42,090.00
0.00 42,090.00
42,090.00
Credit
0.00 42,090.00
Net Income
Effect
---=4_,2,~09=0=.o=o (42,090.001
= -==-42_,0_9_0_.o_o ~2,090.001
12/20/2021
340
Client:
Engagement:
Current Period:
Workpaper:
Account
AJE0l
CITY OF LOS BANOS
6-30-21 Audit
06/30/2021
Attachment: Corrected Audit Adjustments
Description
To accrue road maintenance for FY 20-21 received 8/25/2021 215-000-126-000 Intergovernmental Receivable
215-000-335-020 Motor Veh Fuel Tax-Road Maint
Total
AJE02
To post current year proprietary GASB 68 activity
501-000-2;39-020 Net Pension Liability
501-000-151-021
501-000-151-020
501-000-222-011
501-410-100-121
502-000-239-020
502-000-151-021
502-000-151-020
502-000-222-011
502-410-100-121
510-000-239-020
510-000-151-021
510-000-151-020
510-000-222-011
510-410-100-121
601-000-239-020
601-000-151-021
601-000-151-020
.601-000-222-011
601-480-210-121
610-000-239-020
610-000-151-021
610-000-151-020
610-000-222-011
610-410-100-121
Total
AJE03
Current Year ER Contributions
Pension Deferrals{Outflows)
Pension Deferrals{lnflows)
Benefits-PERS
Net Pension Liability
Current Year ER Contributions
Pension Deferrals {Outflow)
Pension Deferrals {Inflow)
Benefits-PERS
Net Pension Liability
Current Year ER Contributions
Pension Deferrals {Outflow)
Pension Deferrals {Inflow)
Benefits-PERS
Net Pension Liability
Current Year ER Contributions
Pension Deferrals (Outflow)
Pension Deferrals {Inflow)
Benefits-PERS
Net Pension Liability
Current Year ER Contributions
Pension Deferrals (Outflow)
Pension Deferrals (Inflow)
Benefits-PERS
To post current year proprietary GASB 75 activity
501-000-2390023 Net OPEB Liability
501-000-151-023 OPEB Deferrals (Outflows)
501-000-222-023 OPEB Deferrals (Inflows)
Workpaper
Reference Debit
RE300
LS00
L700
Credit Net Income Effect
65,866.02 0.00
0.00 65,866.02
65,866.02 65,866.02 65,866.02
0.00 163,935.00,
27,198.00 0.00
0.00 84,011.00
57,671.00 0.00
163,077.00 0.00
0.00 147,630.00
25,893.00 0.00
0.00 91,776.00
62,833.00 0.00
150,680.00 0.00
0.00 72,068.00
14,592.00 0.00
0.00 61,894.00
42,635.00 0.00
76,735.00 0.00
0.00 29,050.00
4,508.00 0.00
0.00 12,938.00
8,940.00 0.00
28,540.00 0.00
168,251.00 0.00
0.00 18,264.00
0.00 36,953.00
16,163.00 0.00
0.00 129,197.00
847,716.00 847,716.00 (289,835.00)
31,836.00 0.00
12,370.00 0.00
38,044.00 0.00
12/20/2021
341
Client:
Engagement:
Current Period:
Workpaper:
Account
501-410-100-120
502-000-239-023
502-000-151-023
502-000-222-023
502-410-100-120
510-000-239-023
510-000-151-023
510-000-222-023
510-410-100-120
601-000-239-023
601-000-151-023
601-000-222-023
601-480-210-120
610-000-239-023
610-000-151-023
610-000-222-023
610-410-100-120
Total
AJE04
CITY OF LOS BANOS
6-30-21 Audit
06/30/2021
Attachment: Corrected Audit Adjustments
Description
Benefits
Net OPEB liability
OPEB Deferrals (Outflows)
OPEB Deferrals {Inflows)
Benefits
Net OPEB Liability
OPEB Deferrals (Outflows)
OPEB Deferrals (inflows)
Benefits
Net o'prn liability
OPEB Deferrals (Outflows)
OPEB Deferrals (Inflows)
Benefits
Net OPEB liability
OPEB Deferrals (Outflows)
Pension Deferrals {Inflows)
Benefits
To reclassify prior period adjustment to fund balance account. 250-000-253-020 Fund Balance
250-000-299-000
Total
AJE0S
Prior Period Adjustment
To accrue receivable and unavailable revenue for 12th payment of the Measure V funding for FY2021 214-000-126-000 Intergovernmental Receivable
214-000-222-000 Unavailable Revenues (PPC Account)
Total
GRAND TOTAL
Workpaper
Reference Debit
Nl00
RE201
Credit Net Income Effect
0.00 82,250.00
172,393.00 0.00
0.00 15,999.00
56,535.00 0.00
0.00 212,929.00
0.00 357,186.00
83,456.00 0.00
0.00 26,517.00
300,247.00 0.00
0.00 63,553.00
14,860.00 0.00
0.00 4,697.00
53,390.00 0.00
60,203.00 0.00
0.00 9,471.00
12,746.00 0.00
0.00 63,478.00
836,080.00 836,080.00 5,020.00
1,069,310.00 0.00
0.00 1,069,310.00
1,069,310.00 1,069,310.00 0.00
116,694.79 0.00
0.00 116,694.79
116,694.79 116,694.79 0.00
2,935,666.81 2,935,666.81 {218,948.98)
12/20/2021
342
PRICE PAJGE & COMPANY
Accountancy Co,poration
The Place to Be
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MA TIERS
BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Los Banos, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the businesstype activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Los Banos, California (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 20, 2021 .
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected , on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
570 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 100
Clovis, CA 9361 r
www.ppcpas.com
tel 559.299.9540
fax 559.2.99.2344
343
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.
However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. -
?rh&p"'if C~6
Clovis, California
December 20, 2021
344
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
LOsBanos
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor Faria and City Council Members
Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director~ January 19, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Agenda Item
SUBJECT: Elimination of the Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an Ordinance to eliminate the Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) specifically repealing Title 2 Chapter 2 Article 4 of the Los Banos Municipal Code.
Discussion:
The Economic Development Advisory Commission was created to act in an advisory capacity to the Redevelopment Agency on economic development projects. With the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and the Merced County Economic Development Corporation, there has not been a need for an advisory commission on economic development projects.
Staff has analyzed the efficiency of the Community and Economic Development Department and proposes to eliminate the Economic Development Advisory Commission. In light of the loss of the Redevelopment Agency and Merced County Economic Development Corporation, the resulting lack of projects does not support the continuation of this commission.
1 ITEM 12
345
Josh Pinheiro/ ity Mclnager
Attachment/
✓
Ordinance
2 346
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ELIMINATING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY REPEALING TITLE 2 CHAPTER 2
ARTICLE 4 OF THE LOS BANOS MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Los Banos does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Article 4 of Title 2, Chapter 2 "Economic Development Advisory Commission" is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. To the extent that the terms and provisions of this Ordinance may be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or conditions of any prior City ordinance, motion, resolution, rule or regulation governing the same subject, the terms of this Ordinance shall prevail with respect to the subject matter thereof and such inconsistent or conflicting provisions of prior ordinances, motions, resolutions, rules or regulations are hereby repealed.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase added by this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.
Section 4. The proposed amendments to the Los Banos Municipal Code do not propose any changes to city policies or regulations that would result in a direct or indirect physical environmental impact; therefore it has been determined that this ordinance amendment is covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15601(b)(3) and is not subject to environmental review.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted and published once within fifteen days after passage and adoption as may be required by law; or, in the alternative the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk five days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and, within fifteen days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published, the aforementioned summary and shall post 347
a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk.
Introduced by Council Member ____ and seconded by Council Member _____ on the __ day of , 2022.
Passed on the __ day of _____ , 2022 by the following vote:
A YES: Council Members
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
348
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
LOsBanos
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor and City Council Members
Nichol Bowersox, P.E., Acting Public Works Director
January 19, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Non Consent Agenda
SUBJECT: Speed Cushion Policy Review Report
Recommendation:
That the City Council receives the City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy Review prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Staff is also seeking direction from the City Council on the next steps for the Speed Cushion Policy.
Background:
At the October 21, 2020 City Council Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a request by Council Member Lewis that the staff conduct a review of the existing Speed Cushion Policy. It was specifically requested that the review include the existing requirements under which collector and arterial streets might qualify for speed cushion installation.
At the City Council Meeting on November 18, 2020, staff reported that proposals would be requested from qualified traffic engineering consultants to conduct a review of the existing Speed Cushion Policy. The review would result in recommendations to ensure that the Speed Cushion Policy is current with industry practices and standards.
Staff solicited proposals from three (3) consulting firms who specialize in traffic engineering services, and negotiated the scope of services and the associated fees with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $12,000.00. The City Council designated two Council Members to work with staff to review the draft report prior to consideration by the full Council.
349
ITEM 13
Discussion:
Hexagon conducted Speed Cushion Policy review of the current policy compares to other traffic calming policies other jurisdictions apply on all City streets. Hexagon also reviewed roadways classified as collectors and arterials that abut driveways to evaluate the feasibility of applying speed cushions to these specific roadways. West I Street and 7th Street/Stonewood Drive were included in this study to determine if speed cushions would be the appropriate traffic calming application and if not, identifying more effective traffic calming measures for these roadway classifications.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared a Speed Cushion Policy Review report (See Attachment 1) that includes the following:
• Review the current Speed Cushion Policy;
• Review the Functional Classification Map for City streets; • Research the speed cushions policies adopted and in use by other municipalities in Merced County and Bay Area;
• Develop recommendations for updating and improving the Speed Cushion Policy; • Prepare draft and final reports, and make one (1) presentation to the City Council.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact for the City Council to receive the City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy Review report prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Reviewed b
11 Josh v nheiro City Manager
Attachments:
1. City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy Review (Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Inc.)
2. City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy Review PowerPoint Presentation 350
r\
cm
• •
-0-
,..
Q
, '
~~XAGON T~ANSPO~TATION (ONSULTANTS, IN<.
