Desautels Jamie Costanza City Clerk Deputy City Clerk

Attachments: A - Draft City Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016 B - Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016

CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™

CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, June 28, 2016 – 5:15 p.m. City Council Chamber 225 Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Pedroza called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT COUNCILMEMBER: CALAYCAY, NASIALI, PEDROZA, SCHROEDER

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER: NONE

LATE ARRIVAL COUNCILMEMBER: LYONS

ALSO PRESENT Tony Ramos, City Manager; Sonia Carvalho, Best Best & Krieger; Brad McKinney, Assistant to the City Manager; Shelley Desautels, City Clerk; Jamie Costanza, Deputy City Clerk

Closed Session

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

Michael Keenan inquired if the City were initiating the litigation under Item No. 1, and if the initiation of litigation was to deal with Item No. 3.

There were no requests to speak.

At 5:16 p.m., the City Council recessed to closed session:

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4):

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION

2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Attorney

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Name of Case: Citizens to Save College Avenue, Petitioner v. City of Claremont, Respondent; Pomona College and Does 1 to 10, Real Parties in Interest Case Number: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No BS163235

The City Council recessed at 6:28 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 8:49 p.m.

City Council Special Meeting Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 2

Closed Session Report

Mayor Pedroza reported that the City Council authorized the City Manager to meet with special counsel to discuss remedy options for the nuisance and compliance complaints at the William Lyons Home project on Base Line Road. There was no other reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT

At 9:47 p.m., Mayor Pedroza adjourned the meeting.

______Mayor

ATTEST:

______Deputy City Clerk

CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - 6:30 p.m. City Council Chamber 225 Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Pedroza called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Led by Rich Deely, Executive Director of Project ArtStart, and Maya Winnick, project ArtStart participant.

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

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

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER: NONE

ALSO PRESENT Tony Ramos, City Manager; Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney; Brian Desatnik, Director of Community Development; Anne Turner, Human Services Director; Roger Bradley, Community Services Director; Paul Cooper, Interim Chief of Police; Shelley Desautels, City Clerk; Jamie Costanza, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

Mayor Pedroza also reported that Council would return to closed session to discuss the remaining two closed session items.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Rich Deely, Executive Director of Project ArtStart, and Maya Winnick, Project ArtStart participant, presented information related to Project ArtStart.

The City Council recognized the top ten Claremont High School Students in each grade for their Outstanding Academic Achievements.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

City Manager Ramos reported that the City is in its third week of the right to take trial with Golden State Water. The trial is expected to take several more weeks to complete, and under the advice of legal counsel, the City will not be providing further updates related to the trial. He thanked the tree volunteers who assisted City staff in delivering tree watering tool kits, and reminded everyone that the 4th of July event will take place on Monday. Lastly, he invited all to attend the July 26 City Council meeting where a discussion will be had related to the Gold Line crossing at Indian Hill Boulevard.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 2

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

Michael Keenan stated that the Federal Government does not have any money, and believes the United States should receive a tariff from China because of all of the goods that enter the United States.

Amy Crow, Claremont Library Manager, stated that the Library is a great place to stay cool while enjoying their programs.

There were no other requests to speak.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Schroeder pulled Consent Calendar Item No. 8 for further discussion.

Mayor Pedroza pulled Consent Calendar Item No. 6 for further discussion.

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment on Consent Calendar Items No. 1-5, 7, and 9-14.

There were no requests to speak.

Routine Administrative Items

1. Resignation of Architectural Commissioner Ben McCoy Accepted with regret the resignation of Architectural Commissioner Ben McCoy.

2. Adoption of Resolution Approving City Warrant Registers Adopted Resolution No. 2016-39, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID, dated June 16, 2016.

3. City Council Minutes of 6/14/16 (special and regular) Approved and filed.

4. Cancellation of August 2016 Regular City Council Meetings Cancelled the regular City Council meetings of August 9 and 23, 2016.

5. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 10.48.010 of the Claremont Municipal Code Relating to the Speed Limit on Base Line Road Waived further reading and adopted Ordinance No. 2016-06, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.48.010 OF THE CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE SPEED LIMIT ON BASE LINE ROAD.

6. Award of Contract for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Compliance Services This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

7. Agreement with Aegis, ITS, Inc. for Traffic Signal Maintenance Services Authorized the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Aegis ITS, Inc., for annual traffic signal maintenance in the amount of $125,000, with the option to extend the agreement for four additional, one-year terms.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 3

8. Proposed Crosswalk at Sixth Street between College Way and Mills Avenue – Mid-Block Crosswalk Resolution This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

9. Acceptance of Older Americans Act Funds for Senior Nutrition Programs 2016-2020 A. Authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with the County of Los Angeles Community and Senior Services to provide funding in the annual amount of $119,985 for the 2016-2020 Senior Nutrition Programs; and B. Approved an amendment of $12,357 per year to the 2016-2018 Nutrition Program budget to account for additional grant revenue.

10. Senior Nutrition Program Award of Catering Contract A. Authorized the City Manager or his designee to enter into a one-year agreement with Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $105,000, with the option to extend the agreement for three additional, one-year terms; and B. Approved an amendment to the Nutrition Program budget of $10,840 per year for 2016-18 to account for the increases costs of meals to be provided by Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.

11. 2016-18 Agreement for Chamber of Commerce Services Authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce to provide visitor center services on behalf of the City for the years 2016-18, and in an amount not to exceed $40,000 in each fiscal year.

12. Agreement Extension for Animal Control Services Authorized the City Manager or his designee to enter into a one-year contract extension with the Inland Valley Humane Society in the amount of $116,500 effective July 1, 2016.

13. Hitech Maintenance Agreement Authorized the City Manager or his designee to enter into a two-year agreement in the amount of $72,229 for 2016-17 and $74,305 for 2017-18 to continue the existing maintenance contract with Hitech Systems Inc.

14. Award of Contract with Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. for Professional Economic Development and Brokerage Consulting Services Authorized the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. for Professional Brokerage Consulting Services in the amount of $60,000.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1-5, 7, and 9-14, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Nasiali, Pedroza, Schroeder NOES: Councilmember – None

Items Removed from the Consent Calendar

6. Award of Contract for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Compliance Services

Mayor Pedroza requested staff present, at a future City Council meeting, the status of this issue.

City Manager Ramos confirmed that City staff will give a report on MS4 issues on a bi-annual basis.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 4

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

Michael Keenan spoke in support of the update from City staff and questioned how water is being collected.

Councilmember Calaycay moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with Colbert Environmental Group for MS4 Permit compliance services in the amount of $106,250, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Nasiali, Pedroza, Schroeder NOES: Councilmember – None

8. Proposed Crosswalk at Sixth Street between College Way and Mills Avenue – Mid-Block Crosswalk Resolution

Councilmember Schroeder stated that he does not believe in crosswalks mid-block or on controlled intersections. He summarized the City’s policy on crosswalks which he believes contradicts staff’s recommendation. Because of his concerns, he will not be voting in support of the proposed crosswalk.

Loretta Mustafa, City Engineer, clarified that the City Council has considered three mid-block crosswalks, and confirmed there have not been any reported accidents at the mid-block crosswalks.

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

There were no requests to speak.

Councilmember Nasiali moved to adopt Resolution No. 2016-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW, MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK ON SIXTH STREET, BETWEEN COLLEGE WAY AND MILLS AVENUE, seconded by Councilmember Lyons, and carried on a roll call vote as follows:

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

PUBLIC HEARING

15. Approval of Resolutions Authorizing Local Participation in the Figtree Energy and the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) Open Pace Financing Programs, which allows Claremont Property Owners New Options for Financing Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Seismic Safety, and Water Efficiency Improvements

Chris Veirs, Principal Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Chris Veirs, Principal Planner, and Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, responded to questions from the City Council related to the City’s liability and exposure, the City’s reliance upon the County, consumer protections, selection of contractors, the Western Riverside Council of Governments program and the differences between the programs, State law requirement for authorization, and the ability for companies to go through the County directly.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 5

James Vergara, Spruce Finance, responded to questions from the City Council related to the priority of the lien, selection of contractors, sale of a property, consumer protections, and an indemnification clause.

Aaron Villaraigosa, Figtree Financing, responded to questions from the City Council related to the priority of the lien, selection of contractors, sale of a property, consumer protections, and an indemnification clause.

Crystal Crawford, YGrene Energy Fund, responded to questions from the City Council related to the priority of the lien, sale of a property, consumer protections, certification of work, and an indemnification clause.

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

Peter Cardinas stated that he is an engineering contractor that has been hired to place solar panels at the Laemmle Theatre, and has been in contact with the City for six months. He understands the concerns of the City Council but asked the Council to keep in mind that rate structures will change in the future and the addition of solar panels will help with future savings.

Michael Keenan stated he has spoken to staff related to the San Jose model, which includes all financing programs. He raised concern that solar is not mentioned in the staff report and suggested the City use the term solar voltaic.

There were no other requests to speak.

Councilmember Schroeder stated at first he considered these financing options a tool. However, after tonight’s discussion a lot more questions have been raised and in his opinion the financing companies oversold the program. He suggested the City Council reconsider this item when all questions have been answered.

Councilmember Nasiali stated that he has reservations. He understands that these programs are providing a service to residents, which he appreciates, but he does have reservations as confirmed by Mr. Cardinas. Mr. Cardinas stated that the rates are going to change so act now. That is the kind of thing that is worrisome in a sense that there are aggressive sales people telling residents to do it now or pay more, and a resident thinks they should go forward because the government is sanctioning it. Because of these reservations, he will not support staff’s recommendation.

Councilmember Calaycay stated that he appreciates the caution and desire to protect the consumer, but people must be responsible for themselves. He raised concern related to the protection of others which may seem a punishment to some, and reminded all that these financing options may be useful in the California Energy Challenge.

Councilmember Lyons stated that his main concern is that these financing authorities have an opportunity for small businesses to participate. He spoke in support of the companies affiliated with Los Angeles County as that provides further oversight. He believes that residents need to do their due diligence, and hoped that Sustainable Claremont could offer support.

Mayor Pedroza stated that these financing authorities are another tool to help residents afford and pay for sustainable improvements. He would like to see YGrene come back before the City Council for discussion, and staff provide Council with the option for opting out of the financing authority approval.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 6

Councilmember Calaycay moved to adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP BY THE CITY IN THE CALIFORNIA ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT RELATING TO ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY IN THE AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE FIGTREE PACE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS; and A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY IN THE CSCDA OPEN PACE PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS, with the added condition that these actions can be rescinded, seconded by Councilmember Lyons.

Councilmember Schroeder stated that he is in favor of sustainability efforts but spoke against approving the proposed resolutions tonight. He would like for this item to come back before the City Council so hazards could be addressed and fixed.

City Manager Ramos recommended that if the City Council were to move forward with staff’s recommendation, the City Council could also direct staff to look into more of the concerns that were raised.

City Attorney Carvalho stated that the added condition made in the motion related to the approval being rescinded is not in the proposed resolution which makes her uncomfortable.

Councilmember Calaycay withdrew his motion and clarified that this item will be brought before the City Council at the July 26 meeting.

Mayor Pedroza clarified that this item will be brought back to the City Council and will include YGrene Energy Fund.

Councilmember Nasiali questioned the statement made by Mr. Cardinas and asked what Laemmle Theatre’s timeline is.

Chris Veirs, Principle Planner, responded that Mr. Cardinas was trying to explain that the California Solar Initiative is slowly reducing the rebate amount.

The City Council directed staff to bring this item back to the City Council at its July 26, 2016 meeting to include YGrene Energy Fund.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Council Items

16. Appointment to the Architectural Commission to Fill One Unscheduled Vacancy

Councilmember Schroeder highlighted the staff report.

City Council Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 7

Mayor Pedroza invited public comment.

There were no requests to speak.

Councilmember Lyons moved to appoint Robert Brian Worley to the Architectural Commission for a term to expire August 31, 2020, seconded by Councilmember Schroeder, and carried on a vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember – Calaycay, Lyons, Nasiali, Pedroza, Schroeder NOES: Councilmember – None

Council Assignment Reports

Mayor Pedroza recently attended the Independent Cities Association Conference where a discussion was had related to Airbnb’s.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Pedroza adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. and announced Council would return to closed session. The next regular meeting of the Claremont City Council will be held on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. in the Claremont City Council Chamber, 225 Second Street, Claremont.

