LOS Angeles Final MSR 2006

LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County December 2006 Final Los Angeles Basin Area Municipal Service Review THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Los Angeles Basin Area Municipal Service Review 700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 445 Glendale, California 91203 Phone 818.254.2454 • Fax 818.254.2452 Front cover photos courtesy of Webshots.com, Virtualtourist.com, and City-data.com. Photos from left to right include: The Hollywood sign, Rodeo Drive, the Alex Theater, The Pacific Design center, West Hollywood, the Sony Pictures building the Griffith Park Observatory, the Warner Brothers Studio, the San Fernando Mission, and the Santa Monica Pier. ii LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS COMMISSION STAFF CHAIRMAN JERRY GLADBACH SANDOR L. WINGER Castaic Lake Water Agency Executive Officer HENRI PELLISSIER JUNE SAVALA Public Member At-Large Executive Assistant THE HONORABLE YVONNE BURKE SERAFINA CANDELA-GROSSMAN Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Senior Government Analyst THE HONORABLE ZEV YAROSLAVSKY DOUGLASS DORADO Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors GIS Administrator DONALD L. DEAR ALISHA O’ BRIEN -CONNER West Basin Municipal Water District Local Government Analyst JAMES DIGIUSEPPE WILDA TURNER Public Member, San Fernando Valley Administrative Assistant/CIS THE HONORABLE MARGARET T. FINLAY AMBER DELATORRE Councilmember, City of Duarte Office Service Assistant THE HONORABLE CAROL HERRERA Mayor, City of Diamond Bar THE HONORABLE GREIG SMITH Councilmember, City of Los Angeles ALTERNATE MEMBERS THE HONORABLE DON KNABE Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors KENNETH CHAPPELL Public Member At-Large RICHARD CLOSE Public Member, San Fernando Valley THE HONORABLE JUDITH MITCHELL Councilmember, City of Rolling Hills Estates NORM RYAN Water Replenishment District of Southern California iii Violent Crime Rate.............................................114 Table of Contents Property Crime Rate...........................................117 FBI Crime Clearance Rates................................120 Arrests and Citations..........................................129 Executive Summary.................................................1 CHAPTER 5...................................................130 Municipal Service Review Summary Utilities..................................................................130 Determinations.........................................................3 Electric Power & Gas.........................................130 Los Angeles MSR AREA.......................................3 Solid Waste........................................................131 City of Beverly Hills MSR Summary Water..................................................................135 Determinations.......................................................7 Wastewater.........................................................137 City of Burbank MSR Summary Determinations...9 City of Culver City MSR Summary Determinations CHAPTER 6...................................................153 ..............................................................................11 Public Works........................................................153 City of Glendale MSR Summary Determinations13 Stormwater.........................................................153 City of Los Angeles MSR Summary Street Maintenance and Lighting Services.........161 Determinations.....................................................15 City of San Fernando MSR Summary CHAPTER 7...................................................171 Determinations.....................................................19 Community Services............................................171 City of Santa Monica MSR Summary Housing..............................................................171 Determinations.....................................................21 Parks and Recreational Facilities........................181 City of West Hollywood MSR Summary Libraries.............................................................203 Determinations.....................................................23 Land Use............................................................207 Sphere of Influence Findings................................25 CHAPTER 8...................................................211 CHAPTER 1.....................................................26 Transportation and Transit Services.................211 Introduction...........................................................26 Airport Services..................................................211 Port Services.......................................................220 CHAPTER 2.....................................................32 Transit Services..................................................227 Municipal Service Providers & Regional Overview.................................................................32 CHAPTER 9...................................................230 Municipal Service Providers................................36 Special Districts....................................................230 Special District Service Providers........................37 Garbage Disposal Districts.................................230 Consolidated Fire Protection District.................231 CHAPTER 3.....................................................38 County Sanitation Districts.................................232 Los Angeles Region MSR Determinations...........38 County Waterworks District #21-Kagel Canyon233 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies..................38 County Water Districts.......................................234 Growth and Population.........................................44 Irrigation Districts..............................................235 Estimated Population Growth Rate of the MSR Municipal Water Districts..................................236 Area......................................................................45 Water Agency.....................................................238 Estimated Population Growth of Cities................46 Population and Housing Density..........................50 CHAPTER 10.................................................239 Employment and Housing Growth Rate...............51 Sphere of Influence Determinations...................239 Financing Constraints and Opportunities.............53 City of Beverly Hills..........................................240 Cost Avoidance Opportunities..............................74 City of Burbank..................................................241 Opportunities for Rate Restructuring...................78 City of Culver City.............................................242 Opportunities for Shared Facilities.......................79 City of Glendale.................................................243 Government Structure Options.............................81 City of Los Angeles............................................244 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies...............84 City of San Fernando..........................................245 Local Accountability and Governance.................86 City of Santa Monica..........................................246 City of West Hollywood.....................................247 References Cited.................................................248 CHAPTER 4.....................................................89 Data Sources.......................................................249 Public Safety...........................................................89 Interviews and Correspondence..........................250 Fire Protection and Emergency Services..............89 Law Enforcement...............................................111 iv Tables and Figures Table 4-8: Los Angeles Fire Department Facilities 94 Table 4-9: Santa Monica Fire Facilities 102 Los Angeles County Fire Department Table 4-10: 102 Facilities- West Hollywood Table 4-11: CFPD Facilities, Unincorporated Areas 103 Proposition F- Facilities Proposed for New Table 4-12: 104 Table 2-1: City Profiles 35 Construction Table 2-2: Municipal Service Providers 36 Proposition F- Facilities Proposed for Table 4-13: 105 Table 2-3: Los Angeles MSR Special District Service Relocation and Replacement 37 Providers Table 4-14: Average Response Times 106 Table 3-1: Historical Census Population 44 Table 4-15: Service Calls per 1,000 Population 106 Figure 3-1: City Population Growth Projections 45 Table 4-16: Uniform Staff per 1,000 107 Figure 3-2: Beverly Hills Growth Projections 46 Table 4-17: OES Mutual Aid Areas 108 Figure 3-3: Burbank Growth Projections 46 Figure 4-1: Violent Crime Rate Per 1,000 114 Figure 3-4: Culver City Growth Projections 47 Figure 4-2: Beverly Hills Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-5: Glendale Growth Projections 47 Figure 4-3: Burbank Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-6: Los Angeles Growth Projections 48 Figure 4-4: Culver City Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-7: San Fernando Growth Projections 48 Figure 4-5: Glendale Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-8: Santa Monica Growth Projections 49 Figure 4-6: Los Angeles Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-9: West Hollywood Growth Projections 49 Figure 4-7: San Fernando Violent Crime Rate 115 Figure 3-10: Population/Housing Density per Square 50 Figure 4-8: Santa Monica Violent Crime Rate 116 Table 3-2: Housing Units per Capita 50 Figure 4-9: West Hollywood Violent Crime Rate 116 Figure 3-11: Projected Employment Growth Rate 51 Figure 4-10: Property Crime Rate per 10,000 Population 117 Table 3-3: Projected Jobs/Housing Balance 51 Figure 4-11: Beverly Hills Property Crime Rate 118 Table 3-4: Population Measures, 2005 52 Figure 4-12: Burbank Property Crime Rate 118 Figure 3-12: Property Tax Revenues 54 Figure 4-13: Culver City Property Crime Rate 118 Figure 3-13: Sales and Use Tax Revenues 55 Figure 4-14: Glendale Property Crime Rate 118 Figure 3-14: Business Tax Revenues 55 Figure 4-15: Los Angeles Property Crime Rate 118 Figure3-15: Utility User Tax Revenues 56 Figure 4-16: San Fernando Property Crime Rate 118 Figure 3-16: Hotel Tax Revenues 56 Figure 4-17: Santa Monica Property Crime Rate 119 Figure 3-17: Vehicle License Fee Revenues 57 Figure 4-18: West Hollywood Property Crime Rate 119 Figure 3-18: Beverly Hills General Fund Revenue Share 58 Table 4-18: FBI Crime Clearance Rate- Property Crime 120 Figure 3-19: Burbank General Fund Revenue Share 60 Table 4-19: FBICrime Clearance Rate-Violent Crime 120 Figure 3-20: Culver City General Fund Revenue Share 62 Table 4-20: Beverly Hills Police Facility 121 Figure 3-21: Glendale General Fund Revenue Share 64 Table 4-21: Burbank Police Facilities 121 Figure 3-22: Los Angeles General Fund Revenue Share 66 Table 4-22: Culver City Police Facility 121 Figure 3-23: San Fernando General Fund Revenue Share 68 Table 4-23: Glendale Police Facility 121 Figure 3-24: Santa Monica General Fund Revenue Share 70 Table 4-24: Los Angeles Police Facilities 121 Figure 3-25: West Hollywood General Fund Revenue 72 Table 4-25: San Fernando Police Facility 122 Table 4-1 General Fund Operating Expenditures per 89 Table 4-26: Santa Monica Police Facility 122 Capita Police & Fire Service Table 4-27: West Hollywood Police Facility 122 Table 4-2: San Fernando Services Provided by Los 90 LAPD Facilities-Prop. Q Proposed New Table 4-28: 123 Table 4-3: ISO Classifications 92 Construction Table 4-4: Beverly Hills Fire Department Facilities 92 Table 4-29: LAPD Prop. Q Replacement Facilities 124 Table 4-5: Burbank Fire Department Facilities 92 Table 4-30: Priority One Response Times 124 Table 4-6: Culver City Fire Department Facilities 93 Table 4-31: 2005 Police Service Calls 125 Table 4-7: Glendale Fire Department Facilities 93 Table 4-32: 2005 Sworn Staffing 125 v Table 4-33: Regional Collaboration Efforts 126 Table 7-13: Burbank Park and Recreational Facilities 184 Table 4-34: Regional Collaboration Efforts – Los 127 Table 7-14: Culver City Park and Recreational Facilities 185 Angeles Table 7-15: Glendale Park and Recreational Facilities 186 Table 4-35: Police Related Complaints 129 Los Angeles Park and Recreational Table 7-16: 188 Figure 4-19: Arrests and Citations per 129 Facilities Table 5-1: Wastewater Service Providers 137 San Fernando Park and Recreational Table 7-17: 200 Facilities Table 5-2: Wastewater Service Area 139 Table 5-3: Daily Wastewater Flows 140 Table 7-18: Santa Monica Park and Recreational 201 Facilities Table 5-4: Average Sewage Flows 141 West Hollywood Park and Recreational Table 5-5: Wastewater Treatment Facilities 141 Table 7-19: 202 Facilities Figure 5-1: Miles of Sewer per City Square Mile 144 Table 7-20: Beverly Hills Library Facilities 203 Table 5-6: Wastewater Collection Deficiencies and 145 Table 7-21: Burbank Library Facilities 203 Figure 5-2: Sewage Spills per 100 Sewer Miles 146 Table 7-22: Culver City Library Facility 203 Table 5-7: OES-Reported Sewage Spills 147 Table 7-23: Glendale Library Facilities 204 Table 6-1: LACFCD Service Configuration 154 Table 7-24: Los Angeles Library Facilities 204 Figure 6-1: Average Annual Rainfall 155 Table 7-25: San Fernando Library Facility 206 Table 6-2: Active Stormwater Discharge Permits 156 Table 7-26: Santa Monica Library Facilities 206 Table 6-3: Agency-Owned Infrastructure 156 Table 7-27: West Hollywood Library Facility 206 Table 6-4: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies 158 Figure 7-2: Beverly Hills Land Use Distribution 207 Table 6-5: TMDLs in the MSR area 159 Figure 7-3: Burbank Land Use Distribution 207 Table 6-6: Illicit Discharge Response Times 160 Figure 7-4: Culver City Land Use Distribution 208 Table 6-7: Street Maintenance Service Matrix 161 Figure 7-5: Glendale Land Use Distribution 208 Table 6-8: Street System Overview 162 Figure 7-6: Los Angeles Land Use Distribution 209 Figure 6-2: Signalized Intersections per Street Mile 163 Figure 7-7: Santa Monica Land Use Distribution 209 Figure 6-3: Street Lights per Mile 163 Figure 7-8: West Hollywood Land Use Distribution 210 Figure 6-4: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 165 Figure 8-1: Number of Terminals and Runways 213 Table 6-9: Service Challenges 166 Table 8-1: Airport Infrastructure Needs and 213 Table 6-10: Street Related Expenditure per Mile 170 Figure 8-2: Annual Passengers 214 Table 7-1: Housing Ratio Per Capita 171 Figure 8-3: Cargo Volume 215 Affordable Housing Created with Income Table 7-2: 172 Figure 8-4: Percent of Flights on Time 215 Housing Tax Credit Projects Table 8-2: Weekday Operating Hours 216 Figure 7-1: % Low Income Units of Total RHNA 172 Figure 8-5: Airport Revenue Sources 217 Table 7-3: U.S. Census Building Permits - Beverly 173 Figure 8-6: Airport Landing Fees 218 Hills Figure 8-7: Cargo Terminals 221 Table 7-4: U.S. Census Building Permits - Burbank 174 Table 8-3: West Coast Container Volume, FY 04-05 223 Table 7-5: U.S. Census Building Permits - Culver City 175 Table 7-6: U.S. Census Building Permits - Glendale 176 Table 7-7: U.S. Census Building Permits - Los Angeles 177 U.S. Census Building Permits - San Table 7-8: 178 Fernando U.S. Census Building Permits - Santa Table 7-9: 179 Monica U.S. Census Building Permits - West Table 7-10: 180 Hollywood Table 7-11: Park Acres per 1,000 Residents 181 Beverly Hills Park and Recreational Table 7-12: Facilities 183 vi Executive Summary The Local Agency Formation Commission has been tasked by the State Legislature to perform a comprehensive review of “backbone” municipal services that are provided by the cities and special districts of the Los Angeles Basin Municipal Service Review (MSR) geographic area. The Los Angeles MSR area is best characterized as a collection of urbanized cities surrounding the City of Los Angeles. It includes the cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. All of these cities share a common boundary with the City of Los Angeles. The City of San Fernando is entirely surrounded by Los Angeles. The City of Santa Monica is also surrounded by Los Angeles, with exception of its border along the Pacific Ocean to the west. Geographic boundaries for the purpose of conducting municipal service review study areas were established mainly according to watershed boundaries. The municipal service review is a requirement for updating the sphere of influence of a local agency. Spheres of influence are updated and reviewed no less than every five years and only as determined necessary by LAFCO. There are 23 local agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction providing municipal services within the Los Angeles MSR area, including the eight cities mentioned above and 15 special districts. As of 2005, the incorporated cities had a total resident population of 4,446,2781 and a job base of 2,200,690.2 Visitor attractions in the MSR area include Rodeo Drive, ABC, NBC, and CBS Studios, the J. Paul Getty Center, the La Brea Tar Pits, Grauman’s Chinese Theater and the Hollywood area, Universal Studios, Griffith Park and Observatory, the San Fernando Mission, and the Sunset Strip. LAFCOs were established by the State Legislature to “discourage urban sprawl” and “encourage orderly governmental boundaries.” In the past, Los Angeles has had a reputation as being an area of urban sprawl however, that conception no longer holds true. Development in recent years has centered on central areas of the city. As of 2005, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population estimates for all cities, including unincorporated areas, for the MSR region was 4.6 million, and is projected to grow to 4.9 million by the year 2020. The main factors of growth and migration are the availability of water, adequate municipal services and infrastructure, affordable housing, and the ability of the region to sustain itself economically. LAFCO’s mission is to ensure that the local agencies of the region are able to sustain added growth and encourage orderly development of governmental and district boundaries. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive review of services delivered in the Los Angeles Basin area. The nine determinations required to be made by LAFCO focus on those municipal services considered to be important to future growth. The City 1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2005 and 2006. Sacramento, California, May 2006. 2 SCAG job estimates include public sector employees, self-employed persons, and household workers such as housekeepers. 1 of Burbank is anticipated to experience the highest future growth rate in the MSR area and Culver City is anticipated to have the lowest future growth rate. The County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles are the largest providers of municipal services in the MSR area, with the City providing services outside of the agency’s boundaries. San Fernando contracts with the City of Los Angles for fire and emergency medical services. Los Angeles also provides water and electrical power to portions of West Hollywood. The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District provide most of the wastewater treatment within the MSR area. For the most part, revenues in the MSR area are higher than for typical cities throughout the County and State, especially Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. City of Los Angeles voters approved several bond measures for new construction and rehabilitation of several public safety facilities, including a new police headquarters - Parker Center. Keep pace with future demand, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has plans to develop two regional landfills outside of Los Angeles County. Traffic and high population density in the West Hollywood area, present service challenges that increase emergency service response times. Increased traffic is one of the greatest demands the MSR area faces. In concluding the Los Angeles Basin Municipal Service Review study, staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the nine written determinations for the Los Angeles area. In reviewing and updating the spheres of influence for the eight cities, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the four written determinations as proposed. 2 Municipal Service Review Summary Determinations Los Angeles MSR AREA 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Fire: Several fire stations need upgrading in Beverly Hills., DEFICIENCIES Culver City, Glendale, and Los Angeles. A new fire training facility is needed in Culver City. Voters in the City of Los Angles approved several bond measures for new construction and upgrade of fire stations. Parks: With the exception of the City of Burbank and Culver City, all other cities within the MSR area are below the Quimby Act requirement (3-5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents) for providing adequate parkland. Solid Waste: The County has plans to develop two out-of- county facilities to meet future demand. Streets: The greatest volume demand by far was in the City of West Hollywood. Culver City and Santa Monica also had high demands on the local road system. No funding sources were identified for street improvements in Culver City. An overwhelming percentage of street improvements are unfunded in the City of San Fernando. Police: Facility upgrades are needed in the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Los Angeles. Voters in the City of Los Angeles approved bond funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction of several facilities and a new police headquarters. Transportation: Runway expansions are needed to accommodate larger aircraft at LAX (Los Angeles International) and Ontario airports. A new passenger terminal is needed at Palmdale Airport. Hush houses and noise barriers are needed at the Van Nuys Airport. Expansion of Bob Hope Airport is constrained by land use restrictions. The runway and taxiway at Santa Monica airport need slurry sealing and restriping. Wastewater: The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Burbank, and Los Angeles have service challenges in meeting new requirements for further treatment of effluent discharge into the Los Angeles River. Glendale and Los Angeles experience sewage overflows during heavy periods of rainfall which may be attributed to sewer system deficiencies and could produce potential health risks. Improvements are needed at the Burbank, Hyperion, Los Angeles-Glendale, and Tillman treatment facilities to meet future needs. $300 million in wastewater collection system improvements in Los Angeles are needed; improvements are funded. 3 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Population Growth: In comparison to other cities in the MSR area, Burbank is projected to have the highest population growth rate between years 2005-2025. Culver City, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills are projected to have the lowest growth rate. Housing: Most cities in the MSR area are built-out, growth can only be accommodated through in-fill development and zoning. Traffic: One of the greatest demands the MSR area faces is increased traffic. Great strides should be taken to improve the mass transit system and highways. A regional approach is needed to solve traffic needs. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND The median city in the MSR area generates $939 in general fund OPPORTUNITIES revenues per capita. The Cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica generated the highest amounts of revenues per capita, from $1,600 - $1,800. General fund revenues were comparable to the median in the Cities of West Hollywood, Culver City and Los Angeles, from $850-$1,100. Los Angeles was just below the median. The Cities of San Fernando, Glendale and Burbank had the least amount of general fund revenues with $500 - $800, less than the MSR median. The most significant sources of general fund revenues for cities in the MSR area were sales and use tax, property taxes, hotel tax or transient occupancy tax, and business license tax. The City of Glendale does not levy a business tax. Business tax revenues were lowest in Burbank. The Cities of Beverly Hills, San Fernando, and West Hollywood do not levy a utility user tax. Long-term debt per capita for the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area was $1,474. Debt loads were highest in Culver City, Beverly Hills and Burbank. Culver City’s long-term debt per capita was twice the median; the other cities were above $2,000. San Fernando and West Hollywood had the lowest long-term debt loads, less than $900. Contingency reserves were more than sufficient, between 40 to 45 percent of annual expenditures, in the Cities of Burbank, Glendale and Beverly Hills. Culver City was also above the recommended ratio at 28 percent. Reserve ratios in the five remaining cities meet the recommendation of five to 15 percent. San Fernando maintains a contingency reserve of two percent, the lowest of all the cities in the MSR area. Financing constraints were identified for the Beverly Hills Police Department and Culver City Fire Department. Budget cuts for the Burbank Police Department have resulted in reduced funding and lower staffing levels. The City of Glendale Police Department will need increased logistical support staffing to meet future demand growth. 4 4. COST AVOIDANCE Many service providers in the MSR area participate in cost- OPPORTUNITIES saving programs. Multiple-agency agreements exist for mutual and automatic aid for fire protection and emergency medical services and equipment purchasing, emergency communications, airport service, reduced costs for insurance, police and fire-related services, wastewater treatment, and street maintenance. Future opportunities exist to expand some of these services to other agencies, thereby providing economies of scale on a more regional scope. Glendale is developing a regional automatic aid agreement with County OES (State of California Office of Emergency Services) Area C agencies that will provide further cost savings and improve services. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED Many opportunities exist where service providers in the MSR FACILITIES area currently share facilities, resources, and equipment. Some of the shared facilities are: a communication center, airport facility, solid waste landfills, water, and wastewater treatment facilities. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Expansion of the City of Los Angeles SOI is proposed. No OPTIONS changes in the City of Burbank’s SOI are proposed at this time; however, there are areas of Burbank’s SOI that fall within the City of Los Angeles’s city boundaries that should be addressed in the future. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES Four cities (Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica) conduct both performance evaluations and workload productivity monitoring. Three cities (Beverly Hills, Culver City, and West Hollywood) indicated they conducted one or the other. The City of San Fernando does not conduct either performance evaluations or workload performance monitoring. Average response times for the City of Glendale Fire Department were higher than industry standards. The City of San Fernando has maintained a low contingency reserve ratio for several years. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND All cities in the MSR area are accountable to their citizens by GOVERNANCE encouraging community input and participation, maintaining public outreach efforts, publicizing governing body meetings and other commission/board meetings, and providing public access to those meetings. There was one incident reported of a Brown Act violation involving the Beverly Hills City Council; however, no action 5 was taken by the District Attorney. All cities in the MSR area were in compliance with updating the Housing Element of the General Plans except Beverly Hills. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the nine written determinations for the Los Angeles Basin Municipal Service Review area. 6 City of Beverly Hills MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Fire: Fire Stations 1, 2, and 3 need rehabilitation. The City DEFICIENCIES has budgeted $1.2 million for on-going maintenance, repairs are scheduled for completion in FY 08-09. Parks: The City does not have adequate parkland. Park buildings are in need of renovation throughout the city. The City upgrades park buildings annually. The City is considering construction of a new community center located on Foothill Rd., between Alden Dr. and 3rd St. Park irrigation upgrades are in progress. Beverly Hills is studying the feasibility of developing a needed community sport facility; funds are unidentified but the cost is estimated to be $43.5 million. Police: The City has a redundant system of dispatch centers that are inefficient when requesting additional resources. Stormwater: Rehabilitation of deteriorated and undersized storm drains are needed, projects are funded annually at $50,000. Streets: The City funds street improvements at $2 million annually. Wastewater: Significant sewer system repairs are needed citywide. The project is funded at $5 million collectively for FY 06-07 and FY 08-09. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Beverly Hills is projected to experience a small rate of growth between the years 2005-2025, in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City generates the highest general fund revenue per capita AND OPPORTUNITIES in the MSR area, almost double the rate of the MSR median. The City maintains a contingency reserve of 41 percent. Beverly Hills has the highest long-term debt per capita in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. The Beverly Hills Police Department identified future financial constraints. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with the Cities of Los Angeles and Culver City. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid Area A and has a mutual aid agreement with the County and 7 City of Los Angeles, and other agencies. As member of Metropolitan Water District (MWD), there are economies in the delivery, treatment and storage of water. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED The City has an agreement with the Beverly Hills Unified FACILITIES School District for joint sharing of recreational facilities at the city’s public schools. The District operates and maintains the facilities and recreational programs are sponsored by the City. Beverly Hills provides water to portions of West Hollywood and Los Angeles. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE No policy alternatives are proposed. OPTIONS 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City conducts performance evaluations but does not conduct workload monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, the City website, email noticing system, published newsletter, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. There was one allegation of Brown Act violation by the City Council in 2004. No action was taken. The City’s Housing Element of the General Plan is not in compliance with the State’s requirement to be updated every five years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review determinations for the City of Beverly Hills. 8 City of Burbank MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Parks: Upgrading and renovation is needed at DeBell Golf DEFICIENCIES Course. Construction of the replacement DeBell Golf Course Clubhouse is scheduled to begin in 2007. A new soccer field is needed for the South San Fernando Project area. Funding for these projects has been identified. The City needs a new community services building to house its Park, Recreation and Community Services Department, as well as other departments. The project is not fully funded. Transportation: Expansion of the Bob Hope Airport is limited by land use restrictions. Street Maintenance: The City budgets $1.7 million annually for street improvements for resurfacing of streets and alleys, concrete repair, and sidewalk improvements. The City finances additional street projects; for example, $1.6 million in improvements to Buena Vista Street are planned in the next two fiscal years. Wastewater: Ongoing sewer replacement and repairs are funded annually. The City faces service challenges in complying with new RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board) requirements for further treatment of effluent discharged in the Los Angeles River. The Hyperion Treatment Plant, with which the City contracts for wastewater treatment, is in need of upgrades and expansion. Burbank funds its share of capital improvements for the facility at approximately $1.5 million annually. The City budgets $900,000 each fiscal year for repairs, sewer upgrades, and Water Reclamation Plant operation improvements. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, Burbank is projected to experience the largest rate of growth, in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita is below the MSR AND OPPORTUNITIES median. Burbank has the second highest governmental long term debt per capita in comparison to the other cities in the MSR area. The City maintains a contingency reserve of 45 percent, well above the guideline. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- 9 sharing programs with the Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale, the County, State, and other agencies. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid Area C and has automatic aid agreements with the City of Los Angeles, the County, and the U.S. Forest Service. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED Shared facilities include a communication center, airport, FACILITIES heliport, and wastewater treatment. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE The report recommends detachment of Area 2 from the City OPTIONS of Burbank/Los Angeles joint sphere of influence. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City conducts performance evaluations and productivity monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, the City website, published newsletter, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of Burbank. 10 City of Culver City MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Fire: Fire Station 3 needs upgrading and the department DEFICIENCIES training facility needs upgrading or replacement. The emergency operations center is too small. A new training facility is needed. The City has appropriated $6.2 million for the project. Parks: Various parks are in need of or are undergoing improvements. Funding has been identified for many of the projects. Culver City Park and Lindberg Park need rehabilitation. The City also needs a new recreational facility and gymnasium, and a new sports facility. Police: The Culver City Police Department has several computer systems that do not integrate well and are becoming outdated. The Department is working with the Information Technology Department to modify its Record Management System for enhanced functionality. Stormwater: Capital improvements for stormwater discharge are needed. The project is funded. Streets: Several street improvement projects are needed throughout the city. Funding sources include general fund, sewer fund, gas tax and development impact fees. The Higuera Street Bridge needs to be widened but is unfunded. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are replaced on an on-going basis at $100,000 annually. Existing asphalt alleyways are in poor condition and require resurfacing ($100,000 annually). 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, Culver City is projected to experience the lowest rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita is slightly higher AND OPPORTUNITIES than the MSR median. Culver City has the highest long-term debt per capita, over double the MSR median. The City maintains a contingency reserve of 28 percent, above the GOFA recommendation. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with the Cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, the County, State, and other agencies. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid 11 Area A. Culver City has mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with the City of Los Angeles and the County. The City also has an assistance agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED Culver City has an agreement with the Culver City Unified FACILITIES School District for the use of facilities and shared costs of operating programs and a swimming pool. The Police Department identified opportunities for shared facilities for task force operations with other agencies. The Fire Department stated that future opportunities with adjacent agencies may exist for sharing facilities in the fringed areas of the city. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE No policy alternatives are proposed. OPTIONS 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City does not conduct performance evaluations, but does conduct productivity monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as, television, radio, the City website, email notification system, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of Culver City. 12 City of Glendale MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Fire: Fire Stations No. 26 and No. 29 are in need of DEFICIENCIES rehabilitation or replacement. Libraries: Existing libraries are in need of renovation throughout the city, for which funding is allocated annually. Parks: The City’s General Plan identified significant deficiency of developed parkland and it does not meet the Quimby Act requirement. Glendale funds $2.5 million annually for new parkland and facilities. Restroom renovation is needed for Carr, Pelanconi, Glorietta, New York, Nibley, Verdugo, and Brand parks. Improvements and renovation of play enclosures, picnic areas, restrooms, security, and lighting of school park grounds are needed at Cerritos, Fremont, and Franklin schools. Solid Waste: The Scholl Canyon Landfill slope and drainage system need reconstruction to increase canyon integrity and eliminate the potential for gas emission, ponding, and erosion. Stormwater: Arch Place is in need of additional storm drains, including catch basins and manholes. There are deficient drainage facilities in need of repair throughout the city, which has an ongoing funded program to address the deficiencies. Street Maintenance: Curb ramps are needed throughout the city for ADA compliance. Street rehabilitation and reconstruction, curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair are funded annually. Wastewater: Treatment facility upgrades and expansion are needed at the Los Angeles-Glendale Reclamation Plant to address increasing wastewater demands. Several damaged sewer mains in the city are in need of reconstruction, which is funded. The City funds sewer main replacement annually. Glendale has experienced sewage overflows during periods of heavy rainfall, which may be attributed to poor sewer systems in these areas. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, Glendale is projected to experience a moderate rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita is significantly less AND OPPORTUNITIES than that of the MSR median. Glendale’s long term debt per capita was less than the MSR median. The City maintains a contingency reserve of 43 percent, well above the GOFA recommendation. 13 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with the Cities of Los Angeles and Burbank, the County Sanitation District, and other agencies. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid Area C. Glendale is developing a regional automatic aid agreement with Area C agencies that will provide further cost savings and improve services. The City has a three–party agreement to provide Fire/EMS dispatch service and has a contract agreement with the City of Burbank for household hazardous waste disposal. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED Glendale maintains and operates a regional fire/emergency FACILITIES dispatch system and shares cost for the operation of Bob Hope Airport. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE No policy alternatives are proposed. OPTIONS 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City conducts performance evaluations and productivity monitoring. The average response times for the Glendale Fire Department were higher than the State and CFAI (Commission on Fire Accreditation International) standards. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, the City website, and published newsletter. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of Glendale. 14 City of Los Angeles MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Fire: The City is in need of replacement and DEFICIENCIES expansion of several neighborhood fire stations, a new emergency operations center, and an emergency helicopter maintenance facility. Since November 2000, $525.2 million in GO (General Obligation) bond funding has been raised to finance the projects. Parks: The Ardmore Recreation Center needs expansion of the gymnasium and other upgrades. Although the city meets the Quimby Act requirement (3-5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents) by providing four acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, it is below the NRPA standard (6.25- 10.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents). Disparities exist in parkland provided throughout the city, especially in low-income areas. Park space development is needed for the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area. Funding has been identified. Police Facilities: Several police facilities throughout the city are in need of rehabilitation or repair, including Parker Center - police headquarters. The City has earmarked $1 billion in initial funds, including $600 million in Proposition Q bond funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction of facilities and $400 million for Police Headquarters. Additional funding for remaining improvements will be identified in future years. Stormwater: Several infrastructure stormwater upgrades and facilities are needed for the city to address wet weather bacteria TMDL (total maximum daily loads). The implementation is expected to take about 18 years at an estimated cost of $1.56 billion. The project will include construction of a large runoff treatment facility, capable of handling 2.3 billion gallons of runoff, the diversion of wet weather flow to Hyperion, and an Integrated Resources Plan. It will be funded by the City’s current stormwater fee on property taxes, and by GO bonds, approved by voters in 2004. The bond measure approved up to $500 million for stormwater projects and other projects related to the Federal Clean Water Act requirements. 15 Streets: Alameda Street, from 25th Street to Slauson Avenue, is in need of major reconstruction. There is no current funding available for the improvements. Street widening is needed along Aviation Boulevard, from Imperial Highway to Arbor Vitae Street, to reduce traffic congestion; project funding has not yet been identified. A grade separation project at the extension of Saticoy Street is needed to complete a link between Woodman Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard; project funding has not yet been identified. A tunnel similar to the Sherman Way tunnel should be constructed at the terminus of Saticoy Street through the Van Nuys Airport to alleviate traffic in the central San Fernando Valley. Airports: LAX requires modernization to accommodate existing and future demand. Passenger and cargo facilities at Ontario and Palmdale Airports need to be expanded to accommodate forecasted traffic growth through 2030. Ground run-up enclosures need to be constructed at Van Nuys Airport to mitigate noise. Wastewater: The City needs collection and treatment system upgrades and expansions to address the needs of wastewater flows to the year 2020. Strategies for addressing future flows include increasing capacity at current facilities and building new treatment plants to serve the downtown and San Fernando Valley areas. Improvements are needed at the Burbank, Hyperion, Los Angeles-Glendale, and Tillman treatment facilities to meet future needs. Significant collection system upgrades are needed citywide. The City estimates project expenditures to average $265 million annually over ten years. Sewer collection facility strategies include building new interceptor lines and new buried storage tanks. Overall collection system needs include upgrading aging sewer mains, increasing capacity to prevent wet weather spills, odor problems, and corrosion problems. Los Angeles has experienced sewage overflows during periods of heavy rainfall, which may be attributed to poor sewer systems in these areas. 16 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, Los Angeles is projected to experience a slightly moderate rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. The City faces service challenges in complying with new RWQCB requirements for further treatment of effluent discharged in the Los Angeles River. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND The City’s general fund revenue per capita was less OPPORTUNITIES than the MSR median. The City’s long term debt per capita was less than the MSR median. Los Angeles maintains a contingency reserve of 12 percent. 4. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES The Los Angeles County Sanitation Department is interested in developing a joint solid waste facility which would further reduce the cost to the city. As a regional provider of services, the city maintains service agreements with other agencies to provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with various agencies. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid Area A. Los Angeles has mutual aid agreements with Los Angeles County, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, San Fernando, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, and West Hollywood, and also has automatic aid agreements with the cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, Vernon, and West Hollywood. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES No shared facilities were identified by the city; however, the city is a regional provider of wastewater services. The City also provides fire and emergency medical services to the city of San Fernando. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS Staff recommends expansion of the City’s SOI as recommended in this report. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City conducts performance evaluations and productivity monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable GOVERNANCE to its residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through 17 various media such as television, the City website, subscription email notification, phone dial-up system, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. The recent City of Los Angeles charter reform, which established the formation of neighborhood councils, was designed to encourage citizen participation in government. It is too early to evaluate whether this experiment will be accepted by the agency’s governing body and upper management echelon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of Los Angeles because it contains part of the San Fernando Valley watershed that feeds into the Los Angeles River and San Fernando Valley aquifer and the city has historically provided services to the proposed area. 18 City of San Fernando MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Parks: San Fernando is in need of developed parkland. The DEFICIENCIES City has plans for a new aquatic facility that is funded and a youth center, which is not funded. Park improvements are in the city are mostly unfunded. Street Maintenance: A few areas throughout the city are in need of street improvements. Only 17 percent of these projects are funded. Stormwater: San Fernando had the second highest sewer overflows in the MSR area. Wastewater: The City is in need of ongoing sewer maintenance, which is funded at $200,000 annually. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, San Fernando is projected to experience a moderate rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita is significantly less AND OPPORTUNITIES than the MSR median. San Fernando’s long term debt per capita was the lowest in the MSR area, one third the MSR median. The City maintains a contingency reserve of two percent, the lowest of all the cities in the MSR area. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City contracts with the City of Los Angeles for fire and OPPORTUNITIES paramedic services, and wastewater treatment and disposal. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED No shared facilities were identified for the City. FACILITIES 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE There are no recommendations to consolidate, annex, or OPTIONS dissolve service agencies within the region. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City does not conduct performance evaluations or productivity monitoring. Although the City has increased its contingency reserve from zero to two percent as of FY 2004, it still maintains a relatively low reserve ratio. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City 19 pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, the City website, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of San Fernando. 20 City of Santa Monica MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Parks: The City lacks adequate parkland. Reed Park requires DEFICIENCIES facility improvements, as does the beach parking and restroom facilities. The lifeguard headquarters facility is in need of rehabilitation and Memorial Park is in need of expansion. Funding is available for the projects. Stormwater: Stormwater discharge improvement projects are needed and funded annually. The City had the most sewer overflows in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. Street Maintenance: Circulation improvements are needed at the Santa Monica Pier, for which funding is available. Street resurfacing and parking lot repair is needed throughout the city, which is funded by an ongoing program annually. Transportation: The runway and taxiway at Santa Monica airport need slurry sealing and restriping. Wastewater: Wastewater main replacements are needed throughout the city, which is funded annually. Sewer reconstruction is needed in various locations throughout the city to address infiltration, inflow, and capacity deficiencies, which the City has funded. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, Santa Monica is projected to experience a slight rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita was the second AND OPPORTUNITIES highest in the MSR area; almost double that of the MSR median. Santa Monica’s long term debt per capita was slightly higher than the MSR median. The City maintains a contingency reserve of 10 percent, the second lowest of all the cities in the MSR area. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with the City of Los Angeles and other agencies. The City is a member agency of the County OES Mutual Aid Area A and has an automatic aid agreement with the City of Los Angeles. 21 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED Possibilities exist for the shared use of the Santa Monica Fire FACILITIES Department’s drill yard and tower facilities. 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE There are no recommendations to consolidate, annex, or OPTIONS dissolve service agencies within the region. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City conducts performance evaluations and productivity monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, radio, the City website, 24-hour message system, newspapers, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of Santa Monica. 22 City of West Hollywood MSR Summary Determinations 1. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND Parks: West Hollywood does not have adequate parkland. DEFICIENCIES The City has plans for renovation and development of Plummer Park and West Hollywood Park. Libraries: The City has plans to replace the West Hollywood Library, currently owned by the county, with a new facility. When completed, the library will be city owned and operated by the County Public Library System. Solid Waste: The City has not met the requirement of AB 939. West Hollywood had an average solid waste diversion rate of 42 percent. Stormwater: Several storm drain catch basins throughout the city need retrofitting. Street Maintenance: The City has the highest traffic demand in the MSR area. Several streets and sidewalks need to be brought to ADA compliance. Sunset Boulevard is in need of pavement repairs. Funding for the projects is available. Wastewater: Sewer reconstruction is needed at various locations to address infiltration and capacity deficiencies. The project is funded. 2. GROWTH AND POPULATION Between the years 2005-2025, West Hollywood is projected to experience a small rate of growth in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. 3. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS The City’s general fund revenue per capita was slightly higher AND OPPORTUNITIES than the MSR median. The City’s long term debt per capita was significantly less than the MSR median. West Hollywood maintains a contingency reserve of 11 percent, the third lowest of all the cities in the MSR area. 4. COST AVOIDANCE The City maintains service agreements with other agencies to OPPORTUNITIES provide for more efficient services and participates in cost- sharing programs with the City of Los Angeles, the County and other agencies. 5. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE There are no opportunities for rate restructuring. RESTRUCTURING 6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED No shared facilities were identified for the City. FACILITIES 23 7. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE There are no recommendations to consolidate, annex, or OPTIONS dissolve service agencies within the region. 8. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The City does not conduct performance evaluations but does conduct workload productivity monitoring. 9. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND The City has an elected governing body accountable to its GOVERNANCE residents. Public participation is encouraged. The City pursues public outreach efforts through various media such as television, the City website, newspapers, and various other distributed publications. Financial reports and other programs and plans are accessible through the City’s website. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve and adopt the Municipal Service Review Determinations for the City of West Hollywood. 24 Sphere of Influence Findings Los Angeles Basin Municipal Service Review No policy options or government structure options are CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. No policy options or government structure options are proposed as a result of the service review study. However, staff recommends that the City of Burbank work with Los CITY OF BURBANK Angeles to formally request a change of organization of those areas (Areas 1a, 1b, and 2 of the City of Burbank SOI map) that lay within the City of Los Angeles limits. No policy options or government structure options are CITY OF CULVER CITY proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. No policy options or governmental structure options are CITY OF GLENDALE proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. Staff recommends expansion of the City’s SOI boundary as outlined in the “Recommended City of Los Angeles CITY OF LOS ANGELES Sphere of Influence Amendment” map, located in the Map Appendix. No policy options or governmental structure options are CITY OF SAN FERNANDO proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. No policy options or governmental structure options are CITY OF SANTA MONICA proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. No policy options or governmental structure options are CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. 25 Chapter 1 Introduction About LAFCO This report has been prepared by the Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County (LAFCO), in accordance with Government Code Section 56430 of the State of California Government Code. Effective January 2000, the State Legislature amended the Government Code requiring that LAFCO conduct a comprehensive review of municipal services and update the spheres of influence of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction by December 31, 2007 and subsequently, every five years thereafter as necessary. The new legislative requirement directs LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction not less than every five years. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities. HISTORY OF LAFCO After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, the state approved the formation of many new local government agencies, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in any given region. This lack of coordination and inadequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient, jurisdictional service boundaries and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-spaced lands. Recognizing this problem in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission’s charge was to study and make recommendations on the “misuse of land resources” and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission’s recommendations on local governmental reorganizations were introduced to the legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of local agency formation commissions for each county. LAFCO RESPONSIBILITIES LAFCOs were formed to discourage urban sprawl, preserve agricultural and open- spaced lands and encourage the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies. LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. LAFCOs’ efforts are directed toward seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open- spaced lands are protected. 26 LAFCO POWERS Each LAFCO regulates boundary changes proposed by other local governmental agencies or individuals by approving or disapproving such changes, with or without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally. Each LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to spheres of influence, as well as proposals involving the dissolution and consolidation of special districts and the merging or establishment of subsidiary districts. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as applications initiated by petition or resolution of a legislative body. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56326, the Los Angeles County LAFCO is composed of nine regular Commissioners: two members from the Board of Supervisors; one representative from the City of Los Angeles; two members who represent the other 87 cities in Los Angeles County; two members who represent special districts; and two public members, one representing the public as a whole, and the other representing the San Fernando Valley Statistical Area. There are six alternate Commissioners; one from each of the above-membership categories. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ORIGINS The municipal service review requirement was adopted after the Legislature’s consideration of two studies recommending that each LAFCO throughout the State conduct reviews of local agencies. The Little Hoover Commission study focused on the need for oversight and consolidation of special districts, whereas the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century study focused on the need for regional planning to ensure efficient service delivery as California’s population continues to grow. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In May 2000, the Little Hoover Commission3 released a report entitled Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources of the Future. This report focused on governance and financial problems among independent special districts, and the barriers to LAFCO’s pursuit of district consolidation and dissolution. The report raised the concern that “the underlying patchwork of special district governments has become unnecessarily redundant, inefficient and unaccountable." 4 In particular, the report raised concerns about a lack of visibility and accountability among some independent special districts. The report indicated that many special districts hold excess reserve funds and some receive questionable tax revenues. The report expressed concern about the lack of financial oversight of the districts. It asserted that financial reporting by special districts is inadequate, that districts are not 3 The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency that was created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and – through reports, recommendations and legislative proposals – promote efficiency, economy and improved service. By statue, the Commission is a balanced bipartisan board composed of five citizen, members appointed by the Governor, four citizen members appointed by the Legislature, two Senators and two Assembly members. 4 Little Hoover Commission. Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? ( Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, May 2000), 12. 2277 required to submit financial information to local elected officials, and concluded that district financial information is “largely meaningless as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of services provided by the districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”5 The report pointed to relatively low voter turnout rates and a greater frequency of uncontested elections among special districts than among city councils. Further, the report questioned whether specials districts are providing adequate notice of public meetings. In addition to concerns about the accountability and visibility of special districts, the report raised concerns about special districts with outdated boundaries and outdated missions. The report questioned the public benefit provided by health care districts that have sold, leased or closed their hospitals, and asserted that LAFCOs consistently fail to examine whether they should be eliminated. The report pointed to service improvements and cost reductions associated with special district consolidations, but asserted that LAFCOs have generally failed to pursue special district reorganizations. The report called on the legislature to increase the oversight of special districts by mandating that LAFCOs identify service duplications and that LAFCOs study reorganization alternatives when: service duplications are identified, district insolvencies appear, district reserves are excessive, rate inequities surface, a district’s mission changes, a new city incorporates and when service levels are unsatisfactory. To accomplish this, the report recommended that the state strengthen the independence and funding of LAFCOs, require districts to report to their respective LAFCO, and require LAFCOs to study service duplications. COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE The legislature formed the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (“21st Century Commission”) in 1997 to review current statutes on the policies, criteria, procedures and precedents for city, county and special district boundary changes. After holding 25 days of public hearings, wherein over 160 organizations and individuals, the “21st Century Commission released its final report Growth within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century in January 2000. The report examines the way that government is organized and operates, and establishes a vision of how the state will grow by “making better use of the often invisible LAFCOs in each county.”6 The report points to the expectation that California’s population will double over the first four decades of the 21st Century, and raises concern that our government institutions were designed when our population was much smaller and society less complex. The report warns that, without a strategy, open spaces will be swallowed up, expensive freeway extensions will be needed, and employment centers will become farther removed from housing, leading to longer commutes, increased pollution and a more stressful lifestyle. Growth within Bounds acknowledges that local governments face 5 5Little Hoover Commission, 24. 6 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. 2288 unprecedented challenges in their ability to finance service delivery since the voters cut property tax revenues in 1978 and the legislature shifted property tax revenues from local government to the schools in 1993. The report asserts that these financial strains have created governmental entrepreneurialism in which cities, counties and districts compete for sales tax revenue and market share. The 21st Century Commission recommended that effective, efficient and easily understandable government be encouraged. In accomplishing this, the 21st Century Commission recommended consolidation of small, inefficient or overlapping providers, transparency of municipal service delivery to the people, and accountability of municipal service providers. The sheer number of special districts, the report asserts, “has provoked controversy, including several legislative attempts to initiate district consolidations”7 but cautions LAFCOs that decisions to consolidate districts should focus on the adequacy of services, not on the number of districts. Growth within Bounds cautions that LAFCOs cannot achieve their fundamental purposes without a comprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency of providing service within the county, future service needs, and expansion capacity of each service provider. The report argued that comprehensive knowledge of water and sanitary providers would promote consolidations of water and sanitary districts, reduce water costs, and promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of water resources. Further, the report asserted that many LAFCOs lack such knowledge, and should be required to conduct such a review to ensure that medical services are logically extended to meet California’s future growth and development. The state-mandated municipal service review would require LAFCO to examine consolidation or reorganization of service providers within a geographic area. The 21st Century Commission recommended that the review should include water, wastewater, solid waste, and other municipal services considered important to future growth. The Commission recommended that the service review be followed by consolidation studies and preformed in conjunction with updates of spheres of influence. It also suggested that service reviews be designed to make nine determinations, each of which was incorporated verbatim on the subsequently adopted legislation. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LEGISLATION The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCO to review municipal services before updating the spheres of influence of local agencies.8 This requirement verifies the need for a coordinated and efficient public service structure in support of California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to comprehensively study existing and future public service conditions and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently and cost-effectively. 7 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century (Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, 2000), 70. 8 California Government Code §56430(c). 2299 Effective January 1, 2001, Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in a county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following: 1) Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; 2) Growth and population projections; 3) Financing constraints and opportunities; 4) Cost avoidance opportunities; 5) Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6) Opportunities for shared facilities; 7) Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers; 8) Evaluation of management efficiencies; and 9) Local accountability and governance. The municipal service review process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings; it only requires that LAFCO make determinations regarding the provision of public services per Government Code Section 56430. However, LAFCO, other local agencies and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization to establish or amend spheres of influence. Municipal service reviews are not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because they are only feasibility or planning studies for possible future action which LAFCO has not approved. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21150) The ultimate outcome of conducting a service review however, may result in LAFCO taking discretionary action with respect to a recommended change of organization. Either LAFCO, if acting on its own, or the local agency that submits a proposal to LAFCO, will be considered the lead agency for purposes of CEQA and must conduct an appropriate environmental review prior to LAFCO taking action. 