Memorandum
Date: April 20, 2021
To:
From:
Mr. Fred Pezeshk, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Kai-Ling Kuo, Gary Black
Subject: Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy This memorandum summarizes our review for the City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy and Procedure. The purpose of the study is to research and compare the City's current speed cushion policy with adopted neighborhood traffic calming programs in other municipalities and to provide recommendations for policy improvements. The review study also includes recommendations on how to deal with arterials and collectors that have fronting residential driveways and provide local access to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
This study reviewed the adopted neighborhood traffic calming/management programs/policies (NTCP) in the following cities within the Bay Area:
• City of Merced
• City of Stockton
• City of Gilroy
• City of Morgan Hill
• City of Sunnyvale
• City of Mountain View
• City of Palo Alto
• City of Menlo Park
• City of Redwood City
• City of San Mateo
• City of Fremont
• City of Livermore
This study found that most adopted NTCP contain five sections: 1) traffic calming issues, 2) street qualifications, 3) appropriate traffic calming devices and implementation stages, 4) implementation procedures, and 5) funding and prioritization mechanisms. This study discusses each section of a typical NTCP in detail and highlights the commonalities and differences between each city's adopted program and the comparison to the Los Banos policy.
In summary, although the Los Banos policy only includes the installation of speed cushions on local streets, the procedure to request, qualify, and implement speed cushions on a local street is in line with the policies of other cities because it includes criteria for request qualification, street qualification, and neighborhood consensus. The policy also includes implementation and approval procedures and addresses funding and prioritization of speed cushion requests. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 · fa)( 408.971 .6102 · www.he)(trans.com 351
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Traffic Calming Issues
Many cities have clearly identified the issues that could be mitigated using the NTCP. In most cities, speeding and high traffic volume (due to cut-through traffic) are the two primary traffic calming issues. Some cities, such as the Cities of Stockton and Morgan Hill, have also included accidents and high truck volume as traffic calming issues. Many cities recognize that not all traffic related issues can be addressed with the traffic calming policy. The City of Fremont is unique because it identifies only speeding as a traffic calming issue.
The Los Banos policy does not specify issues that can be addressed by its policy. However, because the policy is intended for the implementation of speed cushions, it is presumed that the policy is to address the traffic calming issue related to speeding.
Street Qualifications
Traffic calming measures are mostly designed to maintain a reasonable travel speed and/or regulate the volume on the affected streets. Therefore, traffic calming measures may not be applicable to all street types. Applying traffic calming measures on residential streets makes sense as these are the streets that should have lower speeds and volumes. Reducing arterial speeds and capacities may cause more vehicles to seek alternative cut-through routes on collector and residential streets, which would undermine the purpose of traffic calming. Collector streets are more challenging because these streets should be allowed to maintain an intermediate level of traffic volume (lower than arterials but higher than residential streets), so traffic calming measures should be used more carefully on these streets.
Research found that cities do not have a consensus on the types of streets qualified for traffic calming measures. Two cities restrict traffic calming measures exclusively to streets that are "local" and/or "residential" as classified in their general plans. Eight cities allow some "collectors" that are residential in nature to qualify for traffic calming. The Cities of Stockton, San Mateo, and Gilroy are unique because they also allow certain non-intrusive traffic calming measures on arterial streets.
The City of Stockton also allows traffic calming measures on two-lane commercial collectors.
In most cities, except the City of Stockton, the qualified streets also have to pass a threshold test to be eligible for traffic calming measures. The 85th percentile speed and average daily traffic (ADT) volume are two common criteria used to qualify streets for traffic calming measures, as discussed below:
• Speeding: Most cities within the Bay Area define a "speeding issue" within a residential neighborhood as having the 85th percentile speed exceed 5 to 7 miles above the posted speed limit. For a local residential street with 25 mph speed limit, the threshold for the 85th percentile speed is 30 to 32 mph.
• Volume/Cut-through Traffic: Typical ADT thresholds range between 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 2,000 vpd for residential/local streets, and between 3,000 vpd to 4,000 vpd for collector streets, if qualified. Some cities, like Gilroy and Mountain View, also require streets to meet a "cut-through" percentage threshold. The cut-through traffic threshold ranges between 25% to 40% of the ADT. In the City of Gilroy, traffic calming devices to address cut-through traffic are not permitted on collector streets.
Each City's qualification criteria for traffic calming are summarized on Table 1.
352
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Table 1
Qualification Criteria Summary
Qualification Criteria __ G_e_n_e-ra_l_P-la_n ____ 85_t_h_P_e-rc_e_n_t-ile ___________________ _ City Classification * Speed Volume Accidents*
Los Banos
Merced
Stockton
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Redwood City
San Mateo
Fremont
Livermore
Notes:
Local Street with
speed limit of 25 mph
Local & Collector
Local Residential,
Commerical & Minor
Collector
Local & Collector
Local & Collector
Local
Local & Collector
Local & Collector
Local & Collector
Local Street,
Pedestrian Street,
or Bicycle Boulevard
Local
Local & Collector with
speed limit of 25 mph
Local & Collector
* Streets are primarily
residential in nature
Speed limit * 500-2,500-.pd
Thresholds not specified, but the City considers speed, wlumes, and/or accidents.
No Qualification Criteria. Requests are processed on a first-come, first-ser.ed basis. Two neighborhoods from each quadrant are processed each year. speed limit + 7 mph or
70% of the traffic >
speed limt
32 mph, with speed
limit of 25 mph
32 mph
speed limit + 7 mph
Local > 32 mph
Collector > 35 mph
speed limit + 7mph
speed limit + 5 mph
speed limit + 7 mph
33 mph
33mph
* with 90th Percentile
Speed > speed limit +
10 mph
Local ADT > 1,000 1.pd and
Cut-through > 25% ADT *
Local ADT >2,000 1.pd;
Collector ADT > 3,500 -.pd
1,0001.pd
Cut-through > 25% ADT
Local ADT > 1,200 1.pd
Collector ADT > 4,000 \Pd
Local ADT > 1,5001.pd
Collector ADT > 3,000 1.pd
Cut-through > 40% ADT
ADT > 1,000 1.pd and
Cut-through > 25% ADT
800 - 3,500 I.pd (speed cushion)
> 3,500 I.pd (altemati-.e de-.nces)
1,0001.pd
* Measures to address cutthrough traffic are not permitted on collector
streets.
5 in last 3 years
5 in last 3 years
6 in last 3 years
3-yr accident rate >
City a-.erage for
comparable streets
* Must be accidents
pre-.entable -.na traffic
calming
For cities whose NTCP is restricted to speeding and volume/cut-through traffic issues, the 85th percentile speed, ADT, and/or cut-through percentage are the only thresholds qualifying a street for traffic calming. Other cities, like Palo Alto and Morgan Hill, that have broader definitions of "traffic calming issues" have also included accident rates as a threshold.
353
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 It should be noted that many physical traffic calming measures that are designed to slow vehicles or restrict vehicle access would have negative effects for emergency vehicles, buses, and/or trucks. All cities recognize these effects, and most cities require these be considered when qualifying streets for traffic calming and/or analyzing traffic calming alternatives. The City of San Mateo has further spelled out in the NTCP that all designated primary response routes, bus routes, and truck routes are ineligible for physical traffic calming measures. In the City of Gilroy, all bus routes and truck routes are ineligible for physical traffic calming measures.
The City of Stockton is unique because it does not have qualification criteria to determine the eligibility for traffic calming measures on a local street. Every traffic calming request is processed on a first-come, first-served basis.
The Los Banos policy only applies to local streets with a speed limit no more than 25 mph. A local street meets the speeding criterion if its 85th percentile speed exceeds the speed limit, and the 90th percentile speed exceeds 10 mph above the speed limit. The speeding criterion based on the 90th percentile speed is not applied by other cities.
For the volume criterion, Los Banos applies a minimum ADT threshold of 500 vpd, while most cites apply a minimum ADT threshold of 1,000 vpd for local streets.
Traffic Calming Measures & Implementation Stages
Traffic calming measures can typically be divided into two categories: non-physical and physical measures. Common non-intrusive and potentially-intrusive measures are briefly discussed below and listed in Table 2:
• Non-intrusive measures include community outreach/education, police enforcement, additional signage (stop signs and turn-prohibition signs excluded), and additional pavement striping. These measures do not disturb normal traffic operations and target only those that are speeding and/or cutting-through. These measures are easy to implement, relatively inexpensive, less intrusive, and have few negative effects. At the same time, these measures are also less effective in mitigating the traffic calming issues. • Potentially-intrusive measures typically include measures to control speed, such as speed humps/tables/cushions, traffic circles/roundabouts, and physical lane narrowing/shifting measures (i.e. bulbouts, chokers, chicanes), and physical movement-restriction measures (i.e. turn-prohibition, forced-turn channelization, half street closure and full street closure) to divert traffic. Unlike non-intrusive measures, potentially-intrusive measures inconvenience all vehicles. Potentially-intrusive measures are difficult to implement, relatively expensive, can be very intrusive (i.e. full street closure), and have varying negative effects (i.e. visual and noise impacts, primary response times, diverted traffic). Examples of the potentiallyintrusive measures are presented in Appendix A.
Some cities (Gilroy, Palo Alto, and Merced) recognize that traffic calming measures on a local street should be designed to minimize the diversion of traffic to another adjacent local street, while traffic calming measures on a collector street should be designed to address primarily speed because measures to divert traffic away from collector streets conflict with the basic purpose of collectors, which is to handle some level of through traffic.