Mayor

ATTEST:

Deputy City Clerk

225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1609 Item No: 3.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: ROGER BRADLEY, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

SCHEDULED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AGREEMENT

SUMMARY

The 2016-17 budget includes the scheduled replacement of ten vehicles. The vehicles scheduled for replacement have exceeded their useful lives and are due for replacement per the current eight-year replacement schedule.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of $335,063.77 for the purchase of ten vehicles.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

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

A. Take no action. B. Delay staff recommendation and request additional information.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The total value of the purchase agreement is $335,063.77. Funding in the amount of $288,522.93 is included in the City’s Motor Fleet Fund budget for 2016-17. This funding will be utilized to purchase the eight Chevrolet Silverados and one Chevrolet Colorado. In addition, $46,540.84 is budgeted in the Sanitation Fund to purchase a Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD to support the Sanitation operation. Costs for the replacement vehicles are detailed below:

Unit # Vehicle Model Price CLAREMONT279 Chevrolet Colorado 4WD ExtPage Cab 1 of 4 $34,321.66 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ 142 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Double Cab $29,642.29 370 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Double Cab $29,642.29 280 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4WD Crew Cab $37,206.41 371 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 283 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 256 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 145 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 151 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Reg Cab $28,120.96 387 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 2WD Reg Cab $46,540.84 Unit # Vehicle Model Price 279 Chevrolet Colorado 4WD Ext Cab $34,321.66 142 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Double Cab $29,642.29 370 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Double Cab $29,642.29 280 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4WD Crew Cab $37,206.41 371 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 283 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 256 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 145 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 2WD Reg Cab $32,397.33 151 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD Reg Cab $28,120.96 387 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 2WD Reg Cab $46,540.84

The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this project is estimated at $2,500 and is included in the operating budget of the Community Services Department.

ANALYSIS

The 2016-17 budget includes funding for the replacement of ten vehicles. The ten vehicles that will be replaced have exceeded their useful lives. In addition, the Fleet Supervisor has reviewed maintenance history of each vehicle and has determined that replacement is warranted based upon each vehicle’s deteriorated condition. The vehicles proposed to be replaced are included in the below table.

Unit # Program Area Existing Year Mileage Maintenance Issues Replacement 279 Human Services Ranger 2006 47,601 Not suitable for Park Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 Ranger functions. 2WD. 142 Building Division S-10 2001 99,512 Mileage and age cause Chevrolet Silverado 1500 recurring maintenance issues. 370 Building Division F-150 2005 52,092 Dated CNG parts difficult Chevrolet Silverado 1500 to source and service. 280 Engineering F-150 2004 79,144 Engine Issues. Dated Chevrolet Silverado 1500 CNG parts difficult to source and service. 371 Park Maintenance F-150 2005 45,371 Dated CNG parts difficult Chevrolet Silverado 2500 to source and service. 283 Facility F-150 2001 78,826 Condition deteriorating Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Maintenance due to age. 256 Right-of-Way F-150 2004 50,002 Dated CNG parts difficult Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Maintenance to source and service. 145 Sewer S-10 2001 82,145 Currently out of service Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Maintenance due to extensive oil leaks and suspension issues. 151 Motor Fleet S-10 2001 111,429 High mileage and age Chevrolet Silverado 1500 cause recurring maintenance issues. 387 Sanitation F-450 2004 120,836 High mileage and age Chevrolet Silverado 3500 cause recurring maintenance issues.

CLAREMONT Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ The replacement of several vehicles was deferred when preparing the 2014-16 budget due to acceptable condition; however, the condition of these vehicles have since deteriorated and now they warrant replacement. Each vehicle was individually evaluated by Motor Fleet staff functionality, maintenance history, and serviceability. Many of the vehicles proposed for replacement for retrofitted to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) at the time of purchase. The technology used at the time is now becoming obsolete and, as a result, these vehicles are increasingly difficult to service. There is only one repair facility that will work on these vehicles within a 50 mile radius and parts are difficult to source. Lack of available parts has increased vehicle down time, often taking trucks off the road for up to two weeks while replacement CNG parts are identified. Other vehicles have begun to experience recurring maintenance issues with their suspensions, engines, or oil leaks due to age and/or high mileage.

Four of the vehicles recommended for replacement were converted to run on CNG fuel. Staff recommends replacing these vehicles with trucks that utilize unleaded gas due to ongoing concerns with the CNG technology. The CNG maintenance trucks have been very problematic to maintain. As mentioned above, it is often difficult to source fuel system parts, leading to extended downtime. Likewise, service facilities are very limited making it difficult to obtain competitive pricing and timely repairs. Very few dealers have diagnostic software that is capable of diagnosing issues on CNG vehicles. In addition to issues with serviceability, CNG maintenance trucks have less cargo space due to the CNG tanks, which can decrease efficiency for certain maintenance operations. They also have shorter range than their gasoline counterparts and less power, which can have an impact on maintenance trucks which are used for towing trailers and generators. For the reasons detailed above, staff does not recommend converting the City’s midsized fleet to CNG.

Despite its limitations of CNG maintenance trucks, CNG has proven more effective for the City’s heavy-duty sanitation fleet. Although parts and repair facilities are still somewhat limited, the City Yard CNG fueling station was designed to support a heavy-duty CNG fleet. The heavy-duty CNG vehicles operate on a slow-fill fueling system overnight. The configuration of this system allows for some improved efficiencies that are beneficial to the overall sanitation operation. The City is currently in the process of converting its diesel sanitation vehicles to CNG. Although maintenance trucks would no longer be converted to CNG, the City’s overall CNG usage will continue to increase as the heavy-duty vehicles are replaced with alternative fuel technology. The City will continue to evaluate progress in alternative fuel technology for all future purchases.

Vendor Selection

The City of Claremont is a member of the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA). Membership entitles the City to access competitively bid national contracts. NJPA contracts leverage national volume pricing and provide members with a streamlined contracting process. NJPA has an existing contract with National Auto Fleet Group for vehicle and equipment purchases. The pricing included in the contract is based upon the NJPA Contract Equipment Pricing. Utilizing the NJPA contract enables the City to save up to 17% off of the list price for the equipment.

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

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

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

CLAREMONT Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ Sustainability Plan - This item is not reflected in the Sustainability Plan.

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item is consistent with the Statements of City Council Basic Values on Economic Sustainability.

General Plan - This item is not reflected in the General Plan.

2016-18 Budget - This item is consistent with CS-13 to maintain City and other agency vehicles to ensure that they are in good condition and performing safely.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the goals and objectives of the Youth and Family Master Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purchase and replacement of ten vehicles is not subject to environmental review. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) continued administrative activities and maintenance activities such as the purchase of supplies are not CEQA projects. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this action because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

This is the replacement of ten vehicles that have exceeded their useful life expectancy, and thus, there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no further additional environmental review is needed at this time.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

Submitted by: Prepared by:

Roger Bradley Kristin Mikula Community Services Director Community Services Manager

CLAREMONT Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ 225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1612 Item No: 4.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: BRIAN DESATNIK, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP SUBJECT:

REQUEST AUTHORITY TO AWARD - PAVEMENT REPAIR PROJECT, C.I.P. 2016-5, FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED AREAS OF ASPHALT ON CLAREMONT BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

SUMMARY

The City received two bids for the Pavement Repair Project, C.I.P. 2016-5. The low bidder was All American Asphalt, of Corona, with a bid of $125,200.78.

The project consists of the removal and replacement of damaged areas of asphalt, along with adjacent curb and gutter, as needed on Claremont Boulevard, between Sixth Street and Foothill Boulevard. This project will address existing infrastructure damage caused by the adjacent tree roots.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council: A. Award the contract for the Pavement Repair Project, C.I.P. No. 2016-5, to All American Asphalt, of Corona, in the amount of $125,200.78, and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $12,520.08, for a total of $137,720.86; and B. Appropriate $37,720.86 from the State Gas Tax Fund to complete this project.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

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

· Continue this item and request additional information.

CLAREMONT Page 1 of 3 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ FINANCIAL REVIEW

The following funding sources will be used for this project:

Funding Source Amount State Gas Tax - Construction $125,200.78 State Gas Tax - Contingency $12,520.08 Total Project Costs: $137,720.86

The 2016-18 CIP budget allocates $100,000 in State Gas Tax funds for the Pavement Repair CIP project on Claremont Boulevard, between Sixth Street and Foothill Boulevard. Due to the extensive damage from tree roots on this section of Claremont Boulevard, additional areas of repair have been identified within the project limits. This resulted in bids being received in excess of the $100,000 budgeted. Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate $37,720.86 in State Gas Tax funds, for a total of $137,720.86 to fully fund this project. The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $427, and is included in the operating budget of the Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

On June 27, 2016, the City Clerk opened the following bids:

Bidder Amount Location All American Asphalt $125,200.78 Corona Hardy & Harper, Inc. $166,000.00 Santa Ana

The engineer’s estimate on this project was $125,000, including the additional necessary repairs, which were added to the project. The low bid was received from All American Asphalt.

This pavement repair project will remove and replace damaged areas of asphalt, curb, and gutter on the section of Claremont Boulevard, between Sixth Street and Foothill Boulevard. This damage was caused by the lifting of the asphalt and concrete by adjacent tree roots, which, in turn, requires construction activities to be completed in the area surrounding these tree roots. To ensure that the requirements of the City’s tree policy are met, the project specifications provided to bidders prior to the submittal of bids, included specific language on restrictions related to construction adjacent to existing trees. In addition, the City Arborist will attend the pre-construction meeting to reinforce these requirements, and will also provide inspections during the project.

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The tentative project schedule is as follows:

Award: July 12, 2016 Start Construction: August 2016 Complete Construction: September 2016

CLAREMONT Page 2 of 3 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

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

Council Priorities - This item addresses the Council Priority addressing Infrastructure and transportation, by maintaining the City’s infrastructure through the curb, gutter, and pavement repairs.

Sustainability Plan - This item complies with the goals of Sustainability Plan Goal 4.2.3, to apply sustainability best practices to streets, parking lots, and landscaping.

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

General Plan - This item addresses Measure III-1, relating to the Capital Improvement Program of the General Plan, and furthers the goal to address phasing and construction of the City infrastructure and other City improvements listed as implementation measures of the General Plan.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the following Community Development Department Work Plan Goal CD-10: Provide adequate physical infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, sewers, and storm drainage facilities that provide adequate services to homes and businesses in the City.

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the Youth and Family Master Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

The Pavement Repair Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. This Class 1 exemption allows for the maintenance and repair of topographical features with negligible or no expansion. The project will perform maintenance work on existing infrastructure (asphalt, curb, and gutter). The work being performed is within existing right-of-way areas and will not expand the capacity of the roadway infrastructure.

None of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to the proposed project because the proposed project: (1) is not located in a uniquely sensitive environment; (2) is not located within a highway officially designated as a State scenic highway; (3) is not located on a hazardous waste site; (4) would not have a cumulative impact; and, (5) would not have a significant substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

Submitted by: Prepared by:

Brian Desatnik Enrique Villalobos Director of Community Development Assistant Engineer

CLAREMONT Page 3 of 3 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ 225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1610 Item No: 5.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: ROGER BRADLEY, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH INLAND URBAN FOREST GROUP FOR CONSULTING ARBORIST AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE

SUMMARY

The City currently contracts with Inland Urban Forest Group (IUFG) for staff augmentation services, including a consulting Arborist and general management support of the Community Services Department. At the current time, the City is actively recruiting for a full-time Arborist and Deputy Community Services Director, which makes the management support, provided by IUFG an important facet of department operations. The contract with Inland Urban Forest Group was for a term ending June 30, 2016. In order to continue to receive consultant assistance while the recruitment for these positions proceeds, the City will need to extend the contract term and increase the contract valuation.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Inland Urban Forest Group through September 30, 2016, and increase the agreement amount by $30,000, for a total agreement cost of $90,000.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

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

A. Refer the matter back to staff for additional information. B. Take no action.

CLAREMONT Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ FINANCIAL REVIEW

The contract amendment cost for Inland Urban Forest Group to perform staff augmentation services, including assistance with Interim Deputy Director of Community Services and Arborist duties will be for an amount not to exceed $90,000, which is an increase of $30,000 over the previously contracted amount. The previously contracted amount of $60,000 covered services through June 30, 2016. The additional $30,000 of the amended contract will cover services to the end of September 30, 2016. Funding for this contract is available in the current Community Services Department budget as a result of vacancies in the Deputy Director of Community Services and Arborist positions.

The average monthly cost of services through Inland Urban Forest Group is $13,400, which is similar to the maximum fully loaded (pension, taxes, and benefits) approved salary for the Deputy Director of Community Services, at approximately $13,500.

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $120, and is included in the operating budget of the Community Services Department.

ANALYSIS

The City of Claremont has an agreement with IUFG for arborist services. The arborist services provided relate to the ongoing drought, level II basic tree risk assessments that identify a tree’s general health and mitigation options, along with providing tree assessments in situations that are sensitive in nature. The services also involve collaboration with staff on the City’s urban forest.