3300 LOS ANGELES LAFCO MSR PROCESS LAFCO is charged with preparing municipal service reviews and updating the spheres of influence of 180 local agencies. Given the enormity of the task, the executive officer has divided the county into nine geographic areas, based primarily on watersheds, for which MSRs are being prepared: 1) Catalina Island - completed May 12, 2004 2) High Desert - completed August 25, 2004 3) Las Virgenes - completed August 25, 2004 4) West San Gabriel Valley - completed December 8, 2004 5) Santa Clara - completed January 19, 2005 6) East San Gabriel Valley - completed July 13, 2005 7) South Bay - completed September 28, 2005 8) Gateway - completed December 14, 2005 9) Los Angeles The Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County has determined that certain special districts (cemetery, community services, garbage disposal, health care, library, recreation and park, resource conservation, and mosquito abatement) are subject to sphere of influence reviews and updates, but are not considered “backbone” municipal services. These special districts will be subject to abbreviated municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates. The MSR process involves agency review and public hearings prior to the Commission’s decision on the nine determinations. The process involves the following steps: PRELIMINARY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: During this step, LAFCO sent questionnaires (Requests for Information) to the agencies about their delivery of municipal services. LAFCO prepares the preliminary municipal service review report and submits that report to the affected agencies for review. During or upon completion of the 30-day review period, LAFCO invites the agencies to discuss their comments and related policy options with the executive officer. DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: After receiving the agencies’ comments, LAFCO makes report revisions and releases the draft municipal service review report to the Commission and to the general public 21 days in advance of the public hearing. LAFCO then holds a public hearing to consider public comment. FINAL MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW: At the public hearing, the Commission may proceed to reach the nine written determinations regarding municipal service review or may request revisions or additional analysis to be conducted for the MSR. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE: After making the nine written determinations, the commission may proceed to update the spheres of influence of the agencies covered in the municipal service review report. Affected agencies must be notified 21 days in advance of this hearing. 31 Chapter 2 Municipal Service Providers & Regional Overview Los Angeles MSR Area The majority of the Los Angeles MSR Region is encompassed by the expansive City of Los Angeles and the adjacent cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. West Hollywood was the latest of these cities to incorporate in 1984. No less than 27 cities share a common border with the City of Los Angeles, which was the first to incorporate in the region. Burbank, Glendale, Culver City, and Santa Monica incorporated as charter cities. Under a charter city or “home rule” form of government, a city is empowered to create its own laws and operational government structure. A general law city follows the state’s general laws for structuring and conducting a municipal government. It has no power to enact ordinances that conflict with state law. Geographic features of the region include the Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley. There are three mountain ranges surrounding the Los Angeles Basin: the Santa Monica Mountains, the Verdugo Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is at the southernmost edge of the basin, along the coast. Prone to violent shaking with the occurrence of earthquake activity, the basin has been characterized as a “bowl of jelly.” This is due to the fact that it is composed of sedimentary deposits. The basin’s geologic center is located in the City of South Gate, where the Los Angeles and Rio Hondo Rivers converge. The Los Angeles River is the major waterway of the Los Angeles MSR area. The area includes the Los Angeles River Watershed, the Ballona Creek Watershed, the North Santa Monica Bay watersheds, and the Dominguez Watershed. The earliest known inhabitants of the region were the Native American Chumash, Tongva, and Tatviam peoples. With the Spanish colonization of the area, Catholic missionaries subsequently settled the region establishing the San Gabriel and San Fernando Missions in the late 1700s. From 1769 to 1846, the Spanish-Mexican government conveyed 588 land grants (Ranchos) throughout California to private individuals to promote settlement of the area. Future land settlement was based on the Rancho territories. 32 History of Cities in the MSR Area BEVERLY HILLS Before the Spanish occupation, the area was inhabited by the Native American Tongva. In the 1820s, the area became Rancho San Antonio, under a Spanish land grant. By 1906, the area was owned by the Rodeo Land And Water Company, a development company that designed the new town and named it Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills was incorporated as a General Law City on January 28, 1914. At present day, it has a total area of 5.7 square miles. The City is surrounded by Los Angeles to the south, west, and north, and by the City of West Hollywood to the east. Beverly Hills is divided into two distinct areas. North of Sunset Boulevard to the Santa Monica Mountains is characterized as hillside terrain, and south of Sunset Boulevard is characterized as flat terrain. The City is in the Ballona Creek Watershed. The City of Beverly Hills is home to the Los Angeles area’s most exclusive homes and shopping. Main shopping thoroughfares are Beverly Drive and Rodeo Drive. BURBANK The area was originally part of two Spanish land grants, Rancho San Rafael (1798) and Rancho La Providencia (1821). Both Ranchos were purchased by Dr. David Burbank in 1867, and operated as a sheep ranch. In 1886, the land was purchased by the Providencia Land, Water, and Developing Company and developed for residential lots and farms. Burbank was incorporated as a Charter City on July 15, 1911. Burbank lies in the east portion of the San Fernando Valley. It encompasses a total land area of 17.4 square miles. Burbank is surrounded primarily by the City of Los Angeles to the south, west, and north, and the City of Glendale to the east. The City is identified as the “Media Capital of the World.” It is headquarters to several noted entertainment companies - ABC, NBC, the Walt Disney Company, and Warner Bros. CULVER CITY Culver City was first inhabited by the Gabrieliños (Tongva). Henry Culver later founded the city in 1913. It became a major center for motion picture and television production in the 1920s and was headquarters for the Hughes Aircraft Company. The City was incorporated on September 20, 1917, as a Charter City. Culver City spans approximately five square miles. It is primarily surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the south, west, and north, and by unincorporated Los Angeles County territory to the east. Ballona Creek is a major geographic feature that runs through the city. The City is headquarters to Sony Pictures Entertainment and National Public Radio. GLENDALE The area was originally inhabited by the Tongva. Glendale was part of the Rancho San Rafael Spanish land grant of 1798. From the 1920s to the 1940s, Glendale served as a major aviation center for the Los Angeles area, before the construction of Los Angles International Airport. It was also home to the first aircraft factory built by Jack Northrop in 1927. 33 The City was incorporated on February 15, 1906 as a Charter City. Glendale lies in the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley. It encompasses 30.7 square miles. The City of Glendale is surrounded by the City of Burbank to the east, Los Angeles to the northeast, the Angeles National Forest to the north, unincorporated Los Angeles County territory and the City of La Canada to the east, and by Los Angeles to the south. High concentrations (40 percent) of ethnic Armenians reside in the city. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Los Angeles was first populated by early Native American peoples, then later the Gabrieliños (Tongva) and Chumash, along the coastal areas, and the Fernandeño (Tataviam) tribes. The City of Los Angeles has a long rich history. The official name of the City, established by the first Spanish settlers in 1781 is: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula. Los Angeles was under Spanish rule from 1542-1821 and under Mexican rule from 1822-1846. It was incorporated as a city of California on April 4, 1850. From its humble beginning as a small mission and ranch town, the City has grown to the second largest city in the United States, with a population nearing 4 million. The total land area of the City of Los Angeles encompasses 469 square miles. The City’s primary population concentration or metropolitan core spans west from Downtown to the Pacific Ocean at Santa Monica. The second largest concentration is in the Westside, which includes Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). To the south is the Harbor Area that includes the Port of Los Angeles. The San Fernando Valley, to the north, is surrounded by the Santa Susanna Mountains to the northwest, the Simi Hills to the west, the Santa Monica Mountains to the south, the Verdugo Mountains to the east, and the San Gabriel Mountains to the northeast. The Cities of San Fernando, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Beverly Hills are surrounded for the most part by the City of Los Angeles.9 SAN FERNANDO Early inhabitants of the “Valley” area were the Tataviam. The City was named for the Catholic Mission that was established there by Father Fermin Lasuen in 1797. San Fernando was incorporated on August 31, 1911, as a General Law City. Its total land area is 2.4 square miles. San Fernando is entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles. The City was able to avert annexation to the City of Los Angeles in the early 1900s because it had its own source of ground water. The majority of residents are of Mexican origin; approximately 90 percent of the population is Hispanic or Latino. SANTA MONICA Santa Monica was inhabited by the Tongva. Parts of the City fell under several Spanish land grants, Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica, Rancho Boca de Santa Monica, and Rancho La Ballona. In the early 1920s, Donald W. Douglas founded the Douglas Aircraft Company and opened a plant at Clover Field, now Santa Monica Airport. Santa Monica was incorporated on December 9, 1886 as a Charter City. The City’s land area is 8.3 square miles. Santa Monica is almost entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles, with the exception of the Pacific Ocean to the southeast. It is noted for its beaches and award-winning transportation system. 9 Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley 3344 WEST HOLLYWOOD The area’s first known inhabitants were the Tongva. West Hollywood is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, east, and south, and by the City of Beverly Hills to the west. As an unincorporated area that was less restrictive than Los Angeles, West Hollywood became attractive to night club and gambling operators in the 1920s. Many of them were located along the Sunset Strip. West Hollywood was the latest city in the MSR area to incorporate. The issue of rent control became a major catalyst for residents to vote for the City’s incorporation on November 29, 1984 as a General Law City. The City has a total area of 1.9 square miles and has the highest population density of all the MSR cities. West Hollywood has a significant community of Russian Jews and gays. QUALITY OF LIFE “Quality of life” factors such as crime, earned wages, cost of living, housing costs, and utility rates affect all residents. Below is a comparison of economic and environmental data as of January 2006, for each city. Culver City had the highest median household income reported; the lowest was in Los Angeles. By comparison, the national average household income was $42,350. Los Angeles falls far below the national average and all the other cities in the MSR area. The Cost of Living Index was highest in Beverly Hills.; the lowest in Los Angeles. The national average Cost of Living index is 99.5 and the average yearly utility cost nation-wide is $3,196. Los Angeles had the lowest yearly utility rates and Culver City had the highest. Household consumer expenditures were also higher in Beverly Hills and lowest in Los Angeles. The national average for expenditures is $41,075 per year. Air Quality was the same in each city and was higher or better than the national average of 44. Crime was lowest in Glendale and highest in West Hollywood, with 3.6 being the national average. Personal Crime was also higher in West Hollywood and lowest in Glendale. The national average was 3.4. Table 2-1: City Profiles City Neighborhood Profiles Cost Average Average Median Of Yearly Household Air Total Personal Household Living Utility Consumer Quality Crime Crime City Income Index Cost Expenditures Index Index Index Beverly Hills $66,492 447.4 5,203 $70,880 1 4.7 6 Burbank $60,799 203.1 3,999 $56,188 1 5.7 5 Culver City $78,642 222.9 5,808 $79,941 1 6.3 7 Glendale $45,397 210.7 3,866 $53,623 1 3 3 Los Angeles $9,646 143.1 2,167 $27,081 1 6.3 7 San Fernando $44,007 151.8 3,434 $47,534 1 6.3 7 Santa Monica $55,055 253.8 4,516 $63,986 1 7 7 West Hollywood $55,970 393.5 4,968 $67,249 1 7.3 8 Source: Yahoo Neighborhood Profiles 3355 Municipal Service Providers Table 2-2: Municipal Service Providers Los Angeles Basin MSR Service Providers Services Beverly Hills Burbank Culver City Glendale Los Angeles San Fernando Santa Monica West Hollywood Ambulance City City City City City/Private Los Angeles AMR Westmed/McCormick Fire City City City City City Los Angeles City CFPD Flood Control City City/County City City/County City/County City City County Code Enforcement City City City City City City City City Land Use City City City City City City City City Library City City County City City County City County Paramedic City City City City City Los Angeles City CFPD Street Maint. City City City City City City City Private Street Lighting City City City City City City City SCE Recreation & Parks City City City City City City City/Private City/Private Solid Waste City/Private City/Private City City City Crown Disposal City Athens Services Police City City City City City City City County Utilities-Electric So. Cal Ed. City So. Cal. Ed. City City So. Cal. Ed So. Cal. Ed. LADWP/So. Cal.Ed. Retail Water City City So. Cal Water Co. City City City City LADWP/City Wholesale Water MWD MWD West Basin MWD MWD City MWD MWD LADWP/Beverly Hills Wastewater Los Angeles City/County Los Angeles City City Los Angeles City/Los Angeles City/CSD 36 Special District Service Providers LAFCO is required to review services for all agencies and special districts within Los Angeles County whose boundaries are within LAFCO’s jurisdiction. The following table provides a list of all agencies having spheres of influence that provide municipal services within the Los Angeles MSR geographic area and includes a schedule of municipal service review and sphere of influence update actions. A municipal service review and sphere of influence update of all non-essential service districts was completed prior to the publication of this report. LAFCO determined that abbreviated studies would be preformed on non-essential municipal service districts, such as cemetery, resource conservation, healthcare, etc. The MSR for Miscellaneous Government Services was adopted by LAFCO on June 23, 2004. Separate municipal service review studies have been implemented for water and wastewater providers. A draft MSR study of water providers is scheduled to be completed January 2006, and includes County Waterworks District #21- Kagel Canyon, and the Crescenta Valley Water District. All completed MSR studies are available for review online on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics-City-msr.html. Table 2-3: Los Angeles MSR Special District Service Providers Special Districts Under LAFCO Jurisdiction Municipal SOI Agency Service Review Update Athens-Woodcrest-Olivita Garbage Disposal District Yes Completed 6/23/04 Castaic Lake Water Agency Yes Completed 1/19/05 Central Basin Municipal Water District Yes Completed 12/14/05 County Sanitation Districts No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 Yes Completed 5/25/05 County Waterworks District #21-Kagel Canyon Yes To be Completed Consolidated Fire Protection District Yes To be Completed Crescenta Valley Water District Yes To be Completed Foothill Municipal Water District Yes Completed 12/8/04 Kinneloa Irrigation District Yes Completed 12/8/04 Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District Yes Completed 6/23/04 Los Angeles County West Vector Control District Yes Completed 6/23/04 Mesa Heights Garbage Disposal District Yes Completed 6/23/04 Santa Monica Mountains Resource Conservation District Yes Completed 6/23/04 West Basin Municipal Water District Yes Completed 9/28/05 Wilmington Cemetery District Yes Completed 6/23/04 37 Chapter 3 Los Angeles Region MSR Determinations Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Purpose: This determination refers to the adequacy of existing and planned facilities in accommodating future growth and the efficient delivery of public services. LAFCO’s role is to assess whether a local agency is able to provide needed resources to its residents at the present time and whether it is capable of meeting anticipated future resource demands within the agency’s boundaries and sphere of influence. In areas where high growth is anticipated, it is particularly important for LAFCO to evaluate whether the city has the current capacity and infrastructure necessary to maintain and meet future demand. The adequacy of public facilities depends on an agency’s ability to finance future improvement. Consideration is given to the condition and capacity of existing infrastructure and planned improvements to determine whether the service provider has any constraints in providing anticipated services. Adequacy depends on supply factors such as location, regulatory and environmental constraints on the facility, capacity, condition, and other quality indicators; also, demand factors that include current and future customer base size, customer characteristics affecting service demand, proximity to related service providers, and geographic constraints such as terrain and elevation. Those municipal services analyzed are principally fire and emergency medical, library, parks, police, solid waste, street maintenance, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater. In addition, the analysis considers the duplication of infrastructure and services of neighboring providers. BEVERLY HILLS Fire Facilities: The City budgeted $1.2 million for ongoing maintenance of Fire Stations 1, 2, and 3 due to age and usage, which is scheduled for completion in FY 08 -09. Parks: Park buildings are in need of renovation throughout the city due to age and deterioration; the renovations are funded with $4.5 million until FY 09-10. Beverly Hills is currently studying the feasibility of developing a needed community sport facility; funds are unidentified but the cost is estimated to be $43.5 million. Police Facilities: The Beverly Hills police facility will require $2.3 million in needed upgrades and repairs in FY 07-08. Libraries: Various library facilities are in need of maintenance and repair; which is funded for ongoing maintenance at an average of $97,000 annually until FY 09-10. The City is planning to upgrade the Beverly Hills Library and is also in process conducting a facility needs analysis for the Roxbury Park Senior Adult Library. 