354
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Table 2
Common Traffic Calming Measures/Devices
Traffic Calming Measure/Device Brief Discussion
Non-Intrusive Measures
Community Outreach/Education Meetings and workshops to educate residents about traffic safety issues Police Enforcement of Speed Limits Deploy police officers to target neighborhood streets with reported speeding problems
Speed Display Units
Speed Limit Signs/Legends
Narrow Lane Striping
High Visibility Crosswalks
A movable or permanent radar unit to increases driwr awareness of their actual speeds
Speed limit signs to help reduce speeding if enforced
Lane striping to narrow trawl lane widths usually to 10 feet wide A crosswalk incorporating a striped pattern that catches motorists' attention
Potentially-Intrusive Measures to Control Speed
Speed Humps/Tables/Cushions Raised areas placed across the road designed to slow whicles as they approach the humps/tables
Bulbouts
Chokers
Chicanes
Traffic Circles/Roundabouts
Curb extensions placed at an intersection to narrow the trawl lanes Curb extensions placed along a roadway to narrow the trawl lanes Alternating curb extensions placed along a roadway to narrow the trawl lanes and create an "S-shaped" street
Raised circular islands placed in the center of an intersection designed to slow whicles and reduce intersection conflict points
Potentially-Intrusive Measures to Divert Traffic
Tum Restriction Signs Signage restricting specified tum mowments at an intersection Forced-Tum Channelization
Half-Street Closure
Full-Street Closure
Raised islands at an intersection that block certain mowments Physical barriers placed at one end of an approach so the street can only be entered from one direction but whicles can exit in both directions Physical barriers placed at one end of the street effectiwly creating a dead-end
Research found that there are mainly two ways cities approach traffic calming measures: case-bycase and staged. The case-by-case approach allows staff more options in evaluating each traffic calming case because the adopted traffic calming policies do not restrict the available traffic calming measures. The Cities of Stockton, Palo Alto, and Redwood City are the three cities that provide this flexibility. The other cities that were studied have defined stages of implementation of traffic calming measures. Stage 1 typically allows only the non-physical measures discussed above, and Stage 2 comprises physical measures. These cities require staff to consider Stage 2 measures only after determining Stage 1 measures are ineffective. Some cities, like Sunnyvale, do not restrict the available measures in Stage 2. Some cities, like Menlo Park, have clearly defined measures that staff can choose from in Stage 2. The City of Morgan Hill separates the movementrestriction measures from the rest of the physical measures and labels them as Stage 3 measures.
The Cities of San Mateo and Gilroy allow non-intrusive traffic calming measures on any public city
355
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 street including collector and arterial streets, while physical measures can only be applied to local streets in San Mateo and local streets and residential collectors in Gilroy. Additionally, in Gilroy, traffic calming devices to divert traffic are not permitted on collector streets.
The City of Stockton separates the implementation of speed humps/lumps from other physical measures. The humps/lumps program allows an expedited process that includes the use of speed humps/lumps, striping, and signing, while the full program allows the use of all traffic calming options.
The City of Fremont is unique because the ADT is used as a threshold to determine the implementable measures. Only streets with ADT greater than 800 vpd but less than 3,500 vpd are allowed to implement speed humps. Fremont has an adopted Speed Hump Policy that guides the process. Streets with ADT greater than 3,500 vpd are not allowed to implement speed humps but may apply other traffic calming measures from the City-approved list. The City of Gilroy has also adopted additional criteria for consideration of speed cushions and traffic circle/roundabout. The City of Stockton's Traffic Calming Guideline includes recommendations on the use of traffic calming devices on different types of streets based on ADT and speed limit.
The City of Merced prohibits certain physical measures, such as speed cushions/humps, chicanes, forced-turn channelization, and street closure, on primary access routes for emergency vehicles.
The City of Stockton prohibits speed humps on emergency response routes and physical movement-restriction measures (i.e. turn-prohibition, forced-turn channelization, median barrier, and street closure) on bus routes. The Cities of Palo Alto and Livermore also prohibit devices that considerably limit or restrict emergency vehicle access on collector streets.
The Los Banos policy only includes speed cushions. The City may consider expanding its policy to include non-intrusive measures, which can be applied to any types of city streets, and more physical measures to address the speeding issue, which can be applied to local and residential collector streets.
Typical Implementation Procedures
While each city follows a unique implementation procedure, research found that all cities' procedures follow some variation of the following pattern: 1) resident-initiated request, 2) request qualification, 3) neighborhood meetings and traffic calming studies, 4) neighborhood consensus, 5) traffic calming measure approval, and 6) implementation. Each step of the procedure is discussed below in detail and summarized on Table 3. Sample implementation flow charts from the researched cities are included in the Appendix.
Request Initiation
Most cities require the traffic calming process to be initiated only by a resident request. Morgan Hill allows staff to initiate the process if staff has the perception that a traffic calming issue exists. Upon receiving the resident request for traffic calming and deeming that the concerned street is a suitable street for traffic calming based on street classification, approximately half of the researched cities would continue to the next step: request qualification (discussed below). The remaining cities would request the resident submit a petition form indicating that the expressed concern is widespread and shared. Staff would determine a project area that could vary from the block of concern to a few blocks that could be affected by potential traffic calming measures. The required signatures collected vary from 10% to 60% of the study area. In cities where an initial petition is required, the traffic calming process will continue only if the concern is considered widespread and shared via the petition. The City of Stockton is unique because it only requires a petition with 10 signatures from residents in the project area.
356
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Table 3
Summary of Each City's Traffic Calming Procedure
Los Banos Citizen Request No Staff and 70% * (100% None General Fund First come neighbors response rate) first sene
Merced Citizen Request No Staff and 67% Yes, depending Citizens First come neighbors on delAces first sene
Staff and First come Stockton Citizen Request No Resident 50% None Measure K Committee first sene
Gilroy Citizen Request Yes Staff 60% * 6 month for General Fund Priority List collector• Morgan Hill Citizen Request Yes Staff and 60% • 6 months CIP/Citizens • Priority List or Staff Neighbors Sunnyvale Citizen Request No Staff 60% • None General Fund First come .... first sene
Cl) Staff and First come Mountain View Citizen Request Yes j5 67% 1 year CIP ~ Neighbors first sene Cl) Resident General Fund/ Cl)
Palo Alto Citizen Request No 50% (J) None Priority List Committee Citizens•
Menlo Park Citizen Request No Staff 50% Yes, unspecified G I F d length enera un Priority List
Redwood City Citizen Request Yes Staff 50% None General Fund Priority List San Mateo Citizen Request Yes Resident 50% None Traffic Impact First come Committee Fee first sene
Fremont Citizen Request No Resident 70% None General Fund Priority List Committee Livermore Citizen Request No Staff 60% None Citizens Priority List • 100% of • a pilot period is
Notes: fronting required for • considers level
propoerties collectors of citizen funding
= "~XA~ON
357
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Prior to qualifying the request, five cities (Gilroy, Redwood City, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, and San Mateo) require Public Works staff to review the signage and striping of the concerned street. If determined by staff that either additional signage (i.e. speed warning signs), striping, or other Stage 1 measures could mitigate the expressed concern, then such measures are implemented, and it is deemed that the concern has been addressed. The City of Morgan Hill in addition requires staff to hold an initial neighborhood meeting to gauge the concerns before qualifying the request/concerns.
The City of Los Banos requires the traffic calming process to be initiated by both a resident request and a neighborhood petition/consensus, described below.
Request Qualification
After the request initiation, based on the specific concern (i.e. cut-through traffic, speeding), staff would collect data on the concerned street and determine whether the street meets the criteria (85th percentile speed, ADT, or percent cut-through) for traffic calming. The process is continued if the request is qualified. For the Cities of Gilroy, Merced, and San Mateo, data are collected as part of a follow-up study 1 to 3 months after Step 1 measures have been implemented.
For the cities that do not require neighborhood petitions prior to data collection, most of them require a neighborhood petition/survey with 50%-67% support after qualifying the request.
The City of Stockton is unique because it does not have qualification criteria to determine the eligibility for a traffic calming request. Every traffic calming request is processed on a first-come, first-served basis.
In Los Banos, the Public Works Department would collect data on the concerned street and determine whether the street meets the criteria upon receipt of a completed request.
Neighborhood Meetings and Traffic Calming Studies
All cities share a common philosophy that traffic calming projects are for the residents, and neighborhood involvement is critical in each step of the traffic calming procedure. Research shows that once the resident request is qualified for traffic calming, all cities then begin the process of hosting neighborhood meetings and developing traffic calming studies. The neighborhood process all entail at least two meetings: one initial meeting to explain the traffic calming process and a second meeting to discuss the potential traffic calming measures. Many cities also ask the residents to form a steering committee after the initial neighborhood meeting to represent the neighborhood and interact with staff.
While all cities involve residents in the study process by hosting neighborhood meetings, there are various levels of resident involvement in determining the traffic calming plans: 1) staff lead the process, 2) residents lead the process, and 3) resident/staff share the lead. These distinctions are discussed below:
• The City of San Mateo is the only researched city that requests residents take the lead in developing the traffic calming plans. City staff's role is limited to periodically reviewing the plans and providing support in the process. Staff review is to ensure that the proposed plan is in line with the city adopted policies and that no considerable impacts (i.e. diverted traffic, primary response times, drainage) would occur as a result of the proposed plan. • In Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, Livermore, and Redwood City, City staff would lead the process in developing the traffic calming plans. This is not saying that residents are not involved in the process, it just means that the process of developing a traffic calming plan is
358
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 led by City staff. After qualifying the resident requests, City staff would develop the initial traffic calming plans with alternatives. Neighborhood meetings then occur so staff could explain the various alternatives and hear feedback from residents. Staff would then revise the plans based on resident feedback and hold additional meetings so residents could reach a consensus on the identified traffic calming plan. During the initial development of traffic calming plans, City staff would have considered the potential negative impacts of the plan, and consulted other relevant departments to ensure city policies are upheld with the plan.
• The remaining cities require staff and residents to work together to develop a desired traffic calming plan during the neighborhood meetings. Stockton, Palo Alto, and Fremont specify that the residents should select a working group to work with city staff to develop the plans.
In Merced, the Traffic Committee organizes a neighborhood action team of residents and city staff members. The other cities do not specify the need for a working group. In Stockton, at the beginning of the process in developing a traffic calming plan, the neighborhood will need to decide which program (humps/lumps or full) they want to pursue.
In Los Banos, neighborhood meetings are not required because a neighborhood facilitator, who would be assigned when submitting the resident request/petition form, would be responsible for working with both the Public Works representative and property owners. Upon receipt of a completed request, the Public Work Department would collect data on the concerned street and determine whether the street meets the criteria.