At the City Council meeting on February 24, 2016, the City Council authorized staff to amend the contract with IUFG to provide the City with additional staff assistance for an Interim Community Service Director, while the City actively recruited to permanently fill this position. IUFG provided the City with the services of Mr. Dave Roger to assist the City as the Interim Director. Upon selection of the new Director, Mr. Roger has continued to provide staff services to the City during its recruitment to fill the newly created Deputy Director position. Additionally, Mr. Roger is fulfilling the responsibilities of the City Arborist, which was vacated in April 2016.

During the recruitment process for the new Deputy Director of Community Services and full-time Arborist, staff believes that it is important to continue to retain the staff assistance services of IUFG, and in particular the services of Mr. Roger. This will ensure that the Department’s workload is well managed and that there is adequate staff support available until the Deputy Director and Arborist positions are filled. Mr. Roger has experience in public works operations, and in addition to his current interim assignments, Mr. Roger previously worked for the City of Claremont from 1986-1993, where he served as the Assistant Director of Community Services and Acting Director of Community Services for a six (6) month period. Mr. Roger has also held the position of Urban Forester for the City of Riverside for ten years. Over the most recent ten years, Mr. Roger has provided consultant services for several public agencies on urban forest and arborist issues.

Mr. Roger’s strengths are related to urban forestry, where he has instructed and presented at seminars and conferences throughout California. He has also administered construction, landscape, and tree maintenance contracts for several cities. Staff believes that retaining the services of IUFG and Mr. Roger will help the Department during this time of staff transition as the City permanently seeks to fill department vacancies. The contract with IUFG expired on June 30, 2016, and staff recommends continuing to work with IUFG until both the Deputy Director and Arborist positions are CLAREMONT Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ recommends continuing to work with IUFG until both the Deputy Director and Arborist positions are filled.

The cost to continue to contract with IUFG will be offset by the salary savings included within the Operating Budget of the Department for Fiscal Year 2016-17. However, the City will need to extend the term of the Agreement from June 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016, allowing time for the recruitment process for both positions to proceed and come to a resolution. While the cost of the additional contract services will be offset by salary savings from the aforementioned staff vacancies, the contracted cost of the Agreement with IUFG will need to be increased by $30,000 to allow IUFG services to continue, per the previously approved contact limit. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment to the Agreement, extending the Agreement term to September 30, 2016, increasing the contract limit to $90,000, and clarifying that IUFG will continue to provide staff augmentation services to the City.

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

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

Council Priorities - This item does not address Council Priorities.

Sustainability Plan - This item does not relate to the Sustainability Plan.

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

General Plan - This item does not relate to Measures in the General Plan.

2016-18 Budget - This item does not relate to the 2016-18 Budget.

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

CEQA REVIEW

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed contract with Inland Urban Forest Group (IUFG) for up to the next three (3) months to include fulfillment of the duties of the Community Services Deputy Director is not a project under CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2),continued administrative activities for personnel-related actions are not CEQA projects. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) and Section 15061 (b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this action because there is no potential for causing a direct physical change in the environment or significant effect on the environment. Approval of the proposed agreement for personnel related services will not result in or lead to a physical change in Claremont. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

CLAREMONT Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ Submitted by:

Roger Bradley Community Services Director

Attachment: Amendment to Agreement

CLAREMONT Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAREMONT AND INLAND URBAN FOREST GROUP FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

ARTICLE 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (“Second Amendment”) dated as of the 12th day of July, 2016 is entered into by and between the City of Claremont (“City”) and Inland Urban Forest Group with its principal place of business at 10650 Deerfield Drive, Cherry Valley, CA 92223 (“Contractor”).

ARTICLE 2. RECITALS 2.1 City and Contractor entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement dated October 1, 2015 (“Agreement”), whereby Contractor agreed to provide the City with Arborist services.

2.2 City and Contractor executed an Amendment (“First Amendment”) to the Agreement on February 24, 2016, whereby Contractor agreed to provide services as the City’s Interim Director of Community Services.

2.3 City and Contractor now desire to amend the Agreement to include additional compensation, extend the term of the Agreement, and revise the Scope of Services to serve as the Interim Deputy Director of Community Services.

ARTICLE 3. TERMS 3.1 Section 3.12 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 3.12 to read as follows:

“3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other schedules and deadlines established by mutual agreement. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services.”

3.2 Exhibit A. Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby replaced with a new Exhibit A attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

3.3 Exhibit B. Exhibit B to the Agreement is hereby replaced with a new Exhibit B attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A-1 3.4 Exhibit C. Exhibit C to the Agreement is hereby replaced with a new Exhibit C attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.

3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment.

3.4 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

[signatures on next page]

A-2 CITY OF CLAREMONT INLAND URBAN FOREST GROUP

______By: ______City Manager Name: ______

Title: ______

Attest:

By: City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

By: Best Best & Krieger LLP City Attorney

10/06 P:\RBradley\SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.docx

A-3 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Assessment Services

The Inland Urban Forest Group proposes to reassess the trees identified in the condition report submitted in early 2015. The group of trees from that report will be identified as per city staff. We will perform a Level II Basic Tree Risk Assessment on the trees. This type of assessment is explained below.

We are qualified tree risk assessors under the new ISA tree risk assessment qualification (TRAQ). We will be using the ISA TRAQ form for each tree that we assess.

The information contained in the form includes:  Identification of the tree to be assessed.  Determination the target and target zone for each tree.  Review of site conditions.  Assessment of general tree health.  Inspection of the tree using the tree using binoculars, mallet, probes, and/or shovels.  Recording of observations of site conditions, defects, and outward signs of possible internal defects and response growth.  Analysis of data to determine the likelihood and consequences of failure to determine the degree of risk.  Development of mitigation options.

We will use a small trowel or shovel to excavate the soil surface to gain more information about the root zone if needed. More extensive excavations would require the use of an air spade at an additional cost.

If an aerial inspection of the tree crown is needed to determine defects and other conditions, the city would provide the equipment (aerial lift) and operator.

Sometimes it is necessary to collect samples for laboratory analysis, in which case, we would provide the city with a cost estimate for approval.

An overall assessment report for each group of trees will be submitted along with each TRAQ assessment form.

2. Interim Deputy Director of Community Services

To plan, direct, organize, supervise, and review the activities of the divisions comprising the Community Services Department, including street and sewer maintenance, central garage and warehouse, motor fleet maintenance, sanitation and urban forestry; and to

A-4 provide highly responsible and professional staff assistance to the Director of Community Services, City Manager, City Council, and commissions.

Example of Duties: Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Plan, schedule, coordinate, and direct work program involving street, traffic control, sidewalk and sewer maintenance, street lighting, custodial service, median island and tree maintenance, roadside weed abatement, motor fleet maintenance, central warehousing, refuse collection, recycling and street cleaning programs.

Direct, coordinate, and participate in the development and implementation of departmental goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and priorities, and provide staff leadership on policy planning for community service activities.

Prepare and administer the departmental budget and ensure the accomplishment of departmental objectives are met.

Resolve citizen complaints.

Serve as an advisor to the Director of Community Services, City Manager, City Council, and related commissions and committees on sanitation, maintenance and urban forest matters.

Coordinate departmental activities with other city departments and with appropriate governmental private firms, organizations, individuals, or agencies; and coordinate public relations activities concerning departmental services and operations.

Establish and maintain system procedures for the control and administration of outside contractors.

Direct and participate in special projects and in the preparation of complex reports; make presentations to the City Council, commissions, and other citizen committees.

Select, supervise, train, and evaluate professional, field operations, and clerical subordinates.

Assume duties of a disaster worker in the event of a locally declared emergency.

Perform related duties as assigned.

A-5

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF SERVICES

Assessments will be completed by September 30, 2016

Interim Deputy Director of Community Services will be completed by September 30, 2016 unless earlier terminated.

A-6

EXHIBIT C

COMPENSATION

Fee Schedule Level II Basic Tree Risk Assessment $150.00 per tree Overall Assessment Report for each group of trees $250.00 per report Interim Director of Community Services $80.00/hr

The total amount for the Level II Basic Tree Risk Assessment and Overall Assessment Report for each group of trees shall not to exceed $15,250

The total amount for the Interim Director of Community Services shall not exceed 90,000.

As needed services and hourly rates:

Tree Assessment $150.00

Principle Arborist: $175.00/hr

Lead Urban Arborist $125.00/hr

Associate Arborist $125.00/hr

A-7

225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1613 Item No: 6.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: BRIAN DESATNIK, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY TRAIN HORN ISSUES AND QUIET ZONES

SUMMARY

For the past several months, residents have expressed concerns about the Metrolink trains, and the louder horns being used as the trains approach rail crossing locations within the City. In response, staff and Metrolink representatives presented information to the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) at its June 23 meeting on the recent changes in train horn noise, the schedule for putting quieter train engines back into service, the establishment of quiet zones, and the Federal Train Horn Rule which is the Federal regulation that dictates the train horn sounding requirements when approaching at-grade crossings. Per the Federal Railroad Administration’s Notice of Safety Inquiry, the public currently has the opportunity to provide input on this Train Horn Rule, and request changes to the horn sounding requirements.

At the June 23 meeting, the TTC recommended that the City Council appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to address and study the train horn issues, particularly with respect to the establishment of a quiet zone in Claremont. Staff agrees that the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee would be beneficial in facilitating further study and discussion on the train horn issue, thereby addressing resident concerns. In addition to the formation of this committee, staff believes it would be advantageous to continue to pursue changes to the Federal Train Horn Rule, and work towards a reduction in the regulation standards which stipulate the volume and length of the train horn blasts when approaching rail crossings.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to: A. Work with the Chair of the Traffic and Transportation Commission in appointing an Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of three Commissioners and staff from the Community Development CLAREMONT Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ Committee, consisting of three Commissioners and staff from the Community Development Department, to study and prepare a report to the City Council on the installation of Quiet Zones at the City’s railroad crossings, including a detailed budget for safety measure installations at the crossings and analysis of liability issues, work with associated cities and local agencies on partnerships and cost sharing opportunities, and work as a liaison to community members on the issue of train horns and Quiet Zones; and B. Continue lobbying efforts to get revisions made to the Federal Train Horn Rule in an effort to decrease the train horn requirements associated with at-grade crossings.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

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

A. Do not form an Ad Hoc Committee at this time. B. Request additional information from staff.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $1,048, and is included in the operating budget of the Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

The staff report to the TTC on June 23 is attached to this report and provides information on the recent increase in Metrolink train horn noise, the process for the establishment of Quiet Zones, data on Quiet Zones in other cities in Southern California, potential liability issues to the City related to the establishment of a Quiet Zone, and the Federal Train Rule regulating how horns must be sounded at grade crossings.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is currently in the process of conducting a review of its locomotive train horn regulations, and has issued a “Notice of Safety Inquiry” regarding this review. Per Executive Order 13563, agencies (such as the FRA) are required to periodically conduct retrospective analyses of their existing rules to identify requirements that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal any problematic regulatory provisions identified during the review. As part of its review, the FRA has sought public comment on whether the FRA should modify, streamline, or expand any requirements of their locomotive train horn regulations. The public comment period ended on July 5, 2016, and the City of Claremont submitted a formal letter (see Attachment B) to the FRA regarding proposed changes to the Federal Train Horn Rule.

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

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

CLAREMONT Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ Council Priorities - This item applies to the Council Priority “Infrastructure and Transportation” by continuing efforts to add Quiet Zones to the city’s railroad crossings.

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

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

General Plan - This item applies to Measure I-23, Noise Regulations, “to protect residents from excessive noise levels” and Measure III-10 - Traffic Control, Safety and Maintenance at Intersections.

2016-18 Budget - This item meets the Community Development Department Work Plan Goal CP-1, “Implement applicable items on the City Council Priority List”, and, CD-11 “Monitor and evaluate traffic circulation throughout the community to ensure that a safe and efficient traffic system is provided.”

Youth and Family Master Plan - This item does not apply to the Youth and Family Master Plan.

CEQA REVIEW

This matter is covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines. The research and review of the Metrolink train horns, quiet zone procedures and the Federal Train Rule will not in itself have a significant effect on the environment, because the research and review will not result in or lead to a physical change in the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time. In the future, should action be taken based on the research and review of these issues the City will assess whether additional environmental review is necessary.

COMMISSION REVIEW

The TTC reviewed the Metrolink train horn item at its June 23, 2016 meeting. This meeting was well- attended, with approximately 140 people in the audience. In addition to City staff, representatives from Metrolink were in attendance to address the residents’ comments and questions regarding the recent changes to the train horns (see attached TTC minutes, Attachment C).