3388 Budgeted capital improvement towards libraries includes $400,000 for maintenance and repair of library facilities. Stormwater: Rehabilitation of deteriorated and undersized storm drains is needed. The City budgets $50,000 each year for rehabilitation of deteriorated or undersized storm drains each year. Street Maintenance: The City budgets approximately $2 million annually for street improvements. A similar program addresses the installation of traffic signals, averaging $500,000 annually. The City will contribute $1.4 million in FY 06-07 towards improvements of Santa Monica Boulevard. Wastewater: Beverly Hills’ sewer system is in need of significant repairs, which includes replacement of deteriorated sewers and the relining of existing sewers. Over two million dollars were budgeted for improvements in FY 06-07 and $2.7 million in fiscal year 08-09. BURBANK Parks: The DeBell Golf Course Clubhouse is being replaced and is estimated to cost $8 million. The City needs a new community services building to house its Parks and Recreation Department, as well as other departments. The cost is estimated at $38.1 million annually and is fully funded. A new soccer field is needed for the South San Fernando Project area, and the City is slated to begin construction on a one acre community center in the area in 2007. Approximately $24 million in funding has been identified. The City continues to explore options for increasing the number of soccer fields throughout the City. Transportation: Expansion of the Bob Hope Airport is limited by land use restrictions. Street Maintenance: The City budgets $1.7 million annually for street improvements for resurfacing of streets and alleys, concrete repair, and sidewalk improvements. In addition, the City finances specific street repair projects; for example, $1.6 million has been slated for improvements to Buena Vista Street through FY 08-09.10 Wastewater: Ongoing sewer replacement and repairs are funded at $150,000 annually. The City faces service challenges in complying with new RWQCB requirements for further treatment of effluent discharged in the Los Angeles River. The Hyperion Treatment Plant is in need of upgrades and expansion, which the city contracts for wastewater treatment. Burbank funds its share of capital improvements for the facility at approximately $1.5 million annually. The City budgets $300,000 each fiscal year for repairs, sewer upgrades, and Water Reclamation Plant operation improvements. CULVER CITY Fire Facilities: Upgrading is needed for Fire Station 3 and the training facility, which are listed as being in poor condition. The Fire Department’s training facility needs rehabilitation or replacement. Culver City has appropriated $6.2 million for a new fire training facility. A new location site has been identified for the replacement station. In addition, the Department’s emergency operations center is too small. 10 City of Burbank, CIP Progress Report, FY 2006-07, page 8. The City prioritizes street repairs through its comprehensive pavement management program. 3399 Police: The Culver City Police Department has several computer systems that do not integrate well and are becoming outdated. A system is needed that will integrate dispatch, inmate processing, reporting systems, information tracking systems, and allow wireless communications with field units. The Department is working with the Information Technology Department to modify its Record Management System for enhanced functionality. Parks: The City does not have adequate parkland. Various parks are in need of or are undergoing improvements. Lundberg Park recreation facilities and Culver City Park are in need of rehabilitation. The City needs a new recreational facility and gymnasium, which is estimated to cost $3.5 million. Stormwater: Capital improvements for stormwater discharge are needed Street Maintenance: Several street improvement projects are needed throughout the city, especially resurfacing. The Higuera Street Bridge needs widening but the project is unfunded. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks are replaced on and ongoing basis at $100,000 annually. Existing asphalt alleyways are in poor condition and requiring resurfacing ($100,000 annually). GLENDALE Fire Facilities: Fire Stations No. 26 and No. 29 are in need of rehabilitation or replacement. Libraries: Existing libraries are in need of renovation throughout the city, for which funding is allocated at $900,000 annually. Parks: The City’s General Plan identified significant deficiency of developed parkland in the city. Glendale funds $2.5 million annually for new parkland and facilities. Solid Waste: The Scholl Canyon Landfill slope and drainage system need reconstruction to increase canyon integrity and eliminate the potential for gas emission, ponding, and erosion. Stormwater: Arch Place is in need of additional storm drains, including catch basins and manholes. There are deficient drainage facilities in need of repair throughout the city, which has an ongoing funded program to address the deficiencies ($125,000 annually). Street Maintenance: Curb ramps are needed throughout the city for ADA compliance. Street rehabilitation and reconstruction, curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair are funded at $7.2 million annually. Wastewater: Treatment facility upgrades and expansion are needed at the Los Angeles- Glendale Reclamation Plant to address increasing wastewater demands. Several damaged sewer mains in the city are in need of reconstruction, which is funded at $5.4 million through 2012. The City funds sewer main replacement at $350,000 annually. Glendale has experienced sewage overflows during periods of heavy rainfall, which may be attributed to poor sewer systems in these areas. LOS ANGELES Fire: The City is in need of replacement and expansion of 18 neighborhood fire stations and an emergency helicopter maintenance facility. Since November 2000, $428.2 million in GO bond funding has been raised to finance the projects. Of those fire facilities funded by GO bonds, the city’s CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) 4400 identifies three facilities in need of expansion/replacement, Stations No. 94, No. 64 and the dispatch facility. Libraries: In November 1998, voters passed a Library Bond measure funded by $178.3 million in GO bonds. The Library Bond Program including the construction and renovation of 32 branch facilities within six years. All of the original projects have been completed. City Council subsequently approved the addition of four new projects to the library bond program, two of which are completed and two are scheduled for completion in 2008. A draft library master plan proposes rehabilitation of 10 branch libraries and construction of six new libraries; this plan is under consideration and is not yet funded. Parks: Los Angeles provides four acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which meets the Quimby requirement by of providing 3-5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, but it falls below the NRPA standard, which is 6.25 – 10.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Disparities exist in parkland provided throughout the city, especially in low income areas. Park space development is needed for the Sepulveda Basin area. It is estimated to cost $2.6 million and will be funded by a citywide assessment district for parks and recreation services. The Ardmore Recreation Center needs expansion of its gymnasium and other upgrades. As of November 16, 2005, the City’s Recreational and Cultural Facilities Program (RCFP) awarded over $13 million in construction contracts for five new park projects. As of January 2006, the RCFP is managing 137 projects throughout the city. Police Facilities: Several police facilities throughout the city are in need of rehabilitation or repair, including Parker Center, police headquarters. The City has earmarked $14.4 million in initial funds, including $600 million in Proposition Q bond funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction of facilities. Additional funding for remaining improvements will be identified in future years. The San Fernando Valley Mission area is in need of a new police station; the project is funded by $12.3 million. Proposition Q allowed for General Obligation (GO) bond funding for new police bomb, stations and jail facilities and rehabilitation of several older stations. For additional information see pages 120-121. Solid Waste: Los Angeles no longer owns and operates its own landfills. In December of 1995, the City Council directed staff to procure/construct city-owned transfer facilities in the West Los Angeles, Valley, and Central City areas so that the city can maintain greater control over its waste stream. The Bureau of Sanitation is currently examining the possibility of purchasing the Central Los Angeles Recycling and Transfer Station a privately owned facility. In addition, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Department (LACSD) is interested in developing a joint facility which would further reduce the cost to the city. LACSD also has plans to develop two facilities, in Imperial and Riverside Counties, to provide additional disposal capacity to meet future demand. Stormwater: Several infrastructure stormwater upgrades and facilities are needed for the city to address wet weather bacteria TMDL (total maximum daily loads). The implementation is expected to take about 18 years at an estimated cost of $1.56 billion. The project will include construction of a large runoff treatment facility, capable of handling 2.3 billion gallons of runoff, the diversion of wet weather flow to Hyperion, and an Integrated Resources Plan. It will be funded by the city’s current stormwater 4411 fee on property taxes, and by GO bonds, approved by voters in 2004. The bond measure approved up to $500 million for stormwater projects and other projects related to the Federal Clean Water Act requirements. Streets: Alameda Street, from 25th Street to Slauson Avenue, is in need of major reconstruction. The estimated cost is $8.8 million. There is no current funding available for the improvements. Street widening is needed along Aviation Boulevard, from Imperial Highway to Arbor Vitae Street; the project is estimated to cost $61.6 million and is not yet funded. A grade separation project at the extension of Saticoy Street is needed to complete a link between Woodman Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard; the estimated cost of $42.3 million is not yet funded. Airports: Los Angeles International (LAX) required modernization to accommodate existing and future demand. Passenger and cargo facilities at Ontario and Palmdale Airports will need expansion to accommodate forecasted traffic growth through 2030. Ground run-up enclosures should be built at Van Nuys Airport to mitigate noise. Wastewater: The City needs collection and treatment system upgrades and expansions to address the needs of wastewater flows to the year 2020. Strategies for addressing future flows include increasing capacity at current facilities and building new treatment plants to serve the downtown and San Fernando Valley areas. Improvements are needed at Hyperion, Los Angeles-Glendale, and Tillman Treatment plants. Significant collection system upgrades are needed citywide. The City estimates project expenditures to average $265 million annually.11 Sewer collection facility strategies include building new interceptor lines and new buried storage tanks. Overall collection system needs include upgrading aging sewer mains, increasing capacity to prevent wet weather spills, odor, and corrosion problems. The City faces service challenges in complying with new RWQCB requirements for further treatment of effluent discharged in the Los Angeles River. Los Angeles has experienced sewage overflows during periods of heavy rainfall, which may be attributed to poor sewer systems in these areas. SAN FERNANDO Parks: San Fernando is in need of developed parkland. The City has plans for a new aquatic facility that is funded and a youth center, which is not funded. Park improvements in the city are mostly unfunded. Street Maintenance: A few areas throughout the city are in need of street improvements. Only 17 percent of these projects are funded. Stormwater: San Fernando had the second highest sewer overflows in the MSR area. Wastewater: The City is in need of ongoing sewer maintenance, which is funded at $200,000 annually. SANTA MONICA Parks: The City lacks adequate parkland. The lifeguard headquarters facility is in need of rehabilitation, the estimated cost is $240,000. Reed Park requires facility 11 City of Los Angeles, Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan: Project Descriptions and 10-year Expenditure Plan FY 2005/06-2014/15. 4422 improvements, as does the beach parking and restroom facilities. Memorial Park is in need of expansion, the estimated cost is $240,000. Stormwater: Stormwater discharge improvement projects are needed and funded at $150,000 annually. The City had the most sewer overflows in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. Street Maintenance: Circulation improvements are needed at the Santa Monica Pier. Street resurfacing and parking lot repair is needed throughout the city, which is funded by an ongoing program annually for $2.9 million. Additional funds are budgeted for FY 06-07 for circulation improvements at the Pier. Transportation: The runway and taxiway at Santa Monica airport need slurry sealing and restriping. Wastewater: Wastewater main replacements are needed throughout the city, which is funded at $1 million annually. Sewer reconstruction is needed in various locations throughout the city to address infiltration, inflow, and capacity deficiencies, which the city has funded at $1.1 million through FY 08-09. WEST HOLLYWOOD Parks: West Hollywood does not have adequate parkland. The City has plans for renovation and development of Plummer Park and West Hollywood Park. Libraries: The City has plans to replace the West Hollywood Library, currently owned by the County, with a new facility. When completed, the library will be city owned and operated by the County Public Library System. Solid Waster: The City has not met the requirement of AB 939 to divert 50 percent less trash to landfills. West Hollywood had an average solid waste diversion rate of 42 percent. Stormwater: Several storm drain catch basins throughout the city need retrofitting. Street Maintenance: The City has the highest traffic demand in the MSR area. Several streets and sidewalks need to be brought to ADA compliance. Sunset Boulevard is in need of $4.7 million in pavement repairs. The City funds ongoing sidewalk repairs and street paving at $1 million annually. Wastewater: Sewer reconstruction is needed at various locations to address infiltration and capacity deficiencies. The project is funded at $1.1 million until FY 08-09. 