Neighborhood Consensus
Once the traffic calming plan is identified and supported by both the staff and neighbors during the neighborhood meetings, most cities then require a neighborhood vote to put the plan before city decision bodies (i.e. traffic commission, city council) for approval. The voting area and level of required support to advance the plan differ among cities. The required support level within the voting area ranges between 50% and 70%. For some cities, the neighborhood voting area is the same as the study area. Other cities restrict the voting area to only the affected blocks, which may be smaller than the initial petition area to start the traffic calming process. The City of Morgan Hill further requires that all owners with properties directly fronting the installation must approve the plan for the plan to advance.
The City of Livermore is unique because once a traffic calming plan is finalized during the neighborhood meetings, staff will install temporary devices to serve as a trial installation of the traffic calming measures. At the end of the trial implementation period (length not specified}, staff will prepare a follow-up study, and present findings to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is then asked to vote on the permanent implementation with a required 60% support to advance the plan for city council approval.
In Los Banos, neighborhood consensus is a part of the request initiation. The required support level within the petition area is 70% with all property owners signing the petition form (100% response rate). All property owners (100%) immediately adjacent to the speed cushions need to agree to the placement.
Traffic Calming Plan Approval
The traffic calming plan that has been developed by the neighborhood and city staff and reviewed by other City departments is then submitted to the city decision bodies for approval. Most of the cities require only the City Council to hear the plan. San Mateo requires the Public Works Commission to review the plan prior to City Council. Palo Alto and Menlo Park require the
359
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Planning/Transportation Commission to review the plan prior to City Council. Merced requires the Traffic Commission to review the plan prior to City Council. In Stockton, a plan developed through the full program requires approval from City Council, while a plan developed through the humps/lumps program only needs to be approved by a neighborhood vote.
In Los Banos, the Traffic Safety Commission reviews and approves the speed cushion placement plan developed by the Public Works Department.
Implementation
For half of the researched cities, once the appropriate decision bodies (discussed above) approve the plan, city staff would permanently implement the traffic calming measures. A trial implementation is not needed, except in the City of Livermore where a trial implementation is required prior to neighborhood approval of the plan. The City of Fremont requires a follow-up study to evaluate the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures.
In the other half of the researched cities, a trial implementation of the traffic calming measures is required. All of these cities require staff to conduct a follow-up study 3 months to a year after the trial implementation. The follow-up study would ensure the implemented traffic calming measure is effective in mitigating the expressed concern and would ensure that no unintended impacts are generated. In Gilroy and Morgan Hill, if staff determines that the implemented trial measures are effective, permanent measures will be implemented. Staff do not need to consult the neighborhood. In Merced and Mountain View, staff have the option to recommend the permanent implementation to Transportation Commission and/or City Council without neighborhood review. In Palo Alto and Menlo Park, staff present the follow-up study results to the neighbors in another neighborhood meeting. Neighbors are then asked to vote on the final implementation. If a simple majority is achieved, the final implementation plan is brought forward for Transportation Commission and/or City Council approvals. The approved final plans will then be permanently implemented.
In Los Banos, the Public Works Department would permanently implement the speed cushions based on availability of funding, in order of approval.
Funding
Most researched cities provide funding for the traffic calming program. The City of Mountain View specifies that funding will come from the general fund and for larger projects from the Capital Improvement Program. San Mateo specifies that funding will come exclusively from the Traffic Mitigation account, which is funded by an impact fee on new development.
Three of the researched cities will accept/request outside funding. Morgan Hill funds projects through the Capital Improvement Plan but will also accept voluntary contributions. The City of Palo Alto dedicates $100,000 annually to fund traffic calming projects and will also accept voluntary contributions. For both Morgan Hill and Palo Alto, the voluntary contribution from residents would not affect the traffic calming planning and approval process. The contributions may be used only to speed up the construction process. The City of Livermore specifies that the City will cover full administration costs and will share the construction cost with the residents based on a scale system. Maintenance of the project is funded entirely by the residents.
In City of Merced, residents would be responsible for funding of traffic calming projects. The City may elect to contribute a portion of the needed funds, up-to a maximum of 25% to the overall project.
Los Banos specifies that funding will come from the general fund.
360
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 Prioritization
All researched cities recognize that they have only limited staff resources and budgets that can be devoted to traffic calming projects. Therefore, all researched cities have specified a prioritization method for the traffic calming requests. There are generally two methods of prioritization: 1) firstcome first-served, and 2) scale system. Both are discussed below:
• Merced, Stockton, San Mateo, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale are the four cities that work on traffic calming projects on a first-come, first-served basis. • Morgan Hill and Fremont specify that traffic calming projects will be taken by staff on a firstcome first-served basis. Upon City approval of the implementation of the traffic calming measures, the projects will then be placed on a priority list based on a scale system. Priority is given to projects with the more severe traffic calming issues. In Morgan Hill, where the City accepts resident contributions, priority could be given to projects that are mostly funded by residents.
• The remaining researched cities will prioritize working on traffic calming projects based on a scale system after collecting sufficient data to qualify the projects. Priority is given to projects with more severe traffic calming issues.
In Los Banos, speed cushion requests will be taken by staff on a first-come, first-served basis.
Upon approval, the speed cushions will be placed in order of approval.
Traffic Calming Measures on Collector and Arterial Streets All researched cities recognize that traffic calming measures should be use on streets that are predominantly residential in nature. These streets typically include two-lane local and residential collector streets that have residential frontage. These residential streets have lower design speeds and carry relatively low volumes. The City of Redwood City, which allows traffic calming devices on minor collector streets, indicates that traffic calming devices should generally be installed only on streets where the posted or prima facia speed limit is 30 mph or less and an average daily traffic volume of 5,000 vehicles or fewer. The City of Stockton allows traffic calming measures on twolane local commercial and minor collectors.
Although traffic calming measures could be considered for collector streets, some cities (Gilroy, Palo Alto, and Merced) recognize that traffic calming measures on a collector street is designed to address primarily speed because measures to divert traffic away collector streets conflict with the basic purpose of collectors, which is to handle some level of through traffic. In Gilroy, traffic calming devices to divert traffic are not permitted on collector streets.
Most researched cities do not support the installation of traffic calming devices on arterial streets because the purpose of traffic calming, which is often to reduce traffic volumes and/or speeds, is inconsistent with the primary function of arterial streets, which are defined, designed and maintained for through traffic. Sufficient capacity and appropriate operating conditions must be maintained on these more heavily traveled streets so that traffic is not forced onto local streets and into residential areas. The Cities of Stockton, San Mateo, and Gilroy allow non-intrusive traffic calming measures (Stage 1 measures) on any public city street including arterial streets.
Collector and arterial streets typically are also designated as primary response routes, transit routes or truck routes. Most researched cities do not support the installation of physical traffic calming devices that will significantly reduce emergency response times on primary access routes for emergency vehicles. In San Mateo, all designated primary response routes, bus routes, and Pagel11
361
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 truck routes are ineligible for physical traffic calming measures. In City of Gilroy, all bus routes and truck routes are ineligible for physical traffic calming measures. The City of Merced prohibits certain physical measures, such as speed cushions/humps, chicanes, forced-turn channelization, and street closure, on primary access routes for emergency vehicles. The City of Stockton prohibits speed humps on emergency response routes and physical movement-restriction measures (i.e. turn-prohibition, forced-turn channelization, median barrier, and street closure) on bus routes. The Cities of Palo Alto and Livermore also prohibit devices that considerably limit or restrict emergency vehicle access on collector streets.
For arterial streets that are excluded from most NTCP, the City of Palo Alto recognizes that interest in reducing speeds on residential arterial streets while maintaining full arterial traffic volumes and full access for all vehicles and other road users. It is a distinct program from the NTCP and is being implemented on a separate track.
The City of Los Banos Speed Cushion policy is not intended to address speeding issues on collector or arterial streets because speed cushions should only be installed on low-speed streets with a speed limit of 25 mph. The purpose of speed cushions is to slow vehicle travel speed to 20 - 25 mph when crossing the speed cushions. Therefore, it is inappropriate to install them on streets with a speed limit of 30 mph or greater. It is our understanding that the City of Los Banos is considering traffic calming measures on its arterial and collector streets that are residential in nature, such as West I Street, Stonewood Drive, and 7th Street, on a case-by case basis. Potential traffic calming measures that can be implemented on these streets are described below. These recommended measures are based on our review of the traffic calming policies of other cities and the design and function of these streets.
• West I Street: West I Street is a two-lane minor arterial street. North of SR 152, it provides access to residential, government, medical, and commercial uses on the street. Therefore, it is not a residential street, and neighborhood traffic calming measures typically are not done on a street like this because it usually has fewer complaints from adjacent uses.
However, to reduce the travel speed on the street, the City could consider the non-intrusive measures, which include community outreach/education, police enforcement, placement of speed display units, additional speed limit signs/legends, and/or high visibility crosswalks and curb extensions described below.
South of SR 152, West I Street provides a connection to local streets in the residential neighborhood in the southwest quadrant of the City. The street is approximately 65 feet wide with a travel lane, bike lane and on-street parking on each side of the street. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Streets with this lane configuration typically have a roadway width of 48 feet (each direction has an 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane, and 8-foot parking zone). Thus, West I Street is much wider than a typical roadway with an equivalent number of lanes. Wider streets tend to lead to higher speeds, so it is not surprising that this street has speeding issues.
Because it is a minor arterial street that needs to maintain street capacity and emergency response times, the City could consider implementing non-intrusive measures, which include community outreach/education, police enforcement, placement of speed display units, additional speed limit signs/legends, and/or high visibility crosswalks. Because of the wide street encouraging drivers to speed, the City could also consider the following treatments to narrow the travel lanes.
o Stripe the bike lanes with a buffer area between the bike lanes and travel lanes to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide.
362
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 o Implement a center median along the entire street to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide. This could be done with paint or curb. Construction of a physical center median could effectively narrow the travel lane, but it is expansive to implement. o Implement curb extensions at intersections to narrow the street visually, while not interfering with the bike lanes.