A significant amount of public comment was received on this item. The general consensus from the residents who spoke was: (1) the train horns are significantly impacting their quality of life; and, (2) it is important to move the Quiet Zone process forward more expeditiously. Residents expressed concern that, if Quiet Zones are to be implemented in conjunction with the Gold Line construction, these zones would not be established until the construction is completed (potentially 2023 - 2025).

The TTC recommended that a special committee on train noise and crossing safety be formed to create a plan for the installation of Quiet Zones at the city’s railroad crossings, prepare a detailed budget for safety measure installations at the crossings, work with associated cities and local agencies on partnerships and cost sharing opportunities, and work as a liaison to community members on the issue of train horns and Quiet Zones.

CLAREMONT Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

Submitted by: Prepared by:

Brian Desatnik Loretta Mustafa Director of Community Development City Engineer

Attachments: A - 6/23/16 Traffic and Transportation Commission Staff Report B - Federal Train Horn Rule - City Comment Letter C - 6/23/16 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes

CLAREMONT Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ Traffic and Transportation Commission Item No.: __2___ Agenda Report

TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

FROM: LORETTA MUSTAFA, CITY ENGINEER

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016

SUBJECT: METROLINK TRAIN HORN ISSUES, QUIET ZONES AND THE FEDERAL TRAIN HORN RULE

SUMMARY

For the past several months, residents have expressed concerns about the Metrolink trains, and the louder horns being used as the trains approach rail crossing locations within the City. Staff has been requested to provide information on a number of issues concerning the train horns, including (a) the reason behind the sudden changes in the volume of the horns; (b) the length of time that these louder train horns will be in effect; (c) the possible means by which the noise levels may be reduced; and (d) the possibility of the implementation of a quiet zone through the City of Claremont.

To address these concerns, staff has contacted Metrolink and obtained information on the recent changes involving the train horns, and the future plans to reduce the noise level associated with the horns. In addition, staff has completed additional research on the quiet zone requirements, and the Federal Train Rule (which is the federal regulation which dictates the train horn sounding requirements when approaching at-grade crossings).

This item is being brought before the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) to provide a comprehensive update on the train horn matters, the establishment of quiet zones, and potential changes to the Federal Train Rule. The Commission meeting has been widely advertised to encourage public participation in this meeting, and to allow Claremont residents a chance to provide comments and ask questions on this matter.

In consideration of the options available to address the overall train horn concerns, staff believes that the most promising approach is the pursuit of a change to the Federal Train Rule. By revising this Federal Rule, the requirements for the train horns could be lessened, which could possibly result in a decrease in the volume and length of horn blasts, etc. for trains when approaching at-grade crossings.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Direct staff to focus on working towards a revision to the Federal Train Horn Rule, in an effort to decrease the train horn requirements associated with at-grade crossings.

Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 2

2. Direct staff to provide an update to the TTC and City Council on the Quiet Zone / Federal Train Horn Rule issues once a decision has been made on both the Gold Line project funding as well as the Train Rule.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Request additional information from staff.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $1,300 and is included in the operating budget of the Community Development Department.

ANALYSIS

In response to concerns expressed by residents in relation to the Metrolink train horns, staff is bringing this item before the TTC to provide clarification on the recent changes made to the horns, the process for quiet zone establishment, and the review of the Federal Train Rule. Bringing this information before the TTC also provides a public forum in which Claremont citizens can ask questions and provide comments on this matter.

The outline for the topics addressed in the staff report is as follows:

1. Recent increase in Metrolink train horn noise.

2. Quiet Zones – Definition, methods to establish quiet zones, installation of Supplemental Safety Measures, anticipated costs associated with a Claremont quiet zone, process required to establish a quiet zone, the establishment of quiet zones in other cities, and liability issues associated with quiet zones.

3. Federal Train Horn Rule – Definition and recent public input process to evaluate the Train Rule.

Recent Increase in Metrolink Train Horn Noise

Metrolink has provided the following background information on the reasons for the increased train horn noise and the duration that these louder horns will be in effect (also see Metrolink Fact Sheet, Attachment A). Staff from Metrolink will be in attendance at the TTC meeting to respond to questions regarding this information.

1. Beginning in December 2015, Metrolink has been leasing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) locomotives to be used in conjunction with the Metrolink engines.

2. The BNSF locomotives are being used for safety purposes, in response to the February 24, 2015 Metrolink accident in Oxnard. This is considered a temporary safety action.

Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 3

3. The BNSF trains use a different type of horn (five-chime) that produces a different noise than those associated with the Metrolink trains. These horns are located higher on the engine and are louder than the previous Metrolink horns.

4. The BNSF engines are anticipated to be completely replaced at the end of their one- year lease in December 2016, and will be replaced by the new Tier 4 clean locomotives.

5. Metrolink has been looking at ways to reduce the impact of the BNSF horns, including train set reconfiguration and horn reconfiguration or movement. This has resulted in the reduction in the BNSF horn blasts from the early morning trains.

In consideration of the current conditions with the increased train horn noise, as noted above, the anticipated date for the change-out of the BNSF locomotives is November / December 2016. Staff will continue to work with Metrolink, in the interim period, to explore all available options to address the reduction of the excessive volume of the train horns to lessen the impacts to the Claremont citizens.

Quiet Zone Establishment

Staff has received a number of inquiries regarding the possible implementation of a quiet zone in the City of Claremont, including the process, timeline, and costs for this zone. Information regarding the different aspects involved with creating a quiet zone is provided below.

What is a Quiet Zone?

A quiet zone is a segment of rail line where locomotive horns are not routinely sounded while the train approaches the public highway/rail grade crossings within the corridor. The minimum length of a quiet zone is ½ mile. In Claremont, the quiet zone would need to include all four rail crossings in the City to be effective: Claremont Boulevard, College Avenue, Indian Hill Boulevard, and Cambridge Avenue.

How are Quiet Zones established?

Federal regulations dictate the requirements on the establishment of quiet zones. In order for a quiet zone to qualify under these regulations, it must be shown that the lack of the train horns does not present a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury, or that the significant risk has been compensated for by other means. In consideration of these requirements, one of the following conditions must be met:

a. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is less than or equal to the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold; or b. The Quiet Zone Risk Index is less than or equal to the Risk Index with horns; or c. Supplementary Safety Measures must be installed at every public highway/rail crossing.

Of the above three options, the installation of Supplementary Safety Measures is widely considered as the best method to ensure that risks are reduced in a proposed quiet zone. This Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 4

is the typical method used to established quiet zones, and would be the option utilized at the Claremont crossings.

Installation of Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) to Qualify for a Quiet Zone

Supplementary Safety Measures are pre-approved, risk-reduction, engineering treatments installed at certain public highway/rail crossings within the quiet zone, and can help maximize safety benefits and minimize risk. SSMs include the following measures:

1. Temporary Closure of a Public Highway/Rail Grade Crossing

Close the crossing to traffic during designated quiet periods.

2. Four-Quadrant Gate System

Gates that fully block highway traffic from entering the crossing when the gates are lowered, including at least one gate for each direction of traffic on each approach (see Attachment B for schematic of Quad Gates).

3. Gates with Medians or Channelization Devices

Install medians or channelization devices on both highway approaches to a public highway/rail grade crossing, denying the highway user the option of circumventing the approach lane gates by switching into the opposing (oncoming) traffic lane and driving around the lowered gates to cross the track.

Medians or channelization devices must extend at least 100 feet from the gate arm, or if there is an intersection within 100 feet of the gate, the median or channelization device must extend at least 60-feet from the gate arm.

Intersections within 60 feet of the gate arm must be closed or relocated. Driveways to private residential properties (up to four units) within 60 feet of the gate would not be considered an intersection.

Extended median installations at several of the Claremont crossings may prove difficult based on the proximity of adjacent intersections and driveways.

4. One-Way Street with Gate(s)

Gates must be installed such that all approaching highway lanes to the public highway/rail grade crossing are completely blocked.

This SSM is not applicable in Claremont.

Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 5

5. Permanent Closure of a Public Highway/Rail Grade Crossing

This would require the permanent closure of the street at the railroad approach.

It should be noted that, for consideration of a quiet zone, each public highway street crossing must be equipped with active warning devices: Flashing lights, gates, constant warning timing devices, and power-out indicators.

Anticipated Cost of a Quiet Zone in Claremont

Based on standard construction costs associated with the various SSM installations, along with a review of costs for SSMs constructed in cities where quiets zones have already been implemented (discussed further below in this staff report), the installation of SSMs in Claremont are estimated to cost approximately $4 million dollars.

Quiet Zone Process

Quiet zones may only be requested through a public authority, which is the public entity responsible for the street at the crossing location – typically the local jurisdiction (City or County). The following is an outline of the process to be followed in the implementation of a quiet zone:

The public authority (City of Claremont) must:

1. Meet the minimum quiet zone requirements, including a ½ mile length of railroad right- of-way.

2. Conduct diagnostic team evaluation of all public, pedestrian, and private rail grade crossings that provide access to the public, to analyze and evaluate each crossing within the proposed quiet zone. The diagnostic team evaluation may also involve participation from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), all railroads operating over the public highway/rail grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone, Metro, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Federal Railroad Administration.

3. Provide written Notice of Intent to create a new quiet zone to the SCRRA, all railroads operating over the public highway/rail grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone, Metro, the CPUC, and Federal Railroad Administration.

4. Submit all required applications to CPUC for alterations to existing crossings and obtain approval of the project work.

5. Execute all appropriate agreements.

6. Construct all SSMs at each crossing location.

7. Provide written Notice of Establishment of the new quiet zone to the SCRRA, all railroads operating over the public highway/rail grade crossing within the proposed quiet Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 6

zone, Metro, the CPUC, and the Federal Railroad Administration.

Quiet Zone Establishment in Neighboring Cities

There have been several quiet zones which have been established in Southern California cities in recent years. Residents have asked how it is possible that these zones are being implemented elsewhere, and how other cities have met the funding needs to install the necessary safety measures to qualify for the quiet zone establishment.

Staff has researched the recent zones established in neighboring cities, the costs associated with these zones, and the funding sources available to these cities. The table below provides a summary of this research.

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) QUIET ZONES

Amount Paid by OCTA Number of Total (88% funded through Cost to City City Funding City Crossings Cost Measure M2) (12% Match) Source(s) Anaheim 14 $16.33M $14.38M $1.96M Unknown Dana Point 1 $2.15M $1.89M $258K General Funds Irvine 1 $4.4M $3.87M $528K Unknown Orange 16 $32.5M $28.6M $3.9M RDA Funds San Clemente 2 $2.03M $1.79M $244K Unknown San Juan 5 $9.17M $8.07M $1.1M CIP Funds Capistrano Santa Ana 3 19.17M $16.87M $2.3M Unknown Tustin 1 $2.39M $2.1M $287K Gas Tax

NON OCTA QUIET ZONES Number of Cost to City Crossings City City Funding Source(s) Gas Tax, City Capital Improvement Projects, Measure R, Glendale 3 $14M San Fernando Shared Tax City of Industry 3 $3M General Fund (2007-13)

As shown above, the Orange County Transportation Authority partnered with eight cities to implement the $85 million program for the installation of quiet zones in these cities. The program was funded through Measure M2, the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Orange County. Cities were responsible for only 12% of the cost of improvements.

Liability Concerns

Liability is a key policy issue which must be considered with the establishment of quiet zones. Quiet zone occurrences are a significant concern in light of the scope of potential damages from a rail accident. Without quiet zones, the responsibility for railroad crossing safety lies with Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 7

the operating railroad company. If a city takes action to establish a quiet zone and eliminate horn blasts, the city will likely be required to take on some of the associated liability.

The SCRRA has issued quiet zone implementation guidelines and procedures for all quiet zones affecting the Metrolink trains (Attachment C). Within these procedures, the SCRRA requires that public authorities who establish quiet zones indemnify the SCRRA (and all its member agencies) for incidents related to the establishment and operation of a quiet zone at highway/rail grade crossings.

Staff has contacted the Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) regarding liability concerns, and to request information on the City’s insurance coverage related to the quiet zones. The JPIA has indicated that they do not cover any claims, suits, liability, etc. resulting from the implementation of a quiet zone. The City would be required to pursue the purchase of additional insurance coverage with respect to the quiet zone establishment, the cost of which is not known at this time.

Additional Notes on Quiet Zones

It should be noted that, even in a quiet zone, train horns may be sounded in emergency situations or to comply with other railroad or Federal Railroad Administration rules. For instance, the train crew may sound horns in situations where they are aware that the crossing warning devices (lights, bells, and gates) are malfunctioning, or in cases where there are railroad or contract employees working on or near the tracks, or if (in the engineer’s sole judgment) blowing the horn is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury, death, or property damage.