• Stonewood Drive: Stonewood Drive is a two-lane residential arterial street that provides a connection to local and residential collector streets in the residential neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the City. The street is approximately 65 feet wide with a travel lane, bike lane and on-street parking on each side of the street. Some stretches of the street have center medians, approximately 15 feet wide. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Streets with this lane configuration typically have a roadway width of 48 feet (each direction has an 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane, and 8-foot parking zone). Thus, Stonewood Drive is much wider than a typical roadway with an equivalent number of lanes. Wider streets tend to lead to higher speeds, so it is not surprising that this street has speeding issues.
Because it is an arterial street that needs to maintain street capacity and emergency response times, the City could consider implementing non-intrusive measures, which include community outreach/education, police enforcement, placement of speed display units, additional speed limit signs/legends, and/or high visibility crosswalks. Because of the wide street encouraging drivers to speed, the City could also consider the following treatments to narrow the travel lanes.
o Stripe the bike lanes with a buffer area between the bike lanes and travel lanes to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide.
o Widen the center median along the entire street to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide. This could be done with paint or curb.
o Implement curb extensions at intersections to narrow the street visually, while not interfering with the bike lanes.
• 7th Street: North of SR 152, 7th Street is a two-lane minor arterial street. The street section provides access to residential, government, and commercial uses on the street. Therefore, it is not a residential street, and neighborhood traffic calming measures typically are not done on a street like this because it usually has fewer complaints from adjacent uses.
However, to reduce the travel speed on the street, the City could consider the non-intrusive measures and curb extensions described above.
South of SR 152, 7th Street is a two-lane residential collector. The street is approximately 40 to 44 feet wide with a travel lane and on-street parking on each side of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The roadway width is typical for a two-lane street, so overall narrowing is not called for. However, the City could consider spot narrowing with curb extensions at intersections to make the street appear narrower. Some loss of on-street parking would occur. The City also could consider non-intrusive measures.
Recommendations
The results of the policy comparisons shows that although the Los Banos Speed Cushion policy only includes the installation of speed cushions on local streets, the procedure to request, qualify, and implement speed cushions on a local street is in line with the policies of other cities because it includes criteria for request qualification, street qualification, and neighborhood consensus. The Page I 13
363
Review Study for City of Los Banos Speed Cushion Policy April 20, 2021 policy also includes implementation and approval procedures and addresses funding and prioritization of speed cushion requests.
The City is considering traffic calming measures that can be implemented on its arterial and collector streets on a case-by case basis. However, the Speed Cushion policy is not intended to address speeding issues on collector or arterial streets because speed cushions should only be installed on low-speed streets with a speed limit of 25 mph. Based on our review of the traffic calming policies of other cities and the design and function of arterial streets in Los Banos, the City could consider the following treatments on wide collector/arterial streets, such as West I Street and Stonewood Drive, to narrow the travel lanes and reduce travel speed. • Stripe the bike lanes with a buffer area between the bike lanes and travel lanes to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide.
• Implement a center median along the entire street to narrow the travel lane to 11 feet wide.
This could be done with paint or curb. Construction of a physical center median could effectively narrow the travel lane, but it is expansive to implement. • Implement curb extensions at intersections to narrow the street visually, while not interfering with the bike lanes.
For residential collector/arterial streets with typical roadway width, the City could consider spot narrowing with curb extensions at intersections to make the street appear narrower. Some loss of on-street parking would occur. The City also could consider non-intrusive measures, which include community outreach/education, police enforcement, placement of speed display units, additional speed limit signs/legends, and/or high visibility crosswalks.
364
Speed Cushion Policy Review Study
Appendices
365
366
Appendix A
Traffic Calming Devices
367
368
Bulbouts
Chokers
369
Chicane
fJ!ID
370
Roundabout
Entranc;e line
kcNslble pedc!strf.,
cr°"ng
Median Barrier
371
Forced Turn
Half Street Closure
I . .
I ~: . ··
I
I
I
'...-.::..:.:.:.~---=--=--=---=--=-==
j • .;.-J)
:s
!~
l
372
Full Street Closure
373
374
Appendix B
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Merced
375
376
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines Adopted Janua,y 2008 Summary of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines Process:
Completion
Goals
Activity Comments
I
1.5 Months
4 Months
5 Months
City of Merced
Resident Contacts
Engineering
Department I
... Traffic Committee
Classifies the
Problem
.1.
"'
Residents Notified
that there is an
evident concern,
sunnort is reauired
I
♦
Engineering Staff
defines study area.
Required Support
Received.
L......
+
Engineering Staff
Surveys Conditions
to see if standards
are exceeded
+
Area Residents
surveyed to
determine support
for NTC effort
Sufficient Support
Received:
Neighborhood Action
Team Formed
+
Action Team
Decides to Carry
out Phase 1
Activities
Traffic Calming Policy
-
n
~
t
..
~
.. ~
~---
Traffic Committee
studies the
Problem and it is
resolved
Required Support
not received:
Process Ends
Conditions do not
exceed standards,
Process Ends
Sufficient Support
Not Received;
Process Ends
If Phase 1
Activities Solve
Problems, Process
Ends
J
I
-
This may be accomplished by calling
(209) 385-6846, writing a letter, or
visiting 678 W. 18th Street.
The NTC Guidelines provide a listing of
what typically constitutes how a project
shall be classified.
In Addition to the initial resident
contact, at least four (4) households will
have to support the problem as valid by
writing letters or submitting a petition.
Engineering Staff surveys the area,
defines the geographic limits of the
problem(s) and prepares a map defining
the study area.
Engineering Staff determines whether
traffic speeds or volumes exceed
Circulation Element Standards. A brief
report is prepared that presents the
findings of this analysis.
If 60% or more of the study area's
households support the planning effort,
the process is initiated. Method of
survey depends on # households in
study area.
Neighborhood Action Teams should
provide for fair representation of study
area and community interests and have
more than 3 but less than 12 members.
Phase I activities would be implemented
and tested for their effectiveness without
an area-wide vote of support. They
often require households to participate.
377
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines Adopted Janua,y 2008 Completion
Goals
10 Months
8 Months
i
9 Months
l
City of Merced
Traffic Calming
Summary of NTC Process: Local and Residential
Collector Streets (Continued)
Activity Comments
Phase 1 Actions
Don't Fix Problem
or not Appropriate:
Prepare Action Plan
.
• Action Team
completes first draft
plan and distributes
for Input.
-· • Final Draft Plan
sent to study area
property owners/
households for
vntP
" •
Area-Approved Plan
sent to Council for
adoption
Design and Install
Permanent
Facilities
Monitor results
and make changes
as needed
.I,
~
~
City Residents
request significant
modifications or
removal
Polic y
.
Insufficient number
of Households/
Owners support
plan: process ends
Council Votes
"No": Process
Ends
Install Temporary
Facilities Where
Appropriate
""
ll
If Phase I activities are carried out, City
installs and monitors their performance.
If they do not work, then the Action
Team prepares an NTC Action Plan.
Draft Plan distributed to area households
and property owners; public review
period set and community meeting held;
Action Team amends plan in response.
67%+ of study area property
owners/residents must vote yes for the
plan to be approved.
City Council May adopt as submitted,
adopt as amended, decide not to adopt a
plan, or send it back to the Action Team
for more work and resubmitted.
Installations are for only a few hours
or days; if left longer, they should be
accompanied by temporary signs and
be aesthetically pleasing.
This will likely require the hiring of
private contractors and may await the
creation of benefits assessment district
to pay for installing the facilities.
No sooner than 180 days but within a
year of installation, staff will monitor
results and make adjustments as needed
to the design of the facilities.
The same process used to adopt the
NTC plan will be used to amend it with
requesting city residents paying full cost
for any changes to NTC Facilities.
378
Appendix C
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Stockton
379
380
Traffic Calming Guldelines
REVISED TRAFEIC CALMING PROCESS
Day 1
Oay30
Day60
Oay61 -67
0ay68-98
Day99
Day 100•
Humps/Lumps
Program
~i:islblladJIISHI Mi:t:lillQ
.form Committee
-Conduct Traffk: Class
l
1 • CD.mmitt= Mi:i:llog -Start Developing Plan
l ~ Cgmmilll:I: Mt:t:liog .finalize Plan
-Schedule Neighbomood Meeting
l
Staff Packages & Mails Plan and
Meeting NoUce to Residents
l
Nelgllborhood Reviews Plan &
Begins Voting
(voling by email. phone. letter, or
at Neighborhood Meeting)
1 tlliQhbothoocf "1Ullng
Vote taken and combined with
write in votes
(50% + 1 approves plan)
l
Work Orders issued to install
improvements
Full Program
lii:igbtlilrhood M=lm
-Fonn Committee
l
l 11 ~11mma11:1: MUlm • Traffic Class
-Start Developing Pla.n
l
2"" • ~VI ~l!IIIIDiUU MUIIQ!Z:l
•Orafl/F'inatu:e Plan
-Schedule Neighborhood Meeting
l
Staff Packages & Maita Plan and
Meeting Notice to Residents
l
Neighbomood Reviews Plan &
Begins Voting
(voting by emau, phone, letter, or at
Neighborhood Meeting)
i
~i:igbbslmllSHI Mm:ling
Vote taken and combined with write
•Schedule depende.nt on number of 'Committee
Mfftlnge
in votes
(50% • 1 approves plan)
l
Design Begins
Figure A• I. NTMP Process Flowchart
fl> Fehr & Peers 8 City of Stockton
Day1
Day30
OayS0-120
Day 121 - 127
Oay 128 - 158
Day 159
Oay 160•
381
382
Appendix D
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Gilroy
383
384
Q)
V)
n,
.c
a.
QJ
V)
.c "'
a.