Additionally, the establishment of a quiet zone in Claremont would not eliminate the train horns from being sounded just outside our city limits. For instance, westbound trains approaching Towne Avenue would be required to sound their horn 15 seconds before the Towne Avenue crossing, (as there is not an established quiet zone in the city of Pomona at this location) which would continue to be heard by Claremont residents on the westerly edge of the city.

Potential Quiet Zone Implementation in Claremont

In order for a quiet zone to be established in Claremont, several steps would need to be taken to qualify for the zone. This would involve a diagnostic team evaluation and construction of SSMs at each of the four railroad crossings in the City, along with the notification procedures outlined above. Additionally, a policy decision will need to be made by the City Council in terms of the potential liability issues.

The costs for the construction of the SSMs at Claremont’s grade crossings are estimated at $4 million. The City does not have an available funding source to pay for these improvements. Funding for these improvements will need to be identified through a source outside the City’s General Fund. One possible funding source for the construction of the SSMs would be the upcoming Gold Line light rail project.

With the proposed Phase 2B Gold Line construction, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Page 8

Authority has committed to installing quad gates at each at-grade crossing in the City of Claremont, with the funding to be provided by the Gold Line as part of the project. The construction schedule for the Gold Line (and the installation of the quad gates) is dependent on the availability of funding for the project. The potential funding source for Phase 2B is contingent upon the passage of the upcoming November 2016 sales tax ballot measure (referred to as “Measure R2”). If this November ballot measure is approved, funding for the Gold Line will be confirmed, and the quad gate improvements required for the quiet zone will be constructed as part of the Gold Line construction.

In light of the pending ballot measure to fund the Gold Line project, which will include the infrastructure required to submit a quiet zone application, staff is recommending that the strategy and evaluation of issues related to the establishment of a Quiet Zone in Claremont be considered following the November ballot.

In the case that the November ballot measure does not pass, then the establishment of the quiet zone would not have an identified funding source.

In the case that the November ballot measure passes, the City will then continue to research the implementation of the quiet zone. As mentioned above, the implementation of a quiet zone in Claremont will require further research on the liability impacts associated with this zone. The City Council would need to commit to assuming the potential liability prior to taking the first steps in establishing a quiet zone.

Federal Train Rule

The federal regulations concerning the sounding of train horns is officially known as the Federal Railroad Administration’s Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway/Rail Grade Crossings (“Federal Train Horn Rule”), and became effective on June 24, 2005. These regulations were established to provide for safety at public highway/rail grade crossings, and generally require locomotive horn use at such crossings except within authorized quiet zones.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations require that engineers sound their locomotive horns while approaching public grade crossings. In general, the regulations require locomotive engineers to sound the train horn for a minimum of 15 seconds, and a maximum of 20 seconds, in advance of public grade crossings (but not more than ¼ mile in advance). Engineers must also sound the train horn in a standardized pattern of two long, one short, and one long blast and the horn must continue to sound until the lead locomotive or train car occupies the grade crossing. Additionally, the minimum sound level for the locomotive horn is 96 decibels (dB(A)), while the maximum sound level is 110 decibels (dB(A)).

Notice of Safety Inquiry

expand, or repeal any problematic regulatory provisions identified during the review. The FRA has indicated that their current review is needed to: (1) Ensure the regulatory burden associated with the Train Rule is not excessive; (2) clarify the application of existing requirements and remove requirements that are no longer necessary; and (3) keep pace with emerging technology, changing operational realities, and safety concerns.

As part of its review, the FRA is soliciting public comment on whether the FRA should modify, streamline, or expand any requirements of their locomotive train horn regulations. The Notice of Safety Inquiry lists the specific topics as “areas on which FRA would particularly encourage the rail industry, as well as State and local authorities to provide comment”. A full list of the topics of inquiry is listed on Attachment D, with some of these topics shown below.

Public Comment Requests from FRA

 How can the FRA decrease the barriers local communities encounter when establishing a quiet zone?

 What further actions can the FRA take to mitigate train horn noise impacts for local communities while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians?

 How can the FRA change how train horns are sounded at grade crossings while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians?

 How should the FRA address safety measures that no longer meet the requirements for Supplementary Safety Measures and Alternative Safety Measures?

With the issuance of this Notice of Safety Inquiry, staff believes it is important to focus our efforts on pursuing changes to this Federal Rule. The impacts of the train horns on cities and counties nationwide are directly related to the requirements outlined in the Federal Train Rule. A possible decrease in the strict regulations would serve to improve quality of life issues for those impacted by the volume and length of train horns approaching grade crossings. While it is understood that the Train Horn Rule was established to address safety measures and decrease train accidents and derailments, staff believes that changes can be made to the Federal Rule which would serve to reduce the excessive horn sounding requirements, while at the same time maintaining safety measures for trains, vehicles, and pedestrians within the railroad zone.

Staff’s intent would be to prepare and submit a formal comment letter to the FRA requesting changes to the Train Rule to lessen the current restrictions. Staff would also pursue advocacy efforts to encourage federal decision makers to consider these changes to the Train Rule to reduce the impacts associated with the train horns.

CEQA REVIEW

The Community Development Director has determined that this matter is covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in accordance with Section Traffic and Transportation Commission June 23, 2016 Pa e 10

15061 (b)(3) of the Guidelines. The review of the Metrolink train horns, quiet zone procedures and the Federal Train Rule will not in itself have a significant effect on the environment, because the review will not result in or lead to a physical change in Claremont. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies are available at the City Hall public counter, the Claremont Public Library, Alexander Hughes Community Center, the Youth Activity Center, and the City's website. In addition, notification of the meeting has been sent to all property owners/residents located in the area of the City bounded by Harrison Avenue, Arrow Highway, the west city limit line and the east city limit line. Notice of the meeting has also been advertised in the Claremont Courier and posted on the City website.

Attachments: A- Metrolink Fact Sheet B - Quad Gate Diagrams C - SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures D- Notice of Safety Inquiry- Public comment requests from FRA FAQs about BNSF Locomotives on Metrolink Trains

Why is Metrolink adding BNSF locomotives to trains? The Metrolink Board of Directors took this temporary, proactive safety action out of an abundance of caution while the National Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation into the February 2015 Oxnard incident.

How long will the BNSF locomotives operate on Metrolink's system? The initial year lease ends in November 2016.

What are Tier 4 locomotives? These are the cleanest diesel locomotives available. They meet the EPA's most stringent emissions standards. Metrolink has ordered 40 new Tier 4 locomotives which will be arriving starting in the Fall of this year. For more information, please visit www.metrolinktrains.com/tier4.

Are the BNSF locomotives louder than Metrolink locomotives? There is a different type of horn- called a five chime- that will produce a different noise than people are accustomed to hearing on Metrolink trains. It projects sound in more directions. The horn is also located higher on the engine. This means the horn sounds louder and more people may hear the train than usual. We apologize for the inconvenience the freight train horns may cause as they are temporarily on our system. While the horns do sound louder, they are within federal guidelines for train horns.

Can you turn down the volume of the horns or make them quieter? We cannot adjust the volume on the train horns. Because these locomotives are leased, there are specific guidelines within the contract that Metrolink is communicating with BNSF to confirm resolution options. Metrolink is working to change the configuration of its early trains to provide some relief to the louder horns in the earliest morning hours.

Do you have to blow the horn? How often? Why do these horns have to blow so early or late? Except in the case of areas with quiet zones, Metrolink is federally-mandated to blow the train horns in advance of crossings for safety purposes. Usually engineers are required to blow the horn as they approach the crossing until the train reaches the crossing- that can be about 20 seconds. Because we operate trains between 4 a.m. to 11 p.m., unfortunately there will be train horns blown.

What is a quiet zone? A quiet zone is a section of a rail line at least one-half mile in length that contains one or more consecutive public highway-rail grade crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded when trains are approaching the crossings. Metrolink partners with communities wishing to establish quiet zones and can help them navigate the Federal Railroad Administration's process.

In 2014 Metrolink said the horns would be modified. Why have they been much louder lately? In 2014 we modified the horns of other locomotives. These are not the same locomotives. The horns you are referencing now are from newly-leased BNSF locomotives. We cannot eliminate the BNSF horns at this time, but plan on having them out of service by November when the lease ends.

Is the engineer blowing the horn longer on purpose? The engineer is not purposely blowing the horn longer. Because these are different horns positioned higher on the locomotive, there is a possibility the horn is just heard from farther distances away.

Who should I contact if I have complaints? If you have additional feedback, you can either call (800) 371-5465 or submit a feedback form online at www.metrolinktrains.com/help. MET.ROLINK Tr a ins To Be Te mpo.rarily Powered By Freight Locomotives

BRIEF OVERVIEW

Some Metrolink trains are now being powered by BNSF locomotives. As a part of Metrolink's commitment to safety and reliability, Metrolink temporarily leased 40 BNSF locomotives while the National Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation into the Oxnard incident that occurred in February 2015. BNSF locomotives look and sound different than Metrolink locomotives. This fact sheet will give you more information about the BNSF locomotives.

We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for your patience as we work to operate the safest trains possible.

BENEFITS OF BNSF lOCOMOTIVES:

• BNSF locomotives are more powerful and cleaner than most of Metrolink's locomotives. • BNSF locomotives are newer and will reduce delays caused by mechanical issues associated with Metrolink's aging locomotive fleet. • BNSF locomotives are equipped with life-saving Positive Train Control Technology.

SYSTEM-WIDE IMPACTS:

• Appearance- The locomotives are bright orange and have 'BNSF' on the side. • Sounds- The freight horns are positioned higher than the traditional Metrolink horns projecting the noise farther. The freight horns are configured differently. They have five chimes vs three chimes, which means they broadcast sound in more directions. The horns are tested to ensure they do not exceed federal regulations. • Operations - There will be increased noise and operations activity at Metrolink maintenance facilities. Metrolink will work to reduce the impact to communities and businesses near the maintenance facilities when possible.

If you have additional feedback, you can either call {800} 371-5465 or submit a feedback form online at www.metrolinktrains.com/help. ATTACHMENT B

QUAD GATES ATTACHMENT C

...... EIR.CILINI<.

Bouthorn Cnhto nua R o gto nnl Rtul Autho nty SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures

SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures Exhibit "A"

1.0 GENERAL

a. Public authority is defined as the public entity(s) having the responsibility for traffic control or law enforcement at the public highway-rail grade or pedestrian crossing.

b. Public authority shall comply with the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) "Final Rule" and requirements set forth in the Federal Register 49 CFR Parts 222, "Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings", for the creation of quiet zones. The Final Rule is available on FRA's web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Paqe/P01 05

c. Public authority shall submit all documentations to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) as required by §222.

d. Public authority shall establish a quiet zone either based on public authority designation [§222.39(a)] or public authority application [§222.39(b)].

e. If a proposed quiet zone includes public grade crossings under the authority and control of more than one public authority, both public authorities must agree to establishment of the quiet zone, and must jointly, or by delegation, take such actions as are required under the Rule. [§222.37(a).]

f. Public authorities are encouraged to contact and work with SCRRA and other affected parties from the beginning of the planning of the quiet zone to the end of construction for the railroad issues affecting SCRRA operated and maintained services.

g. SCRRA agrees to cooperate with public authorities for the establishment of quiet zones and quiet zone related activities.

2.0 PUBLIC AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILTIES

The requirements outlined in Section 2.1 through 2.10 of these quiet zone procedures represent SCRRA's policies as to the responsibility of public authorities in the implementation of quiet zones.

2.1 General Requirements

a. Meet the minimum quiet zone requirements mentioned in §222.35, including the minimum length of the proposed quiet zone of one-half mile along the length of railroad right-of-way. Public authority shall include all highway-rail grade crossings (public, private and pedestrian) in the proposed quiet zone.

SCRRA Page 1 February 2013 Soul horn Cnltfon"ln Rogtonnl Rnd Aulhcwf1y SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures b. Obtain prior FRA approval of the use of Engineering Alternate Safety Measures (ASMs) and modified Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs). · The public authority shall obtain FRA approval of the use of Non-Engineering ASMs and also conduct field studies to obtain baseline violation rates before and after implementation of Non-Engineered ASMs as per Section II, Appendix B, Part §222.

c. Conduct diagnostic team evaluation meetings of all public, pedestrian and private highway-rail grade crossings that provide access to the public, or which provide access to active industrial or commercial sites, and are located in the proposed quiet zone. The public authority shall provide SCRRA, all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone (Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad and/or BNSF Railway Company), affected SCRRA member agency or agencies, the State agency responsible for highway and road safety and the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety (the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC]) an opportunity to participate in the diagnostic team reviews of all crossings located in the proposed quiet zones. The diagnostic team should analyze and evaluate each crossing within the proposed quiet zone as per Appendix F, Part §222. The crossings shall be equipped or treated in accordance with the recommendations of the diagnostic team. SCRRA expressly reserves the right to comment on and/or object to the FRA and/or the CPUC on any aspect, including the extent of the proposed quiet zone, the selection of improvements by the public authority or the design thereof, if in its judgment the proposed quiet zone, or any aspect thereof, will result in a reduction of safety within the zone.

d. Submit all required applications to CPUC for alterations to existing crossings and obtain approval of the project work.

e. Execute Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Agreements prepared and submitted by SCRRA for quiet zone improvements including railroad construction.

f. Make any and all necessary non-railroad related improvements at no cost to SCRRA.

g. Install advance warning signs conforming to the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that advises the motorist that train horns are not sounded at each highway approach to every public and private highway-rail grade crossing within a quiet zone, pursuant to §222.35(c). Install additional warning signs elsewhere within the proposed quiet zone, at locations other than highway-rail grade crossings as may be recommended by the diagnostic team, advising pedestrians or others that train horns are not sounded within the quiet zone.

h. Conduct a periodic review on a schedule determined by C&M agreement among the public authority, SCRRA, CPUC, and other affected parties, after completion of the construction and the establishment of the quiet zone. These reviews will be conducted in the field and will consider any changes, together with any future improvements or developments that may have or will affect the qualification of the quiet zone. Should additional railroad improvements be required in order to maintain the proposed quiet zone, the public authority shall reimburse SCRRA for any additional costs associated with said improvements.

SCRRA Page2 February 2013 ~-- Southorn Cal•forn•n RIOQtorlnl R.nd Authat·aty SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures

i. For quiet zones implemented with an SSM at each public crossing, affirm, pursuant to §222.47(a), in writing to FRA and SCRRA that the SSMs implemented within the proposed quiet zones continue to conform to the requirements of Appendix A, Part §222 and provide an up-to-date, accurate and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public, private and pedestrian crossing within the proposed quiet zone, between 4% and 5 years after the date of the quiet zone establishment notice, and between 4% and 5 years after the last affirmation. Public authority shall affirm, pursuant to §222.47(b), in writing to FRA and SCRRA that the proposed quiet zones which do not have SSMs at each crossing continue to confirm to the requirements of Appendix A and B, Part §222 and provide an up-to-date, accurate and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public, private and pedestrian crossing within the proposed quiet zone, between 2% and 3 years after the date of the proposed quiet zone establishment notice, and between 2% and 3 years after the last affirmation.

2.2 Submittals

a. Conduct new traffic and queuing studies as may be required to reflect current conditions as of the date of initiation of the project, as well as a separate pedestrian study if necessary to include in its evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed quiet zone on pedestrian safety, for each crossing that is located within the proposed quiet zone and for unsecured pedestrian access points within the proposed quiet zone. The purpose of these studies is to complete an accurate and current Grade Crossing Inventory form for each crossing, and to enable the diagnostic team to assess current and future conditions at each crossing. All such studies and reports shall be promptly provided to SCRRA and CPUC for review and comments.

b. Prepare Preliminary Design (30% Design) for the selected crossings and unsecured pedestrian access points and submit them to SCRRA for review, comments and approval. This Preliminary Design will form a basis for diagnostic team evaluation meetings. Public authority shall submit the following information and forms to SCRRA with the Preliminary Design:

• An accurate, complete and current U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA Form No. F6180.71. This form is available of FRA's web site at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Forms.aspx. SCRRA will assist the public authority by providing updated railroad information required by the Form.

• Detailed information as to which Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) as per Appendix A, Part §222 and Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) as per Appendix B, Part §222 (ASMs are Modified SSMs, Non-Engineering ASMs and Engineering ASM's) are proposed to be implemented at each public or private highway-rail grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone.

c. Revise and resubmit Final Design (1 00% Design) and obtain a letter of approval from all affected jurisdictions.

SCRRA Page 3 February 2013 I'V'IEIR Cl Ll N 1<.

Soul horn C-alita.-n•G Ragtonnl R~ul AulhOf'rt)' SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures 2.3 Quiet Zone Notices

a. Provide written Notice of Intent (by certified mail, return receipt requested) of its intent [§222.43] to create a new quiet zone to SCRRA, all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone, the State agency responsible for highway and road safety and the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety. The Notice of Intent shall include the information shown in Exhibit "8". Public authority is encouraged to prepare the Notice of Intent after consultation with SCRRA and after conducting diagnostic team evaluation meetings.

b. Provide written Notice of Establishment (by certified mail, return receipt requested) of its determination [§222.43] to establish a new quiet zone to SCRRA, all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone, the State agency responsible for highway and road safety and the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety. The Notice of Establishment shall include the information shown in Exhibit "C". The public authority shall send the Notice of Establishment to all affected jurisdictions after completion of the construction of improvements at all highway-rail grade crossings and other locations in the proposed quiet zone, including the owner of any private crossing included within the Quiet Zone.

2.4 Reimbursements

a. Pay for all the cost of environmental or permitting documentation, preliminary and final engineering, construction, maintenance and replacement services of any new equipment or facilities at all highway-rail grade crossings to meet quiet zone requirements.

b. Pay in advance an estimated amount of all costs related to review, coordination and flagging to SCRRA for in-house personnel and/or consultants retained by SCRRA. The original estimated costs would not be the upper limit of the costs but provide a guideline for budgeting purposes. Regardless, all costs incurred by SCRRA during design plan review process shall be fully recoverable from the public authority.

c. Reimburse SCRRA the actual costs and expenses incurred by SCRRA (less funds previously deposited), including any provisional overhead rates representing SCRRA's costs for administration and management, and its contractors and consultants for all services and work performed in connection with the proposed quiet zones.

2.5 Construction

a. Proceed with the non-railroad related improvements when SCRRA and CPUC approve the construction of the project.

b. Comply with the rules and regulations contained in the current editions of the following SCRRA documents during the construction of the project. The SCRRA agreements and forms are available on SCRRA's website.

• Indemnification Agreement (SCRRA Form No. 5)

SCRRA Page 4 February 2013 ...... EIR.ClLINI< ..

Boulhnrn C~;~l1forn1o. RoRionnl Rntl AallhOflly SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures • Temporary Right-of-Entry agreement (SCRRA Form No.6}, • Rules and Requirements for Construction on Railroad Property (SCRRA Form No. 37}, • General Safety Regulations for Construction/Maintenance Activity on Railway Property, and • Applicable SCRRA Engineering Standards.

2.6 Maintenance

Pay SCRRA the cost of maintenance of any additions, improvements and/or modifications to any active highway-rail grade crossing warning system necessary for the implementation of the proposed quiet zone as per terms and conditions included in the C&M agreement. As an example, if a crossing within a proposed quiet zone requires an upgrade from two gates to four (quad gates), SCRRA will continue to pay the cost of maintenance of the original two gates, and the public authority will reimburse SCRRA for annual maintenance on the additional two gates. The maintenance costs shall include inspections, testing, repairs, replacements, damage, third party utilities, and upgrades. The annual cost of maintenance of the active highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be as determined by SCRRA, based on its annual survey of the maintenance cost of the system.

2.7 New Technologies

Reimburse SCRRA's cost of installation of technologically superior and more reliable equipment in the future to replace existing equipment that is obsolete. Such reimbursement shall be limited to the cost of such installations serving the equipment and facilities required to establish the quiet zone.

2.8 Indemnifications

a. Indemnify, defend and hold harmless SCRRA, member agencies [the five-county SCRRA member agencies are comprised of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA"}, Ventura County Transportation Commission ("VCTC"), Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA"), San Bernardino Associated Governments ("SANBAG"), and Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC")], Operating Railroads ["Operating Railroads" means any passenger or freight-related railroad company(s) operating on SCRRA track(s), including the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF)], as well as their respective board members, member agencies, officers, agents, volunteers, contractors, and employees ("SCRRA lndemnitees") from any and all liability, loss, expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees and other defense costs), demands, suits, liens, damages, costs, claims, including but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage, that are incurred by or asserted against the SCRRA lndemnitees arising out of or connected with any negligent acts or omissions on the part of public authority, its council, officers, agents, contractors, or employees under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to public authority related to establishment and operation of a quiet zones at highway-rail grade crossings.

SCRRA PageS February 2013 ...... ,EIR.ClLINI<. ~ Southorn Cnlllon11n Rogtonnl Rnll--- Authl.K-tty SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures b. PUBLIC AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT BY ESTABLISHING A QUIET ZONE IT IS DIRECTING ALL RAILROADS OPERATING WITHIN THE QUIET ZONE TO CEASE THE SOUNDING OF LOCOMOTIVE HORNS WITHIN THE QUIET ZONE, EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER §222.23.

2.9 Insurance

Obtain and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in full force and effect during the construction of the improvements for the proposed quiet zone, general and railroad protective insurance as required by SCRRA in the amounts, coverage, and terms and conditions specified, and issued by insurance companies as described in the Temporary Right-of-Entry Agreement (SCRRA Form No. 6).

2.1 0 SCRRA Contact

Submit all written communications related to proposed quiet zones to the following at

SCRRA:

Ms. Patricia Watkins Assistant Director, Public Projects Southern California Regional Rail Authority 279 E. Arrow Highway, Suite 101 San Dimas, CA 91773 Phone: (909) 592-7937 E-mail: [email protected]

3.0 SCRRA RESPONSIBILITIES

a. SCRRA shall review Preliminary and Final Designs submitted by public authority at the expense of the public authority.

b. SCRRA shall participate in diagnostic team evaluation meetings arranged by public authority as per §222.25(b )§222.27(b ), and section 2.1 (c) of these guidelines and procedures.,

c. SCRRA shall prepare, submit and execute a C&M Agreement between SCRRA and public authority for alterations to the highway-rail grade crossings located in the proposed quiet zone. This agreement will include detailed work description; method of payment; responsibility for design, construction, funding and maintenance; cost estimates of railroad design, construction, maintenance, inspection and flagging work; form, duration and amount of insurance; and liability at the public, private, and pedestrian crossings.

d. SCRRA shall submit annual invoices to the public authority for the incremental cost of maintenance of enhancement to the active highway-rail grade crossing warning system installed for the purpose of creating a quiet zone as identified in the executed C&M Agreement.

SCRRA Page 6 February 2013 Sot.•lhorn Cnl•fOfnin Rogtollhl Rn .. Aulho,.ll)' SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures e. After filing Notice of Establishment by the public authority, pursuant to §222.43(e), SCRRA shall cease routine use of the locomotive horn at all public and private crossings identified by the public authority upon the date set by the public authority or within 21 days of notification, whichever is later.

SCRRA Page 7 February 2013 lVI EIR. Cl Ll N 1<.

Soulhorn Calrlornua Rontonnl Rn .. Alllhortly SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures

Notice of Intent Exhibit "B" (§222.43(b))

1.0 Required Contents

a. A list of each public highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing within the quiet zone, identified by both the U.S. National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Number, and by street or highway name.

b. A statement of the time period within which restriction on the routine sounding of the locomotive horn will be imposed. (i.e., 24-hours or from 10 p.m . until 7 a.m.).

c. A brief explanation of the public authority's tentative plans for implementing improvements within the proposed quiet zone.

d. The name and title of the person who will act as point of contact during quiet zone development process and the manner in which that person can be contacted.

e. A list of the names and addresses of each party that shall be notified in accordance with §222.43(a)(1 ).

2.0 60-Day Comment Period

a. A party that receives a copy of the public authority's Notice of Intent may submit information or comments about the proposed quiet zone to the public authority during the 60-day period after the date on which the Notice of Intent was mailed.

b. The 60-day comment period established under paragraph §222.43(b )(2)(i) may terminate when the public authority obtains from each railroad operating over the public grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone, the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety, and the State agency responsible for highway and road safety:

• Written comments; or • Written statements that the railroad and State agency do not have any comments on the Notice of Intent ("no-comment statements".)

Disclaimer: This summary of the final rule is for information purposes only. Entities subject to the final rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the final rule , the language of the Final Rule shall govern.

SCRRA Page 8 February 2013 ...._..EIRCJLINI<.