Figure 6: Traffic Calming Procedure
Initial
Request
(Traffic Calming
Request Form}
Initial Study &
Data Collection
Implementation
of Phase I
Improvement
Follow-Up
Studies and
Performance
Verification
Yes - Problem
Abated
No-Calming
Thresholds are
still met
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood
Ranked and
Placed on
Priority List
Neighborhood
Petition
Petition Not Met
-No Further
Action
Petition Met -
Traffic Analysis
and Define Study
Area for Phase II
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
Outreach and
Public
Participation
Traffic Calming
Plan
Development
Department
Review
Neighborhood
Meeting
Neighborhood
Survey for
Program Support
City Council
Review and
Approval
r
Implementation
34 L_
385
386
Appendix E
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Sunnyvale
387
388
_J
t
7 -+-
Appendix 1 - Traffic Calming Flow Chart
AP,pendi~ 1,a~ Traffic CaJn,ing flow Chart, --:,
Report the concern.
Complete Traffic Calming
Request Form.
Is the location eligible for Traffic Calming? 1--------- YEs --------..., NO
City Staff will work with residents
to identify other actions.
II NO
L.._-----------NO
Study complete. II NO
Continue Traffic Calming Study. II NO
1------------- NO or
Traffic Calming deemed
inappropriate.
$
Is there neighborhood consensus?
YES
Staff data collection and evaluation. Are thresholds exceeded? YES
Stage 1 Traffic Calming implementation.
YES
Follow up data collection.
Are thresholds still exceeded?
YES
Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study.
YES
Is there neighborhood consensus?
YES
City Council approval.
YES
Implementation.
L
23 t
I
389
390
Appendix F
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Fremont
391
392
Residential Traffic Calming Program Flow Chart
Citizen Request
Speed & Volume Study
Education & Enforcement
3 Month Review
No speeding problem if 85th
percentile < 33 mph. No
further actions.
Monitor for long-term
effects, periodic education &
enforcement.
Effective
S2
If speeding problem persists and
ADT between 800 and 3,500 VPD
City Speed Lump Policy
SI Applies
Conduct speed lump warrant analvsis.
Petition required from at least 70% of
S3 affected residents including consent
from residents whose properties are
adjacent to the speed lump.
S4 Priority list established for all
candidate street segments.
Annual report prepared to City Council for
S5 approval and funding of top ranked street
segments.
Upon City Council approval, plans &
S6 specifications are prepared and project put
out to bid.
S7 Installation of speed lumps.
If speeding problem persists
and ADT > 3,500 VPD
Tl Consider installation ofalternative traffic calming devices.
T2
Petition from 70% of affected residents living on the street.
Hold I st neighborhood meeting within six weeks after
T3 petition received. Informational meeting with potentially impacted residents. Select Citizen Committee.
T4
T6
Meeting with Citizen Committee using interest based approach.
Define problem & develop solutions & alternate plans. Staff to work with Committee & neighborhood residents (3 months). 2nd Neighborhood Meeting. Staff and Citizen
TS Committee to present conceptual plans; receive
neighborhood input (1-2 month).
3'd Neighborhood Meeting (if needed). Staff to present final plans, work to obtain neighborhood consensus (1 month).
T7 Conduct post card survey of proposed measures. Need 70% of residents living on the street. Establish priority list (I month).
TIO
TS Upon Council approval, install traffic calming
devices with landscaping.
T9 9 Month Review
Tl2 Go back to City Council.
Note: Total planning process is 11 months. Planning schedule may be shortened dependent on scope of project and if
neighborhood consensus is achieved early in the planning process.
Residential Traffic Calming Program
April 2002
Page4
393
394
Appendix G
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Morgan Hill
395
396
I
• • l
..
~ z
~ "O
l
Cltv ,,, Mo, g.1'1 t1 "
Neighborhood Traffic Management Polley (NTMP) Process
Re-11et1'lal
lutallltion
7 397
398
Appendix H
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of Redwood City
399
400
Chart 1:
High Ranked
'Request
TRAFFIC CALMING
REQUEST PROCESS
Initial Request
Prioritize
Requests
Install minor
Improvements
No Further
Action
TRAFFIC CALMING
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
<5°" Representation No Further
Action
Committee To
Revise Oe5lgn
Max 2 reVlslons
D(,velop Initial
design
Present to
CSAC
City Council for
Funding of PS&E
And Construction
PS&E
Construction
NO
8 401
402
Appendix I
Traffic Calming Implementation Flow Chart
- City of San Mateo
403
404
FIGURE 6
Traffic Calming Procedure
Problem Abated No
...
Yes
City of San Mateo
Initial Request
Implementation of
Step 1
Improvements
Yes
Petition Process
•
Initial
Neighborhood
Meeting
l
Steering
Committee
Develops/Revises
Traffic Calming
Plan
Traffic Calming
Plan Reviewed by
City Departments
No
•
Neighborhood
Meeting to Present
Traffic Calming
Program
•
Support for
Program
Measured via
Neighborhood
Survey
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
No
Traffic Calming
Plan Reviewed by
Public Works
Commission
Yes
Traffic Calming
Plan Reviewed by
City Council for
Funding
I
Yes
i
Construct Traffic
Calming
Improvements
Problem Abated
No No Further Action
31 405
406
Presentation to the
City of Los Banos
for
TRAFFIC CALMING
Presented by
~
111...111111 ~ ~XA~ON hANS~O~TATION (OHSULTANTS. INC.
November 2021
407
n
cm
• •
~ , '
-0-
,..
• om
•
~
J;1
• •
Speed Cushion Policy Study
• Compare to other cities
• Evaluate West I Street, Stonewood Drive,
7th Street
408
n
cm
• • I
Traffic Calming Issues
~ I ' • Speeding
• Cut-through traffic
<>-
• Collisions ,..
• Truck traffic "
~ rr.ff-'" f I . 1 1Ml1'
00 I
Los Banos: Speeding
I
•
~
'1
• •
409
n
cm
• •
Street Qualifications
~ I • Residential/ local streets
• Residential collectors
-0-
,..
•
0~
•
~
t;1
• •
• Arterials (non-intrusive measures)
• Speeding threshold: 32-35 mph
• Volume Threshold:
local street 1,000-2,000 ADT,
collector 3,500-4,000 ADT
Los Banos: Local Streets,
goth % speed > 35 mph,
500-2,500 ADT
410
n
cm
• •
Traffic Calming Measures
~ I • Signage & striping (non-intrusive)
ii
• Speed cushions
f I • Traffic circles
• Lane narrowing
•
oto I • M ovement restrictions
~ I Los Banos: Speed cushions
~ • •
411
cm "
• •
~ , '
-0-
,..
•
0~
•
~
~ • •
Traffic Calming Procedure
• Citizen request
• Qualification
• Plan development
• Required support: 50%-70%
Los Banos: 70%
412
413
a:
414
LOsBanos
\1 t ht Cro~sroad · JJ ,lifonu ,
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor Faria and City Council Members
FROM: William A Vaughn, City Attorney
DATE: January 19, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Regular Agenda
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEEDS FROM THE LOS BANOS
DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE FORMER LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
THE CITY OF LOS BANOS [APN No. 025-054-005 and 083-100- 067]
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution No __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS [APN No. 025-054-005)
2. Adopt Resolution No __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS [APN No. 083-100-067]
415
ITEM 14
BACKGROUND
AB1x 26 was enacted in June 2011 and after a California Supreme Court ruling, all redevelopment agencies (over 400 statewide) in California were dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The Los Banos Designated Local Authority (DLA), as Successor Agency to the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency, is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency.
In accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the below described properties to the City was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the transfer of the properties by letter dated September 20, 2018.
The City Council previously on August 18, 2021, November 3, 2021, December 15, 2021, and January 5, 2022 approved acceptance of the following twelve ( 12) parcels from the DLA:
• APN No. 025-054-007: 1.15 acre parcel located on 2nd and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail and neighborhood park - former Pacheco Oil Site.
• APN No. 025-072-036: 7.85 acre parcel located on H Street between 4th and ih Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail and the Henry Miller Plaza.
• APN No. 025-114-013: This is a 1.1 acre parcel located on G Street between 9th Street (future) and 10th Streets (future); currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped.
• APN No. 025-114-011: This is a 0.92 acres parcel located on ih and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped.
• APN No. 026-141-001: This is a 0.86 acre parcel located on 10th Street (future) and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped. • APN No. 083-100-081: This is a 11. 79 acre parcel located on Ward Road and Gilbert Gonzalez Jr Drive; currently zoned Public Facility (P-F) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N); partially developed with a public water storage tank facility and storm drainage system. This parcel is immediately east of the Gilbert Gonzalez Apartments.
416
• APN No. 083-100-084: This is a 8.21 acre parcel located on Gilbert Gonzalez Jr Drive; currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3); currently undeveloped.
This parcel is immediately west of the Gilbert Gonzalez Apartments. • APN No. 025-201-01 0: This is a 0.13 acre parcel located downtown Los Banos at 644/646 I Street; currently zoned Mixed (M-X); undeveloped. • APN No. 026-141-002: .68 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 026-161-001: 2.20 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 026-171-011: 1.3 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 025-114-010: 5.63 acre parcel located between yth Street and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail.
DISCUSSION
The following two parcels are now being presented to the City Council for acceptance.
417
1. APN No. 025-054-005: A 3.2 acre parcel located between 2nd Street and 4th Streets and between G Street and H Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail.
The compensation agreement entered into by the City of Los Banos and the other taxing entities provides that two separate parcels be created for the walking trail for continued governmental use with the remainder designated for future development.
The above map depicts the parcel ( outlined in blue) and the proposed split of the parcel with the northern portion as governmental use and southern portion as future development.
Governmental use properties must remain dedicated for governmental use for a period of twenty (20) years. Should the City within twenty (20) years from the effective date of the compensation agreement sell the properties for a non-governmental use, the net proceeds are to be divided proportionately with the other taxing entities. After said twenty (20) year period, City may sell or use the property, for any lawful purpose free and clear from all conditions set forth in the compensation agreement.
The future development property is to be disposed of by the City and developed consistent with the Redevelopment Plans adopted by the Redevelopment Agency.
When sold the net proceeds are to be divided proportionately with the other taxing entities.
418
On June 18, 2020 the DLA and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recorded a land use covenant restricting the use of portions of this parcel to non-residential uses due to residual arsenic impacts. The pertinent restrictive provisions of the LUC are set forth as follows:
"The Restricted Property may not be put to any of the following uses by Owners/Occupants:
(1) A residence, including any mobile home or factory-built housing, used as residential human habitation.
(2) A hospital or urgent care center for humans.
(3) A public or private school for persons under 18 years of age. (4) A day care center for children."
In addition, no activities that will disturb the soil (e.g., digging, excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement or mining), shall be allowed within the impacted areas without prior written approval from the Central Valley Water Board.
On September 27, 2020 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a notice of no further action required for the Los Banos Rails to Trails (which includes the subject parcel) concerning arsenic impacts to soil at the site.
While the No Further Action Letter may represent a determination by a regulatory agency that a particular party has satisfied its obligations to remediate a release of hazardous substances under an environmental statute, the NFA letter usually will not operate to cut off potential common law toxic tort claims for bodily injury or property damage.
On December 15, 2021 the City obtained a condition of title guarantee from TransCounty Title Company. The guarantee shows the title to the property vested in Redevelopment Agency of The City Los Banos. There are no exceptions to title which are major concerns which would affect the City Council's decision to accept the Grant Deed.
419
2. APN No. 083-100-067: A 6.5 acre parcel located between Ward Road and Place Road currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail.
H t
:iis- R
11 ' •
1175 !
I 17 I
Uff.) '
,.;1 I
,u, ' 1"7
111'1 .~ ' , ... , ,-.1 I
t 1 ~ ;
, 1 .. , I
l •• ,} I 16400
, , .:1
• " '• I t111 1~ " 1$:'1,
1 ,u? 4 tlO~
1151 '.£f,.,J 1.iJ@ 1 ISi 2Ul 2\$1
. . / 11,.1 2151 )tat lUt Ztt1 ,t1$-1
21"[1 ·2151 ~1,.1 21 ,., 2131 Z15J
2151 2151 2151 2111 2151
. I 21S1 1~1 21!f1 2151 l 1.51 Zt ~t 2U1
! 1't 21'1 U'<i H61 2151 .U ~t 2Ut
~1$1 2151 21S1 21M 21$1. 2151 l1St .
,- ,,,_,n.:._Jr.:mr1; · 7°il~:;
;MJ!w~J•·•d;,-,0/,fi!io,tli,
' '2;,t;t;o•-\$.~l,22,1 Jn;~~~~t:l~ ~n~ · . · ~ . . . 12-\1 ·&!1.~~~~i.~i~f'SM:·,
~..ii.~~n.,~lW; ~ ~Jr' •• :11n •. a;a-1:J
22$$c
. ,;·- ;lLClliQl!GG
.. '----- ...... . ,. ' . ' ._:I !
·-'l~~.1«11 .-~ f{ .. 0 " , "' "' ! ~ ! ·,
The compensation agreement entered into by the City of Los Banos and the other taxing entities provides that this parcel is designated for continued governmental use.
Governmental use properties must remain dedicated for governmental use for a period of twenty (20) years. Should the City within twenty (20) years from the effective date of the compensation agreement sell the properties for a non-governmental use, the net proceeds are to be divided proportionately with the other taxing entities. After said twenty (20) year period, City may sell or use the property, for any lawful purpose free and clear from all.conditions set forth in the compensation agreement.
On June t 8, 2020 the DLA and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recorded a land use covenant restricting the use of portions of this parcel to non-residential uses due to residual arsenic impacts. The pertinent restrictive provisions of the LUC are set forth as follows:
"The Restricted Property may not be put to any of the following uses by Owners/Occupants:
(1) A residence, including any mobile home or factory-built housing, used as residential human habitation.
420
(2) A hospital or urgent care center for humans.
(3) A public or private school for persons under 18 years of age. (4) A day care center for children."
In addition, no activities that will disturb the soil (e.g., digging, excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement or mining), shall be allowed within the impacted areas without prior written approval from the Central Valley Water Board.
On September 27, 2020 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a notice of no further action required for the Los Banos Rails to Trails (which includes the subject parcel) concerning arsenic impacts to soil at the site.
While the No Further Action Letter may represent a determination by a regulatory agency that a particular party has satisfied its obligations to remediate a release of hazardous substances under an environmental statute, the NFA letter usually will not operate to cut off potential common law toxic tort claims for bodily injury or property damage.
On December 15, 2021 the City obtained a condition of title guarantee from TransCounty Title Company. The guarantee shows the title to the property vested in Redevelopment Agency of The City Los Banos. There are no exceptions to title which are major concerns which would affect the City Council's decision to accept the Grant Deed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
CONCLUSION
Government Code Section 27281 requires that deeds conveying an interest in real property to a governmental agency for public purposes may be accepted for recordation only with the consent of the agency evidenced by a resolution. In order to accept title to any real property interest, the City Council must authorize acceptance and recordation of title with the County Recorder.
iv Attachments:
Proposed Resolutions
421
422
RESOLUTION NO. --
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
[APN No. 025-054-005)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation, the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency was dissolved effective February 1, 2012;and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos Designated Local Authority, As Successor Agency to the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A), is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Banos as follows:
SECTION I: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
SECTION 2: The City hereby accepts the grant deed, attached hereto from the Successor Agency of the former Los Banos Redevelopment Agency to the City of Los Banos.
SECTION 3: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Certificate of Acceptance.
423
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 19th day of January 2022, by City Council Member _ _ __ , who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by City Council Member ____ , and the Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
424
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
RE: APN No: 025-054-005
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Grant Deed
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1 X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v.
Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation (collectively, the "Dissolution Act'), the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency ("Redevelopment Agency") was dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A), is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. In accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
ACCORDINGLY, FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Granter, LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A) hereby GRANT(S) to
Grantee, CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
425
All of its right, title and interest in and to the following described real property in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Dated: January_, 2022 LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized
and existing under California Health and Safety Code
Section 34173( d)(3)(A)
By:--------------
Michael Amabile, Chairman
426
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On
)
----- ----
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
427
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California, described as follows:
Assessors Parcel No.: 025-054-005-
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Block 57 of said map, (Town of Los Banos) being also on the Southeasterly line of Second Street, 80.00 feet wide, thence North 28 deg. 42' 00" East along the Northeasterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of Second Street, a distance 120.00 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of Block 46 of said map; Thence, South 68 deg. 08' 34" East, a distance of 151.08 feet to a point that is perpendicular with and distance 132.00 feet from the Southwesterly line of "G" Street; Thence, South 68 deg. 35' 39" East, a distance of 252.04 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Block 46, also being the Northwesterly line of Third Street; Thence, South 61 deg. 18' 00" East, along the Southwesterly line of Third Street and a line that is parallel with and 100.00 feet perpendicular to the Southwesterly line of "G" Street, a distance of 480.00 feet to the Northwesterly prolongation of Fourth Street to a point referenced as "Point A";
Thence, South 28 deg. 42' 00" West, along said Southwesterly prolongation, a distance of 170.00 feet to a point that is distant 100.00 feet from the Northeasterly line of "H" Street; Thence, North 61 deg. 18' 00" West, along a line that is parallel with the 100 perpendicular to the Northeasterly line of "H" Street, a distance of 880.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom all minerals and all mineral rights of every kind and character now known to exist or hereafter discovered, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, oil and gas and rights thereto, together with the sole, exclusive and perpetual right to explore for, remove and dispose of said minerals by any means or methods suitable but without entering upon or using the surface as reserved by Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation in that certain Quitclaim Deed recorded November 9, 2001 in Book 4309, Page 91 as Series No. 51128, Merced County Records.
Also excepting therefrom the railroad trackage and track appurtenances thereto (including without limitation, tack, ties, ballast, switches, communication lines, crossing signals and protective devices) (collectively, the "Track Facilities"), as reserved by Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation in that certain Quitclaim Deed recorded November 9, 2001 in Book 4309, Page 91 as Series No. 51128, Merced County Records. 428
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
Government Code, Section 27281
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by Grant Deed dated January _, 2022 from the LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to the CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Los Banos ("City Council") pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ______ of the City Council adopted on January_, 2022 and the City of Los Banos consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
By:------------- -- Josh Pinheiro, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:---------------
Lucille Mallonee, City Clerk
429
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On ------ ---
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
430
RESOLUTION NO. --
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
[APN No. 083-100-067]
WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation, the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency was dissolved effective February 1, 2012;and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos Designated Local Authority, As Successor Agency to the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173( d)(3)(A), is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Banos as follows:
SECTION I: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
SECTION 2: The City hereby accepts the grant deed, attached hereto from the Successor Agency of the former Los Banos Redevelopment Agency to the City of Los Banos.
SECTION 3: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Certificate of Acceptance.
431
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 19th day of January 2022, by City Council Member ____ , who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by City Council Member ____ , and the Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria 111, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
432
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
RE: APN No: 083-100-067
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Grant Deed
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1 X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v.
Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation (collectively, the "Dissolution Act'), the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency ("Redevelopment Agency") was dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A), is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. In accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
ACCORDINGLY, FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Granter, LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A) hereby GRANT(S) to
Grantee, CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
433
All of its right, title and interest in and to the following described real property in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Dated: January _, 2022 LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized
and existing under California Health and Safety Code
Section 34173( d)(3)(A)
By:--------------
Michael Amabile, Chairman
434
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On ---------
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
435
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California, described as follows:
Assessors Parcel No.: 083-100-067-
A strip of land, 100 feet wide, situated in Section 24, Township 10 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County of Merced, State of California, described as follows:
That portion of the 100 foot wide strip of land as described in Deed dated February 5, 1891, from Henry Miller to Southern Pacific Railroad Company, recorded October 3, 1966, in Volume 1727, Page 106, Official Records of said County, lying between the East line of said Section 24 and the center line of Place Road (based on a width of 60 feet wide).
Excepting therefrom,
All minerals and mineral rights, interest and royalties, including, without limiting the generality thereof, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances, as well as metallic or other solid minerals in and under the property, however, Grantor or its successors and assigns, shall not have the right for any purpose whatsoever to enter upon, into or through the surface of the property in connection therewith, as reserved by Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware Corporation in Quitclaim Deed recorded January 3, 1997 in Book 3549, Page 290 as Series No. 156 of Official Records, Merced County.