Bouthorn C.aoltlorr"ta Rogtonnl Rt:ut A ~ •thot"Jty SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures

Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment Exhibit "C" (§222.43(e))

1.0 Timing

a. The Notice of Establishment of a Quiet Zone shall provide the date upon which routine locomotive horn use at highway-rail grade crossings shall cease, but in no event shall the date be earlier than 21 days after the date of mailing.

b. If the public authority was required to provide a Notice of Intent, in accordance with paragraph §222.43(a)(1 ), the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment shall not be mailed less than 60 days after the date on which the Notice of Intent was mailed, unless the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment contains a written statement affirming that written comments and/or "no comments" statements have been received from each railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossing within quiet zone, State agency responsible for grade crossing safety, and the State agency responsible for highway and road safety in accordance with §222.43(b )(2)(ii).

2.0 Required Contents

a. A list of each public highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing , and pedestrian crossing within the quiet zone, identified by both the U.S. National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Number, and by street or highway name.

b. A specific reference to the regulatory provision that provides the basis for quiet zone establishment, citing as appropriate:

For New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones

• §222.39(a)(1 ), implementation of SSMs at every public crossing in the New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone; • §222.39(a)(2)(i), the QZRI is at or below the NSRT without installation of any SSMs at the new Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone; • §222.39(a)(2)(ii), SSMs were implemented as some crossings in the New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone to bring the QZRI to a level below the NSRT; • §222.39(a)(3), SSMs were implemented as some crossings in the New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone to bring the QZRI to a level at or below the RIWH; or • §222.39(b) public authority application to the FRA for a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone.

c. If a diagnostic team is required under §222.25 (private crossings) or §222.27 (pedestrian crossings), the Notice shall include a statement affirming that the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety and all affected railroads were provided an opportunity to participate in the diagnostic team review. The notice must also include a list of recommendations made by the diagnostic team.

SCRRA Page 9 February 2013 Southarn CnlilornlD Rag1onnl Rntl Alllho nly SCRRA Quiet Zone Implementation Guidelines and Procedures

d. A statement of the tim·e period within which restriction on the routine sounding of the locomotive horn will be imposed. (i.e., 24-hours or from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.).

e. An accurate and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public highway rail grade, pedestrian highway-rail grade crossing, and private crossing within the quiet zone that reflects conditions existing at the crossing before any new SSMs or ASMs were implemented.

f. An accurate, complete, and current Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public, pedestrian, and private crossing within the quiet zone that reflects SSMs and ASMs in place upon establishment of the quiet zone. SSMs and ASMs that cannot fully be described on the Inventory form shall be separately described.

g. If the public authority was required to file a Notice of Intent in accordance with §222.43(a)(1 ), the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment shall contain a written statement affirming that the Notice of Intent was provided in accordance with §222.43(a)(1 ). This statement shall also state the date on which the Notice of Intent was mailed.

h. If the public authority was required to provide a Notice of Intent, in accordance with §222.43(a)(1 ), and the Notice of Intent was mailed less than 60 days before mailing the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment shall also contain a written statement affirming that they received written comments and/or "no comment" statements have been received from each railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossing within quiet zone, the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety, and the State agency responsible for highway and road safety in accordance with §222.43(b )(2)(ii).

i. If the public authority was required to submit a Notice of Detailed Plan in accordance with §222.43(a)(3), the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment shall contain a statement affirming that Notice of Detailed Plan was provided in accordance with §222.43(a)(3). This statement shall also state the date on which the Notice of Detailed Plan was mailed.

j. The name and title of the person responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements of the rule and the manner in which that person can be contacted.

k. A list of the names and addresses of each party that shall be notified in accordance with §222.43(a)(4).

I. A statement signed by the chief executive officer of each public authority participating in the establishment of the quiet zone, in which the chief executive officer shall certify that the information submitted by the public authority is accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

SCRRA Page 10 February 2013 ATTACHMENT D

Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Inquiry- Request for Comments a. How can FRA decrease the barriers local communities encounter when establishing a quiet zone? b. Should 49 CFR part 222 allow greater variances in highway-rail configurations when determining safety calculations for local communities establishing quiet zones? If so, what variances would be appropriate? c. Should FRA amend Appendix A to 49 CFR part 222 to include common alternative grade crossing safety measures and emerging grade crossing safety technologies? If so, what measures and technologies would be appropriate? d. What further actions can FRA take to mitigate train horn noise impacts for local communities while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians? e. How can FRA change how train horns are sounded at grade crossings while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians? f. Should railroads be required to file an official opinion of support or opposition to the establishment of a new quiet zone? g. Should train speed be a factor that is considered when establishing a new quiet zone? h. Should there be an online process for submitting quiet zone notices, applications, and required paperwork, in whole or in part? i. Should FRA be a required recipient of the Notice of Intent to establish a quiet zone? j. Should FRA provide additional guidance on how to measure the length of a quiet zone? If so, what guidance would be helpful? k. Should FRA develop a process to address modifications to grade crossings within an existing quiet zone? If so, please describe what process would be helpful?

I. Should FRA require diagnostic reviews for all grade crossings within proposed quiet zones instead of requiring them only for pedestrian (pathway) grade crossings and private grade crossings that allow access to the public or which provide access to active industrial or commercial sites? m. How should FRA address safety measures that no longer meet the requirements for SSMs or ASMs?

UNAPPROVED A

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Thursday, June 23, 2016 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber 225 W. Second Street, Claremont, California

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Gerlach called the meeting to order at 07:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commissioners Courser, Farmer, Gerlach, Johannsen, and Medero

ABSENT: Commissioner Freitas, and Rutter

ALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development Brian Desatnik; City Engineer Loretta Mustafa; Associate Engineer Maria Tipping; Metrolink Representative Sherita Coffelt; Metrolink Representative Rod Bailey; and Administrative Assistant Judy Chen-Ko

CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Gerlach welcomed Commissioner Julie Medero to the Traffic and Transportation Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Gerlach opened public comment.

Erik Griswold asked the commission to speak with the Metrolink representatives in attendance about the grade crossings in Claremont in relation to traffic on Indian Hill Boulevard. Mr. Griswold also asked that the commission approach the City and the Sherriff Department regarding educating residents on grade crossing regulations when the lights are flashing.

Jackie Jeffress has observed drivers make U-turns and left turns off of the railroad tracks on Indian Hill Boulevard. Ms. Jeffress asked if there could be a bigger sign on the railroad tracks to prevent accidents.

An anonymous speaker asked if any decisions have been made on whether the existing tracks will need to be widened to accommodate the Gold Line.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Gerlach closed public comment.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 2 of 11

CONSENT CALENDAR

Chair Gerlach opened public comment. Seeing no one wishing to speak, public comment was closed.

Written Communications

There were no written communications.

Routine Administrative Items

1. Approval of Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes of May 26, 2016

Chair Gerlach opened public comment. Seeing no one wishing to speak, public comment was closed.

Commissioner Farmer moved to approve the Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting minutes of May 26, 2016; seconded by Commissioner Johannsen, and carried on the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Farmer, Gerlach, and Johannsen NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Courser, and Medero

PUBLIC HEARINGS

There were no public hearing items.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

2. Metrolink Train Horn Issues, Quiet Zones and the Federal Train Horn Rule

Metrolink representative Sherita Coffelt presented a PowerPoint presentation on Metrolink Train Horn Issues.

City Engineer Mustafa presented a PowerPoint presentation on Quiet Zones and the Federal Train Horn Rule.

Commissioner Farmer asked if train engineers know if a crossing gate is inoperative. Metrolink representative Rod Bailey explained that crossing gates have a light that flashes that indicates an issue with the gate. Train engineers are able to see the flashing light from a distance to determine if there is an issue.

Commissioner Johannsen asked how loud the horns on Metrolink’s new trains are compared to the old trains and how quickly the new trains will be phased in. Ms. Coffelt Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 3 of 11 stated that the decibel test for the new trains have not come in yet but that the new trains have one less chime than the old model and the horns are located in the same location so they are hoping that the decibel test will come in the lower end of the required range. 20 new trains will be phased in by 2017. All 40 Tier 4 trains should be in use by mid-2018.

Commissioner Courser thanked the Metrolink representatives for attending the meeting and asked if it would be possible to cancel the earliest trains. Ms. Coffelt stated that it can be put to their Board of Directors. Currently BNSF trains are not used until past 6 a.m.

Commissioner Courser asked for clarification regarding the Najarian/Antonovich motion Ms. Coffelt mentioned in her presentation and wanted to know if there would be funding attached for communities adversely affected by train noise. Ms. Coffelt stated that the two part motion asked that the impact along the Metrolink system of the BNSF trains be analyzed, and that locations that are good for quiet zones along the system be prioritized. Ms. Coffelt could not commit to whether or not funding would be attached because she is not a representative of Metro.

Commissioner Johannsen asked if the San Bernardino Line would have priority for the new trains. Ms. Coffelt stated that the agreement with the AQMD requires the oldest trains be removed first but that she can certainly ask if the San Bernardino Line can be prioritized.

Chair Gerlach asked what PTC technology is. Mr. Bailey clarified that PTC stands for Positive Train Control. It is an electronic system that prevents accidents from happening.

Chair Gerlach asked about the phasing process for the termination of the BNSF train lease in December. Ms. Coffelt stated that the phasing process starts in September with hopes of completion by November 1st.

Commissioner Courser thanked the City for advertising the issue of train noise and asked how many complaints staff received on a monthly basis regarding train noise. City Engineer Mustafa stated that while the exact number of calls was not monitored, calls have increased since the switch out to the BNSF trains. Since the BNSF trains have been online, staff has received approximately one dozen calls complaining about the noise.

Commissioner Courser asked when quiet zones would be installed if the November ballot passes. City Engineer Mustafa stated that it would be dependent on when the Gold Line would be constructed. Construction would likely be completed in 2023 to 2025.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 4 of 11

Commissioner Courser asked if a detailed breakdown of the $4 million cost listed in the staff report is available. City Engineer Mustafa stated that there is not currently a breakdown of the approximated costs.

Commissioner Courser asked if $4 million is an extreme commitment or if it is in line with regular improvements that come before the City. City Engineer Mustafa stated that the City’s capital improvement budget is currently $2.5 million which includes any infrastructure repairs that are needed in the City.

Commissioner Farmer commended the Engineering Division for their great work on the staff report and asked for clarification regarding meeting the requirements for the Quiet Zone Risk Index versus installing Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs). City Engineer Mustafa stated that a Quiet Zone Risk Index being less than the National Threshold only grants quiet zone status for one year. Since the National risk index changes annually, there is a possibility that a quiet zone status will only be valid for one year. Staff recommends SSMs because once the quiet zone has been granted based on SSMs, there is no need to reapply for quiet zone status annually.

Commissioner Farmer asked if the Gold Line would favor installation of SSMs other than quad gates. City Engineer Mustafa stated that the Gold Line has committed to quad gates which are the safest measure.

Commissioner Farmer asked how long the process of quiet zones would take. City Engineer Mustafa stated that completion time can vary from one year to several years.

Commissioner Farmer referred to the chart comparing other cities with quiet zones in the staff report and asked if any data could be drawn from those cities in regards to the resulting safety of quiet zones. City Engineer Mustafa stated that staff reached out to the cities requesting data on their quiet zones and data was not available.

Commissioner Farmer asked if quiet zones would be more feasible for the City if they were restricted to specific hours. City Engineer Mustafa stated that regardless of hour restrictions, the process would be similar.

Commissioner Farmer asked if the Gold Line would cover 100% of the costs of the quad gates they committed to. City Engineer Mustafa stated that Gold Line would cover 100% of the costs.

Commissioner Medero asked for clarification regarding the number of crossings in the City. City Engineer Mustafa clarified that the 5th crossing in question is a pedestrian crossing at the platform that Metro counts as a crossing in Claremont. However, the Metro staff has indicated that the gates currently at the crossing qualify as an SSM so it is not included as one of the crossings that require new SSMs to qualify for a quiet zone.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 5 of 11

Commissioner Johannsen observed “No Train Horn” signs in downtown Pomona. City Engineer Mustafa stated that the City of Pomona has a quiet zone on the Union Pacific Line that was put in as part of the Alameda Corridor East Project.

Chair Gerlach asked for clarification on the process of providing input on the Federal Train Horn Rule. City Engineer Mustafa stated that the formal letter for public comment is due on July 5th and staff is moving forward formulating the letter. Staff is also making phone calls to the surrounding communities to get them to understand the impacts of the Federal Train Horn Rule.

Chair Gerlach opened public comment.

Peyton Flowers stated that the train horns wake him up, he cannot go back to sleep, and is not rested enough for school. He would like for the horns to be eliminated or at least turned down.

Larry Lawrence asked if Measure R2 goes through and the Gold Line does fund the quad gates, would the liability go to the City or will it stay with the Gold Line. City Engineer Mustafa responded that the City would take on the liability.