436
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
Government Code, Section 27281
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by Grant Deed dated January _, 2022 from the LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to the CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Los Banos ("City Council") pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ______ of the City Council adopted on January _, 2022 and the City of Los Banos consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
By:---------------
Josh Pinheiro, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:---------------
Lucille Mallonee, City Clerk
437
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On
)
---- -----
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s}, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
438
LOsBanos . l tl1t Cro.ssrt ul5 of , "J 1n11 ,
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor Faria and City Council Members
FROM: William A Vaughn, City Attorney
DATE: January 19, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Regular Agenda
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEEDS FROM THE LOS BANOS
DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE FORMER LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
THE CITY OF LOS BANOS [APN No. 025-114-005)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution No __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS [APN No. 025-114-0051
BACKGROUND
AB1x 26 was enacted in June 2011 and after a California Supreme Court ruling, all redevelopment agencies (over 400 statewide) in California were dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The Los Banos Designated Local Authority (DLA), as Successor Agency to the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency, is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former 439
ITEM 15
Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency.
In accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the below described properties to the City was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the transfer of the properties by letter dated September 20, 2018.
The City Council previously on August 18, 2021, November 3, 2021, December 15, 2021, and January 5, 2022 approved acceptance of the following twelve (12) parcels from the DLA:
• APN No. 025-054-007: 1.15 acre parcel located on 2nd and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail and neighborhood park - former Pacheco Oil Site.
• APN No. 025-072-036: 7.85 acre parcel located on H Street between 4th and ]1h Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail and the Henry Miller Plaza.
• APN No. 025-114-013: This is a 1.1 acre parcel located on G Street between 9th Street (future) and 10th Streets (future); currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped.
• APN No. 025-114-011: This is a 0.92 acres parcel located on ]1h and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped.
• APN No. 026-141-001: This is a 0.86 acre parcel located on 10th Street (future) and G Street; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped. • APN No. 083-100-081: This is a 11. 79 acre parcel located on Ward Road and Gilbert Gonzalez Jr Drive; currently zoned Public Facility (P-F) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N); partially developed with a public water storage tank facility and storm drainage system. This parcel is immediately east of the Gilbert Gonzalez Apartments.
• APN No. 083-100-084: This is a 8.21 acre parcel located on Gilbert Gonzalez Jr Drive; currently zoned High Density Residential (R-3); currently undeveloped.
This parcel is immediately west of the Gilbert Gonzalez Apartments. • APN No. 025-201-010: This is a 0.13 acre parcel located downtown Los Banos at 644/646 I Street; currently zoned Mixed (M-X); undeveloped. 440
• APN No. 026-141-002: .68 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 026-161-001: 2.20 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 026-171-011: 1.3 acre parcel located between Mercey Springs Road and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); partially developed with a public walking trail.
• APN No. 025-114-010: 5.63 acre parcel located between ]1h Street and the future 10th Street extension; currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); developed with a public walking trail.
DISCUSSION
The following parcel is now being presented to the City Council for acceptance.
APN No. 025-114-005: 0.18 acre parcel located on G Street and 9th Street (future); currently zoned Rail Corridor (RC); undeveloped. ., J
'o>o - .iit.~ll3'1.d•.~- ;· ...
441
The compensation agreement entered into by the City of Los Banos and the other taxing entities provides that this parcel is designated for future development.
The future development property is to be disposed of by the City and developed consistent with the Redevelopment Plans adopted by the Redevelopment Agency.
When sold the net proceeds are to be divided proportionately with the other taxing entities.
On June 18, 2020 the DLA and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board recorded a land use covenant restricting the use of portions of this parcel to non-residential uses due to residual arsenic impacts. The pertinent restrictive provisions of the LUC are set forth as follows:
"The Restricted Property may not be put to any of the following uses by Owners/Occupants:
(1) A residence, including any mobile home or factory-built housing, used as residential human habitation.
(2) A hospital or urgent care center for humans.
(3) A public or private school for persons under 18 years of age. (4) A day care center for children."
In addition, no activities that will disturb the soil (e.g., digging, excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement or mining), shall be allowed within the impacted areas without prior written approval from the Central Valley Water Board.
On September 27, 2020 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a notice of no further action required for the Los Banos Rails to Trails (which includes the subject parcel) concerning arsenic impacts to soil at the site.
While the No Further Action Letter may represent a determination by a regulatory agency that a particular party has satisfied its obligations to remediate a release of hazardous substances under an environmental statute, the NFA letter usually will not operate to cut off potential common law toxic tort claims for bodily injury or property damage.
On December 9, 2021 the City obtained a condition of title guarantee from TransCounty Title Company. The guarantee shows the title to the property vested in Redevelopment Agency of The City Los Banos. There are no exceptions to title which are major concerns which would affect the City Council's decision to accept the Grant Deed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
442
CONCLUSION
Government Code Section 27281 requires that deeds conveying an interest in real property to a governmental agency for public purposes may be accepted for recordation only with the consent of the agency evidenced by a resolution. In order to accept title to any real property interest, the City Council must authorize acceptance and recordation of title with tb'e County Recorder.
~ f
Proposed Resolution
443
444
RESOLUTION NO. --
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED FROM THE LOS BANOS DESIGNATED
LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER LOS
BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
[APN No. 025-114-005)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation, the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency was dissolved effective February 1, 2012;and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos Designated Local Authority, As Successor Agency to the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A}, is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Banos as follows:
SECTION I: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
SECTION 2: The City hereby accepts the grant deed, attached hereto from the Successor Agency of the former Los Banos Redevelopment Agency to the City of Los Banos.
SECTION 3: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Certificate of Acceptance.
445
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 19th day of January 2022, by City Council Member ____ , who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by City Council Member ____ , and the Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
446
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
RE: APN No: 025-114-005
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Grant Deed
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X 26, enacted in June 2011, and as modified by the Supreme Court of the State of California in the matter of California Redevelopment Association, et al. v.
Ana Matosantos, et al, Case No. S194861, and further modified by Assembly Bill 1484, enacted in June 2012, and other subsequent legislation (collectively, the "Dissolution Act'), the Los Banos Redevelopment Agency ("Redevelopment Agency") was dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173( d)(3)(A), is the successor entity to the former Redevelopment Agency and is responsible for the wind-down of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency, including without limitation the disposition of assets and properties of the former Redevelopment Agency. In accordance with applicable law, the transfer of the Property was approved by the Oversight Board to the Designated Local Authority on June 29, 2018, by Oversight Board Resolution 2018-014. The Oversight Board approval was submitted to the California Department of Finance in accordance with applicable law, which approved the sale and transfer of the Property by letter dated September 20, 2018.
ACCORDINGLY, FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Granter, LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized and existing under California Health and Safety Code Section 34173(d)(3)(A) hereby GRANT(S) to
Grantee, CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
447
All of its right, title and interest in and to the following described real property in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Dated: January_, 2022 LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity organized
and existing under California Health and Safety Code
Section 34173( d)(3)(A)
By:-------------
Michael Amabile, Chairman
448
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On - ------- -
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
449
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in the City of Los Banos, County of Merced, State of California, described as follows:
Assessors Parcel No.: 025-114-005-
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Block 52, of said "Town" map, thence South 61 deg. 18' 00" East, along the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of said Block 52, and along the Northeasterly line of that certain 5.629 acre parcel of land, as shown by said Quitclaim Deed, a distance of 80.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of Block 53; Thence, North 28 deg. 42' 00" East, along the Southeasterly line of Ninth Street, abandoned a distance of 100.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Block 53; Thence, North 61 deg. 18' 00" West, along the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northeasterly line of said Block 53, a distance of 80.00 feet;
Thence, South 28 deg. 42' 00" West, along the Southeasterly line of said Block 52, and the Northwesterly line of Ninth Street, abandoned, a distance of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Excepting and reserving all minerals and mineral rights of every kind and character now known to exist or hereafter discovered underlying the property, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, oil and gas and rights thereto, together with the sole, exclusive and perpetual right to explore for, remove and dispose of said minerals by any means or methods suitable to Granter, its successors and assigns, but without entering upon or using the surface of the property, and in such manner as not to damage the surface of the property or to interfere with the use thereof by Grantee, its successors and assigns, as reserved by Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation (formerly known as Southern Pacific Transportation Company) in Quitclaim Deed recorded June 28, 2002 in Book 4476 at Page 317 as Series No. 30982 of Official Records.
450
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
Government Code, Section 27281
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by Grant Deed dated January _, 2022 from the LOS BANOS DESIGNATED LOCAL AUTHORITY, AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE LOS BANOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to the CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Los Banos ("City Council") pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ______ of the City Council adopted on January _, 2022 and the City of Los Banos consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation
By: ____________ _
Josh Pinheiro, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:-------------
Lucille Mallonee, City Clerk
451
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On - --------
personally appeared
before me, , Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
452
LOsBanos
l ti, ( 10, oa,h 01 l , lltt
Agenda Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
Mayor & City Council Members
Lucy Mallonee, MMC
City Clerk/Human Resources Director
DATE: January 19, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Agenda Item
SUBJECT: City Commission Appointments
Recommendation:
Appoint members to the following City Commissions/Committees:
Parks and Recreation Commission - (2 Vacancies)
Two (2) Two (2) Year Terms - Expiring December 31, 2023 Measure H Citizens' Oversight Committee - (4 Vacancies) One (1) Two (2) Year Term - Expiring December 31, 2023
Tree Commission - (3 Vacancies)
One ( 1) Two (2) Year Term - Expiring December 31, 2023 Discussion:
Staff advertised the above vacancies on the City's website, on social media, in the Los Banos Enterprise, and on the bulletin board outside of City Hall. The deadline to apply was January 7, 2022. Applicants were interviewed by a committee per City policy. Any remaining vacancies will be re-advertised.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Revie
ITEM 16
453