Michael Hines asked if a decibel reading of the train was taken because the cap is 110 but he measured it at 115. Mr. Hines believes that that is an occupational health and safety issue. Mr. Hines also wondered if the engineer’s discretion as to the varying length of each horn has been taken into consideration.

Jim Hillman thinks it is ironic and coincidental that the loud and long horn blowing is scheduled in right after the November election, which has a bill ensuring a tax increase for the Metro Transit Authority. Mr. Hillman asked if it is still in the plans to build a bridge over Indian Hill Boulevard. Chair Gerlach stated the City Council will be addressing that topic at their July 26 meeting. Mr. Hillman recommended that the commission move forward as quickly as possible with the establishment of quiet zones. He does not believe that the City can wait for the Gold Line.

Eileen Flaxman asked what is the purpose of a train horn that can be heard over a mile away. Ms. Flaxman asked if Measure R2 does not pass, do we have to wait another year to obtain funding via an election.

Tony Madrid is constantly awoken by the first train at 4:30 a.m. and can smell the exhaust from the BNSF trains in his backyard and in his home. Mr. Madrid is concerned about what the Gold Line horns will sound like and suggested a wall to mitigate the noise.

Paul Smith wondered if there have been any studies on the effects of noise on the population of Claremont. Mr. Smith has observed people exiting the trains, covering their ears.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 6 of 11

Ria Paliwal’s house is right next to the train tracks. As a result of the noise, they are unable to open their windows and sliding doors for fresh air. Ms. Paliwal believes that the train horns contribute to noise pollution, decrease property values, and go against the Claremont culture of enjoying nature. Ms. Paliwal proposed that the trains reduce their speed and stop blowing their horns in residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Paliwal stated that he asked his daughter to speak on his behalf because he is losing his hearing. He asked what residents can do to speed up the process of obtaining quiet zones.

Celia Ballard lives next to the train tracks and has had to increase the height of her fences and install double pane windows to mitigate the train noise. Ms. Ballard suggested the installation of sound walls to mitigate the noise. She also asked if the Gold Line would reimburse the City for the installation of quiet zones if the City began the installation before the construction of the Gold Line.

Heather Helming thanked the commission for organizing the meeting. Ms. Helming has never called in to complain about the train noise because she did not think that anything could be done. She has had to replace all of the windows in her house because no one can sleep through the night. Ms. Helming is also concerned that the new train horns will still be a noise problem and supports the idea of a sound wall being erected.

Daniel Runyan thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak and stated that the train horn noise ruins the quality of life in Claremont. Mr. Runyan’s children cannot sleep, his newborn cannot breastfeed, his in-laws will not stay over, and he has to consider putting in triple-pane glass windows. He supports the idea of building the quad gates first and seeking a credit from the Gold Line afterwards.

Colin Robins has not ever slept well in Claremont and encouraged the commission to do everything possible to expedite their efforts.

Jerome Manin believes that the train noise in Claremont is a nightmare. He hopes that the quiet zone is established soon.

Erik Griswold stated that this meeting is taking place because Glenn Steele, the engineer of the Oxnard train, hit a pick-up truck, resulting in the BNSF trains being used and the current mentality of trains needing to be able to survive crashes. Mr. Griswold reminded the commission that the city has a 5th crossing that will need to be modified for a quiet zone. Mr. Griswold suggested automated train horns (wayside horns) as a 3rd solution. He also addressed the job imbalance in the region that makes early trains necessary.

Sandi Slade stated that the trains going west are blaring their horn constantly. She has observed people with hands covering their ears. Ms. Slade mentioned automated train horns as an option.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 7 of 11

An anonymous speaker stated that engineers should have a standardized horn pattern because most engineers lay on their horn constantly.

Eric Fuentes believes that the FRA and OSHA should be involved in the process.

Steve Schenck asked why the trains cannot just be turned to mitigate the noise. The trains are also very polluting and leave ash on the cars parked nearby.

An anonymous speaker believes that the trains today are worse than they have ever been and asked the commission to please take the issue seriously.

Lydia Henry supports the people who are adversely affected by the train noise. She asked the commission to explore some of the other options brought up by speakers.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Gerlach closed public comment.

City Engineer Mustafa stated that approaching the Gold Line for a credit to build the gates required for the quiet zones will be dependent upon the November ballot, when funding is determined. Credit has not previously been discussed with Gold Line but can be brought to them in a future meeting.

Chair Gerlach asked for clarification regarding changing the timing of the gates, in response to a question about the gate timing brought up during public comment. City Engineer Mustafa stated that what is currently happening is that the Indian Hill crossing and the College Avenue crossing are close together and they have a station in between resulting in gates on Indian Hill going down as the train approaches the College crossing. The train goes into the station, and if the time in the station exceeds 90 seconds, the gates on Indian Hill go back up. Staff has asked Metrolink why the gates cannot be up during the time that the train is stopped in the station, and have been told that regulation requires that the gates stay down when the train is in the station. Staff is continuing to pursue this matter with Metrolink.

Commissioner Courser referenced an article on the negative effects of train horn noise on the quality of life. Commissioner Courser believes that the $4 million cost estimate in the staff report is a high estimate; he inputted crossing information data into the FRA Quiet Zone Calculator, which was admittedly outdated, which resulted in a $1.2 million cost estimate. Commissioner Courser referenced the 2016 City Council Priority List which includes “Continue efforts on adding quiet zones to railroad crossings.” Commissioner Courser stated that it is critical to begin deciding and planning for quiet zones and that while he appreciates staff’s recommendation regarding possible changes to the Train Horn Rule, the idea that we will have much of an effect on the changing of the rule is speculative and out of our league.

Commissioner Johannsen asked for clarification regarding automated train horns. City Engineer Mustafa stated automated train horn research was not included in the staff Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 8 of 11 report because the staff report focuses on quiet zone implementation, but that staff can look into it if directed by the commission.

Commissioner Farmer stated the importance of Measure R2 passing in order to move forward with the proposed quiet zones.

Commissioner Medero expressed interest in hearing more about automated train horns.

Chair Gerlach thanked the Metrolink representatives for attending the meeting as well as the Engineering Division and City Manager Tony Ramos for accelerating the process of pursuing quiet zones.

Director of Community Development Brian Desatnik expressed appreciation for the commission, audience, and Metrolink representative’s discussion. Mr. Desatnik clarified that it is important to wait until the November ballot results on the Gold Line because the Gold Line construction would require major reconfiguration to existing railroad tracks and crossings, and therefore quad gates installed before the Gold Line construction would need to be reconfigured. Therefore it is important to know whether the Gold Line is coming or not coming before moving forward with quad gate design and installation.

Commissioner Courser believes that the City absorbing the cost of quad gates, instead of waiting for the Gold Line to pay for quad gates, amortized over ten years is worth it in exchange for the benefits to Claremont residents.

Commissioner Courser moved the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council form an ad hoc committee on train noise and crossing safety to: (1) create a plan for the installation of quiet zones at the City’s railroad crossings; (2) prepare a detailed budget for safety measure installations at the crossings; (3) work with associated cities and local agencies on partnerships and cost sharing opportunities; and, (4) work as a liaison to community members on the issue of train horns and quiet zones; seconded by Commissioner Medero, and carried on the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Courser, Farmer, Gerlach, Johannsen, and Medero NOES: None

Chair Gerlach moved that the Traffic and Transportation Commission direct staff to work towards a revision to the Federal Train Horn Rule, in an effort to decrease the train horn requirements associated with at-grade crossings; seconded by Commissioner Farmer, and carried on the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Courser, Farmer, Gerlach, Johannsen, and Medero NOES: None

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 9 of 11

Commissioner Courser believes the timeline for staff to provide an update to the TTC and City Council on the Quiet Zone / Federal Train Horn Rule issues once a decision has been made on both the Gold Line project funding as well as the Train Rule is unacceptable and that we should not wait and see what happens.

Chair Gerlach believes the two are not mutually exclusive and can run on parallel tracks.

Commissioner Medero added that it is nice to know that this item will be revisited.

Commissioner Johannsen asked if the recommended ad hoc committee will be researching automated train horns.

Commissioner Courser requested that the motion be modified to include that staff continue to investigate the feasibility of the installation of quiet zones during the interim between today and November.

Chair Gerlach expressed preference to keep the motion unmodified.

City Engineer Mustafa stated that the proposed ad hoc committee will be investigating the feasibility of the installation of quiet zones.

Commissioner Courser expressed concern that the commission would be sending mixed signals to the City Council, one saying wait six months and one saying get started immediately.

City Engineer Mustafa stated that the motion being discussed does not preclude any work being done on investigating the feasibility of the installation of quiet zones in the interim period.

Commissioner Farmer moved the Traffic and Transportation Commission direct staff to provide an update to the TTC and City Council on the Quiet Zone / Federal Train Horn Rule issues once a decision has been made on both the Gold Line project funding as well as the Train Rule; seconded by Chair Gerlach, and carried on the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Courser, Farmer, Gerlach, Johannsen, and Medero NOES: None

Mr. Bailey explained that Metrolink does have methods to monitor engineers who abuse the use of the horn and that tonight’s discussion will be taken into consideration with Metrolink’s compliance department. Ms. Coffelt added that the same complaints were voiced at a meeting in San Dimas a few weeks ago and as a result Metrolink has increased testing in the area.

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 10 of 11

Commissioner Johannsen asked if any research was available on the effectiveness of automated train horns versus regular train horns. Mr. Bailey responded that the first automated train horns on Metrolink property has not been activated yet and there is no current data on it.

Commission

3. Mayor/Chair Meeting

4. Commissioner Comments

Commissioners Courser and Johannsen welcomed Commissioner Medero to the Commission.

Chair Gerlach commended the commissioners on their efforts researching agenda items.

Staff

5. Briefing on Council Meetings

6. Briefing on Other Items

City Engineer Mustafa mentioned that with school being out, work will begin on the Oxford Traffic Calming and Radcliffe Crosswalk items previously brought before the commission.

Commissioner Johannsen asked if the Gold Line grade separation issue would be going straight to City Council. City Engineer Mustafa confirmed that the item will be going directly to City Council.

7. Upcoming Agendas and Events a. Special Brown Act meeting – July 11, 2016 b. Foothill Boulevard Speed Survey – TBD c. City Budget and TTC Work Plan – July 28, 2016 d. Foothill Boulevard Master Plan design – July 28, 2016 (tentative) e. Claremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC) update on Bicycle/Pedestrian training – TBD f. Active Transportation Plan g. CGU Master Plan h. Traffic Calming Policy

Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 11 of 11

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Gerlach adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

______Chair Gerlach

ATTEST:

______Judy Chen-Ko, Administrative Assistant

225 Second Street Claremont City Council Claremont, CA 91711

Agenda Report

File #: 1606 Item No: 7.

TO: TONY RAMOS, CITY MANAGER

FROM: SHELLEY DESAUTELS, CITY CLERK

DATE: JULY 12, 2016 Reviewed by: City Manager: TR Finance Director: AP

SUBJECT:

DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING TO BE HELD AT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE

SUMMARY

The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled for October 5-7, 2016, in Long Beach, California. At the business meeting to be held on Friday, October 7, the membership will take action on conference resolutions that establish League policy. The City Council must designate a voting delegate for the City to be eligible to cast its vote at this meeting. The Council may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to attend.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council designate a voting delegate for the business meeting to be held at the League of California Cities 2016 Annual Conference.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION

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

A. Make no designation. B. Request additional information.

FINANCIAL REVIEW

The staff cost to prepare this report is estimated at $376, and is included in the operating budget of the Administrative Services Department.

CLAREMONT Page 1 of 2 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™ ANALYSIS

At the annual business meeting held at the conclusion of the League of California Cities 2016 Annual Conference, the membership will consider and take action on resolutions that establish League policy. Consistent with League bylaws, the City Council must take formal action to designate a voting delegate in order to participate in the vote. Delegates must be Conference registrants.

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

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

Council Priorities - This item does not address a Council Priority.

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

Economic Sustainability Plan - This item does not relate to the recommendations outlined in the Economic Sustainability Plan.

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

2016-18 Budget - This item meets Work Plan Goal CM-9 to work closely with regional agencies on issues that promote the quality of life in Claremont.

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

CEQA REVIEW

This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), administrative activities and organization activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment are not CEQA projects. Additionally, even if this was determined to be a “project” under CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The designation of a voting delegate for the business meeting to be held at the League of California Cities Annual Conference will not have a significant effect on the environment because the action will not result in or lead to a physical change in Claremont. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS

Submitted by:

Shelley Desautels City Clerk

Attachment: League of California Cities Correspondence

CLAREMONT Page 2 of 2 Printed on 7/7/2016 powered by Legistar™