4433 Growth and Population Purpose: This determination refers to the expected demand for services within the particular area, as measured by the current and future population. The evaluation of population growth projections provides for adequate planning to meet anticipated future demand needs and ensure adequate delivery of municipal services. Sphere of influence (SOI) boundaries are probable future boundaries. Annexation of territories outside of a city’s existing boundary limits or expansion of a SOI potentially increases the population of that city. In cases where a SOI boundary is coterminous to the city’s existing boundary, population growth is limited; especially if the city is at build-out. Service demand would theoretically be less for a city with boundary constraints. Those cities identified having boundary expansion constraints are Beverly Hills, Burbank, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. The chart below shows the historical population of all the cities within the Los Angeles MSR area. Statistics for West Hollywood are available beginning in 1960; however, the City of West Hollywood was not incorporated until 1984. From 1950-2000 the population of Beverly Hills had grown at a relatively small rate of 16 percent and Santa Monica grew by 17 percent. Burbank increased its population by a moderate 28 percent and West Hollywood by 24 percent since 1960. Since its 1950 population of 1,970 residents, Culver City’s population has dramatically grown by 1870 percent. The population of the City of Glendale increased by 104 percent, followed by Los Angeles whose population increased by 88 percent, and the City of San Fernando which grew by 82 percent. Table 3-1: Historical Census Population HISTORICAL CENSUS POPULATION City 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Beverly Hills 29,032 30,817 33,416 32,647 31,971 33,784 Burbank 78,577 90,155 88,871 84,625 93,643 100,316 Culver City 1,970 32,163 31,035 38,139 38,793 38,816 Glendale 95,702 119,442 132,752 139,060 180,038 194,973 Los Angeles 1,970,358 2,479,015 2,811,801 2,966,763 3,485,398 3,694,820 San Fernando 12,922 16,093 16,571 17,731 22,580 23,564 Santa Monica 71,595 83,249 88,289 88,314 86,905 84,084 West Hollywood NA 28,870 34,622 35,703 36,118 35,716 The following chart shows the estimated future population growth rate for all cities within the Los Angeles MSR area. According to SCAG population estimates, the City of Burbank will have the highest population growth rate between years 2005-2025, 0.7 to 0.8 percent per five-year increment period. Santa Monica and Culver City are projected to have the lowest growth rate at 0.1 percent per five-year increment. 44 Estimated Population Growth Rate of the MSR Area Figure 3-1: City Population Growth Projections SCAG City Population Growth Projections 0.9% Pop 2005-10 Pop 2010-15 Pop 2015-20 Pop 2020-25 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Beverly Hills Burbank Culver City Glendale Los Angeles San Fernando Santa Monica West Hollywood Between the years 2005-2010, the greater percentage of population growth is anticipated to occur within the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank and San Fernando. Population growth throughout 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and 2020-25 is expected to stabilize and remain at relatively the same annual rate of growth for all the cities within the MSR area, with the exception of Burbank. Growth rate in Burbank is expected to peak from 2010-2015 and decrease slightly thereafter, but remain comparatively high. 45 Estimated Population Growth of Cities BEVERLY HILLS Figure 3-2: Beverly Hills Growth Projections Of all cities in the MSR Beverly Hills Growth Projection area, Beverly Hills is projected to have one 38,500 of the lowest growth 38,000 rates in the MSR area. 37,500 SCAG estimates 37,000 indicate that the city’s 36,500 growth rate will increase 36,000 at a slow pace.12 35,500 Population growth is 35,000 estimated to increase at 34,500 a rate of 0.2 percent; 34,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 and thereafter, increase at a rate of 0.4 percent from 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 35,564. The population is estimated to grow to 38,040 residents by year 2025, an increase of 2,476 residents. BURBANK Figure 3-3: Burbank Growth Projections Burbank is projected to have the highest Burbank Growth Projection growth rate of the cities in the MSR area. 125,000 SCAG projections 120,000 indicate that the City’s growth rate will 115,000 increase at a steady 110,000 annual rate, with the highest percentage of 105,000 growth occurring 100,000 between the years 2010 to 2015. 95,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Population growth is estimated to increase by a rate of 0.7 percent between years 2005-2010, 0.9 percent between years 2010-2015, and 0.8 percent between years 2015-2020 and 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 106,660, and is projected to grow to 124,325 by 2025, an increase of 17,665 residents. 12 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 46 CULVER CITY Figure 3-4: Culver City Growth Projections Culver City is anticipated to have the lowest growth rate of all the cities in the MSR area. SCAG projections Culver City Growth Projection indicate that the City’s growth rate will increase 41,600 at a low, steady annual 41,400 rate.13 Population growth 41,200 is estimated to increase 41,000 by a rate of 0.2 percent 40,800 between years 2005- 40,600 2010, and 0.1 percent 40,400 between years 2010- 40,200 2015, 2015-2020, and 40,000 39,800 2020-2025. The City’s 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 population as of 2005 was 40,460, and is projected to grow to 41,437 by 2025, an increase of 977 residents. GLENDALE Figure 3-5: Glendale Growth Projections Glendale is projected to have a moderate growth rate in comparison to the other cities in the MSR area. Glendale Growth Projection SCAG projections indicate that the city’s growth rate will 220,000 increase at a moderate 215,000 annual rate.14 Population growth is 210,000 estimated to increase by a rate of 0.3 percent 205,000 between years 2005- 200,000 2010, and 0.4 percent between years 2010- 195,000 2015, 2015-2020, and 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 204,435, and is projected to grow to 219,028 by 2025, an increase of 14,593 residents. 13 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 14 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 47 LOS ANGELES Figure 3-6: Los Angeles Growth Projections Growth rate in Los Angeles is also projected to be moderate in comparison to the other cities in the MSR Los Angeles Growth Projection area. SCAG projections indicate that the City’s 4,300,000 growth rate will occur at a steady moderate rate, 4,200,000 with the highest 4,100,000 percentage of growth 4,000,000 occurring from 2005 to 2010.15 Population 3,900,000 growth is estimated to 3,800,000 increase by a rate of 0.7 percent between years 3,700,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2005-2010, and 0.3 percent between years 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and 2020-2025. Its population as of 2005 was 3,950,347, and is projected to grow to 4,257,771 by 2025, an increase of 307,424 residents. SAN FERNANDO Figure 3-7: San Fernando Growth Projections San Fernando is projected to also have a San Fernando Grwoth Projection moderate growth rate in comparison to the other 27,000 cities in the MSR area. 26,500 SCAG projections 26,000 indicate that the city’s 25,500 growth rate will increase 25,000 annually at a moderate rate, with the highest 24,500 percentage of growth 24,000 taking place between 23,500 years 2005 to 2010.16 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Population growth is estimated to increase by a rate of 0.5 percent between years 2005- 2010, and 0.3percent between years 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 24,927, and is projected to grow to 26,883 by 2025, an increase of 1,956 residents. 15 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 16 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 48 SANTA MONICA Figure 3-8: Santa Monica Growth Projections Santa Monica is Santa Monica Growth Projection projected to have the lowest growth rate of all 91,500 the cities in the MSR area. SCAG projections 91,000 indicate that the city’s 90,500 growth rate will occur at 90,000 a consistent low annual rate.17 Growth rate is 89,500 estimated to increase by 89,000 0.1 percent between years 2005-2010, 2010- 88,500 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2015, 2015-2020 and 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 89,560, and is projected to grow to 91,018 by 2025, an increase of 1,458 residents. WEST HOLLYWOOD Figure 3-9: San Fernando Growth Projections West Hollywood is projected to have a West Hollywood moderate growth rate in comparison to the 39,500 other cities in the MSR 39,000 area. SCAG projections indicate 38,500 that the City’s growth 38,000 rate will increase annually at a moderate 37,500 rate.18Growth rate is 37,000 estimated to increase by 0.1 percent between 36,500 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 years 2005-2010, 0.3 percent between years 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and 2020-2025. The City’s population as of 2005 was 37,424, and is projected to grow to 39,137 by 2025, an increase of 1,713 residents. 17 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 18 Projected population, employment, and housing data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 Census geographies. 49 Population and Housing Density Population growth affects both density and housing availability. Of all the cities in the MSR area West Hollywood had the highest population density per square mile (18,993) and the highest number of housing units per square mile (12,821).19 Burbank had the lowest population density (5,782) and Glendale had the lowest number of housing units (2,405) per square mile. West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills had the highest housing units per capita Figure 3-10: Population/Housing Density per Square Mile Population/Housing Density per Square Mile 2,794 Beverly Hills 5,954 Population Housing Units 2,470 Burbank 5,782 3,350 Culver City 7,590 2,405 Glendale 6,362 2,852 7,877 Los Angeles 2,487 San Fernando 9,881 5,794 Santa Monica 10,179 12,821 West Hollywood 18,993 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Table 3-2: Housing Units per Capita Based on population density and housing units Housing Unit Ratio per Capita per square mile, the cities of West Hollywood, Beverly Hills 0.47 Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills had the highest Burbank 0.43 housing unit ratio per square mile. The City of Culver City 0.44 San Fernando, Los Angeles, and Glendale, had Glendale 0.38 the lowest housing unit density. Los Angeles 0.36 San Fernando 0.25 Santa Monica 0.57 West Hollywood 0.68 19 US Census Bureau 2000 Census 50 Employment and Housing Growth Rate EMPLOYMENT SCAG projects that job growth for all the cities in the MSR area will peak between the years 2005 to 2010, with slightly lower job creation rates occurring in the following years. The City of Glendale, however, is anticipated to have its highest job growth rate between the years 2010-2015. It is anticipated that from 2005 to 2025, 484,44220 new jobs will be created in the MSR area, including unincorporated areas. Figure 3-11: Projected Employment Growth Rate 2005- Projected Employment Growth Rate 2025 2005-2025 The pace of job creation is Beverly Hills projected to occur most rapidly in Burbank, Culver Burbank City, San Fernando and Culver City Glendale, and will be slowest in Beverly Hills and Santa Glendale Monica. SCAG projects that Los Angeles the highest number of jobs, from 2005 to 2025, will be San Fernando 2005-10 created in the Cities of Los 2010-15 Santa Monica Angeles, Burbank, and 2015-20 Glendale. San Fernando, West Hollywood 2020-25 West Hollywood, and Beverly 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% Hills and are projected to have the least amount of jobs created in comparison. JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE Table 3-3: Projected Job/Housing Balance SCAG projections indicated that the Projected Job-Housing Balance 2005 jobs-housing balance in the MSR area City Jobs 2005 Housing 2005Balance is greater than the jobs-housing Countywide 4,503,683 3 ,373,415 1.34 balance Countywide. Beverly Hills, MSR Area 2 ,253,416 1 ,565,847 1.44 Culver City, and San Fernando had Beverly Hills 57,471 15,256 3.77 the highest number of jobs to Burbank 92,514 42,545 2.17 housing unit in 2005. The job- Culver City 47,644 16,717 2.85 housing balance for the Cities of Glendale 86,136 72,620 1.19 Glendale and West Hollywood were Los Angeles 1,800,766 1,311,134 1.37 below the median for the MSR area San Fernando 11,534 5,853 1.97 and Countywide. The projections Santa Monica 74,674 45,775 1.63 indicate overall job growth in the West Hollywood 29,951 23,353 1.28 MSR area is anticipated to keep pace with population growth. 20 SCAG job estimates include public sector employees, self-employed persons, and household workers, such as housekeepers. 5511 24-HOUR POPULATION Table 3-4: Population Measures, 2005 In addition to Population Measures - 2005 residential population Agency/Area Residents Jobs 24-Hour and jobs, this report Los Angeles County 10,193,317 4,503,683 10,193,317 makes use of a concept MSR Area 4,580,200 2,253,416 4,753,541 Beverly Hills 35,564 57,471 67,068 called the 24-hour Burbank 106,660 92,514 140,903 population in order to Culver City 40,460 47,644 62,918 draw meaningful per Glendale 204,435 86,136 201,275 capita comparisons. Los Angeles 3,950,347 1,800,766 3,992,140 San Fernando 24,927 11,534 25,320 The cities and Santa Monica 89,560 74,674 116,044 communities in this West Hollywood 37,424 29,951 47,546 study vary significantly in the relative size of their respective commercial populations. Car accidents and crimes happen not only to residents but also to businesses, workers, and commuters. Not only residents, but also businesses require water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Within the MSR area, the job-housing balance varies from 1.2 jobs per housing unit in Glendale to 3.8 in Beverly Hills. In order to draw meaningful comparisons across agencies with wide differences in job-housing balances, the 24-hour population metric was developed for each of the communities.21 The metric is based on the number of residents and jobs in a community, but is calculated taking into consideration that workers spend less time in the jurisdiction than do residents. Because the metric is used only as a denominator for the purposes of developing comparable per capita indicators, it must simply be effective at measuring differences between communities in the population served. Hence, for convenience, the metric is calculated by normalizing countywide 24-hour population to the countywide residential population. Table 3-4 provides the three population measures – residents, jobs, and 24-hour population. For communities like Los Angeles, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica with an (nearly) average balance of jobs and residents, the metric is not substantially different from the residential population. But for job-rich communities like Beverly Hills and Culver City, the metric is closer to the daytime population than to the residential population. Similarly, for a community like Glendale with a below-average job-housing balance, the metric is lower than the residential population, reflecting the reality that many working Glendale residents are not in Glendale much of the time. 21 The 24-hour population is calculated as the sum of a) 2/3 of the residential population, and b) 1/3 of the product of the commercial population multiplied by the countywide ratio of residents to jobs. 5522 Financing Constraints and Opportunities Purpose: Under this determination, LAFCO must weigh a community’s public service needs against resources available to fund services. As a requirement of the MSR, LAFCO must make a determination on whether a city is financially healthy and whether future growth demands will place added financial burdens on the city and potentially impact services. Primary consideration is given to what a city receives from general operating revenue sources. Under normal circumstances this would be a realistic approach; however, State budget constraints have impacted city operating revenues that have resulted in budget shortfalls. The State’s budget deficit has resulted in considerable reductions in subventions and other local agency reimbursements, and reallocations in property tax, vehicle license fees (VLF), and more recently sales and use tax, known as the “triple flip.” In March of 2004, voters approved Proposition 57, the California Economic Recovery Bond Act. This allowed the state to purchase bonds to reduce the budget deficit. In order to pledge a sales tax revenue stream to bond holders, the State “flipped” the sales and use tax from counties and cities to the bond trustee for debt service payments. Provisions were enacted by the State Legislature that changed how sales and use tax taxes and other revenues are distributed to schools and local governments as of July 1, 2004. The local government portion of the base sales and use tax rate will decrease by 0.25 percent and the State portion increased by that amount. The “triple flip” is an exchange of sales and use tax for “in lieu sales tax.” In order to compensate for lost revenues, cities are reimbursed by the County using property tax revenues from the County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and placed into a Sales and Tax Use Compensation Fund. Since a portion of the ERAF fund is set aside for compensation of sales and use tax losses, schools receive less revenue from property taxes, which are then replaced by direct subventions from the State General Fund. There are several factors that LAFCO considers when looking at a city’s overall financial condition. Ideally, a city should maintain adequate contingency reserves. The Government Finance Officers Association (GOFA) recommends an unreserved fund balance of at least 5-15 percent. The city’s general operating budget projects the amount of revenues the city receives and its expenditures and most importantly, whether its revenues are in excess of expenditures. By investing in its infrastructure, the city is able to avoid unfunded financial obligations for improvements and maintenance. The city’s long-term debt obligation from bonded indebtedness is another indication of its financial well-being. The most current data available, from the State of California Controller’s Office, was for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The median city in the MSR area generates $939 of general fund revenue per capita. The cities of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Culver City generated revenues higher than the median. Los Angeles and Burbank generated revenues comparable to the MSR area median. Glendale and San Fernando generate the least general fund revenues – with less than $550 per capita in the MSR area. 5533 Contingency reserves and unreserved fund balances were most ample in Burbank, Beverly Hills, Glendale, and Culver City. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood meet the GOFA recommended reserve ratio. The City of San Fernando had a two percent contingency reserve ratio. The median city in the MSR area had a long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Cities with the highest long-term debt in comparison to the median were Culver City, Beverly Hills, and Burbank. Santa Monica and Los Angeles had moderate debt loads. West Hollywood and San Fernando had the lowest debt. Major General Fund Revenue Sources The following chart illustrates the major categories of revenues that contribute to a city’s general fund. Most cities rely on property taxes, sales tax, business taxes, and utility taxes as major sources of revenue. The State has made reductions in VLF revenues to cities, which was a major revenue source. Although it requires voter approval, financing opportunities exist through increased business license tax, utility tax, transient occupancy tax, and sales and use tax. Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Santa Monica are least reliant on vehicle license fees. Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include false alarm fees, parking and moving violation citations, development mitigation, impact and in-lieu fees, land dedications and infrastructure construction to recover costs for added services. The most significant sources of general fund revenues for cities in the MSR area were sales and use tax, property taxes, hotel tax or transient occupancy tax, and business license tax. The City of Glendale does not levy a business tax. Business tax revenues were lowest in Burbank. The Cities of Beverly Hills, San Fernando, and West Hollywood do not levy a utility user tax. Figure 3-12: Property Tax Revenues The Cities of Los Angeles, Property Tax Revenues FY 03-04 Beverly Hills, and Burbank had the highest percentage Beverly Hills of property tax revenues Burbank that contributed to their Culver City general fund. Culver City and San Fernando had the Glendale lowest percentage of Los Angeles property taxes that San Fernando contribute to their general Santa Monica fund. The median West Hollywood percentage for all the MSR Median combined cities in the Los Angeles MSR area was 13 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% percent property tax contributions. 5544 Figure 3-13: Sales & Use Tax Revenues The Cities of San Fernando, Sales & Use Tax Revenues FY 03-04 Culver City, Glendale, and Burbank had the highest Beverly Hills contribution of sales and use Burbank tax revenues towards their Culver City general fund. The City of Glendale Los Angeles and Santa Monica had the lowest Los Angeles percentage of contributions. San Fernando The MSR median Santa Monica percentage of sale and use West Hollywood tax contributions for all MSR Median combined cities in the MSR 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% area was 20 percent. Figure 3-14: Business Tax Revenues The City of Beverly Hills had Business License Tax Revenues FY 03-04 the highest percentage of business tax revenues Beverly Hills contributing to their general Burbank fund. Culver City and Los Culver City Angeles had the second highest. Burbank and West Glendale Hollywood had the lowest Los Angeles percentage of business tax San Fernando revenues contributing to their general fund. The City of Santa Monica Glendale does not levy a West Hollywood business tax. The MSR MSR Median median percentage of all combined cities for business 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% license tax contributions was eight percent. 5555 Figure 3-15: Utility Users Tax Revenues The Cities of Glendale, Utility Users Tax Revenue FY 03-04 Culver City, and Los Angeles had the highest Beverly Hills utility user tax revenue Burbank contributions toward their general fund. Burbank and Culver City Santa Monica had the lower Glendale percentages of utility user Los Angeles tax contributions. The San Fernando cities of San Fernando, Santa Monica Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood do not levy a West Hollywood utility user tax. The MSR MSR Median median utility user tax for 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% all combined cities in the area was 16 percent. Figure 3-16: Hotel Tax Revenues The Cities of Culver City, West Hollywood, and Hotel Tax Revnues FY 03-04 Beverly Hills had the Beverly Hills highest contribution of Burbank hotel tax revenue Culver City contributions toward their general fund. Glendale, Glendale Burbank, and Los Angeles Los Angeles had the lowest percentages San Fernando of hotel tax revenue. The Santa Monica City of San Fernando does West Hollywood not have a hotel tax. The MSR Median MSR median hotel tax for all combined cities in the 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% area was seven percent. 56 Figure 3-17: Vehicle License Fee Revenues The Cities of Glendale, San Vehicle License Fee Revenues FY 03-04 Fernando, and Burbank have the highest Beverly Hills percentage of vehicle Burbank license fee revenues Culver City contributing to their general fund. Beverly Glendale Hills, Santa Monica, and Los Angeles Culver City have the lowest San Fernando percentage of vehicle Santa Monica license fee revenue contributions. The MSR West Hollywood median percentage of all MSR Median combined cities for vehicle 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% license fee revenue contributions was four percent. 57 BEVERLY HILLS The City of Beverly Hills received $122.2 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $1,852 per capita.22 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median city in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is nearly double the level of the median city in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median city countywide. Figure 3-18: Beverly Hills General Fund Revenue Share Beverly Hills General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 25% Beverly Hills 20% MSR Median 15% 10% 5% 0% Business Lic P e n r o se pe S rt a y le s T a & x H U o se t e T l a T F x a i n x e ( s U T & O se T F M ) o o rf n e e it y u L & re ic s P e n r o se p s e r a t n y d Per mits R F e r a a l n O P c r t h o h i p s e e r e r I t n y c T o r m a n e sfer Ta O x t U he t r i l N i V ty L o U n F s - e P S r r s u o T b p v a e e x r n ty t i o T n a s x a e n s O d t G he r r a T nt a s x-in- Lieu The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the city in comparison to the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area.23 Beverly Hills receives the majority of its revenue in business license tax, property tax, and, sales and use tax, which accounted for 58 percent of revenues. Business tax accounted for 22 percent of general fund revenues, property tax was 19 percent of revenues, and sales tax was 17 percent. The City’s well being is directly linked to its retailers, which generate a considerable amount of revenue for the city. The City general fund depends more heavily on business license tax, property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, licenses and permits, and interest than does the median city. The City relies less on utility users’ tax, vehicle license fees, franchise income, service charges, and other sources than does the median city. The City does not levy a utility users’ tax on energy and telephone use, but does levy a 4.5 percent tax on water sales. The City’s transient occupancy tax rate is 14 percent and is the fourth highest revenue source. The City levies a business license tax on the basis of gross receipts for 22 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 23 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 03-04. 58 retailers and landlords, and on the basis of the number of employees and professionals at office and service businesses. In addition to the City’s governmental activities, Beverly Hills is engaged in several enterprise activities. The City’s major enterprise activities include parking, water, wastewater, refuse, and Stormwater. Financing opportunities include imposition of a utility users’ tax (UUT) on telephone, gas, and other utility services. This opportunity would require majority voter approval. The City of Beverly Hills’ governmental long-term debt per capita was $2,593 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median city in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Revenue bonds constituted most (87 percent) of the City’s long- term debt. Compensated absences constituted six percent and claims payable consisted of six percent. At the end of fiscal year 02-03, Beverly Hills had a total outstanding bonded debt of $221,323,187, consisting of revenue bonds issued for various enterprise and governmental activities. The City has never defaulted on any bond or debt obligation. Beverly Hills has no General Obligation Bonds. Beverly Hills’ underlying rating for Lease Revenue Bonds with Moody’s Investor Service is Aa3, “lower-range minimal credit risk.” The City’s contingency reserves were 41 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $46,637,118 million in unreserved general funds. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. 5599 BURBANK The City of Burbank received $108.6 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $786 per capita.24 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median city in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is 16 percent lower than the median city in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median city countywide. Burbank generates more revenue than the median city countywide. Figure 3-19: Burbank General Fund Revenue Share Burbank Genral Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 25% Burbank 20% MSR Median 15% 10% 5% 0% Sales & Use P T r a o x p U er t t i y li t T y a U O x s t e h r e s r T T a a x x-in- Lie u H ote V l L T F F a i n x e ( s T & O T F ) or B f u ei s t i u n r e e R s s F s e r a L a l n i P c c e r h n o i s p s e e e r I t n y U c T o se r m O a M n e t h s o f e n e r r e N y T o & a n x P - P r o r p o L e p i r e c t r y e t n y s S e T u s b a a x v n e e d n s t P i o e n r m s a it n s d Gra nts Ot her The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the City in comparison to the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area.25 Sales tax, property tax, and utility tax comprise the majority of Burbank’s general fund revenue sources. These top three sources accounted for 57 percent of the City’s revenues in Fiscal Year 2003-04. Sales tax comprised 23 percent of the City’s operating revenues, property tax accounted for 18 percent and utility user’s tax was 16 percent. The City depends more heavily on sales tax, property tax, utility tax and, vehicle license fees than does the median city. The City general fund relies less on business license tax, hotel tax, interest income, fines, franchise income, licenses and permits, and other sources for revenue than does the median city. The City of Burbank levies a utility 24 General fund revenue is the actual amount reported in the Burbank Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2004 on page 24. General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population in FY 03-04 (i.e., 138,185). See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 25 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 03-04. 60 users’ tax of seven percent and levies a business license tax based on the number of employees at each business. In addition to its governmental activities, the City is engaged in enterprise activities. Burbank’s major enterprise activities involve its power, water, sewer, and refuse. The City of Burbank’s governmental long-term debt per capita was $2,007 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median city in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Redevelopment bonds constituted most (81 percent) of the City’s long-term debt. Pension obligation bonds constituted nine percent of the City’s debt. Insurance claims and compensated absences constitute the remainder of the City’s governmental debt. The City’s wastewater enterprise had $114 in long-term debt per capita, and the City’s refuse enterprise had $176 in long-term debt per capita. In FY 03-04 the City had a total outstanding bonded debt of $396,901,000, of which $620,000 was for community facilities district bonds issued for construction of a parking facility, $221,804,000 in tax allocation bonds issued for redevelopment projects, $149,357,000 in revenue bonds issued for various enterprise activities, and $25,120,000 in pensions obligation bonds. Burbank has never defaulted on bonded debt. Burbank has no General Obligation Bonds. Burbank’s underlying Long-Term Obligation rating with Moody’s Investor Service is Aa2, “mid-range minimal credit risk.” The City’s contingency reserves were 45 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. The City’s reserves included $49,527,000 million in unreserved general funds. The City’s sewer enterprise had an unrestricted fund balance of $21 million at the end of FY 03-04, which amounted to 168 percent of operating expenditures. The City’s refuse enterprise had an unrestricted fund balance of $11 million at the end of FY 03-04, which amounted to 57 percent of operating expenditures. Burbank Police Department budget constraints may have an impact in the Department’s ability to meet future demand needs. 6611 CULVER CITY Culver City received $62.7 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $1,013 per capita.26 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median city in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is eight percent higher than the median city in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median city countywide. Figure 3-20: Culver City General Fund Revenue Share Culver City General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 35% Culver City 30% MSR Median 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% H otel Tax S ( a T le O s T & ) U U t s i e li t T y a U x se B r u s s T in a e x R ss e a L l i P c P e r r n o o s p p e e e r r t t y y T T r a a x nsfer Tax Fra n V c h L F i F s i e n e I n s U c & s o e m F M o e r o f S n e u e it y b u v r & e e s n P ti r o o n p s e r a O t n y t d h e G r r N a n o t n s - P O r o t L p h i e e c r r e t n y s e T s a a x n e O d s t P h e e r r m T it a s x-in- Lie u The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the city in comparison to the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area.27 The three major general fund revenue sources for Culver City for Fiscal Year 03-04 were hotel tax, sales tax, and utility tax. These three sources accounted for 74 percent of the City’s revenue. Hotel tax accounted for 29 percent of general fund revenues, sales tax 26 percent, and utility tax 19 percent. The City depends more heavily on hotel tax, sales tax, utility user’s tax, business tax than does the median city. The city general fund relies less on property tax, vehicle license tax, service charges, interest income, licenses and permits, and other sources for revenue than does the median city. The City levies an 11 percent utility tax and transient occupancy tax. Business tax is based on gross receipts of each business. 26 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 27 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 03-04. 62 The City of Culver City’s long-term debt per capita was $3,182 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median city in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Redevelopment bonds constituted 95 percent of the city’s debt. At the end of Fiscal Year 03-04, the city had a total outstanding bonded debt of $196,838,000, which primarily consisted of $26,065,000 in tax allocation bonds issued for redevelopment projects, and $160,264,000 in revenue bonds issued for redevelopment activities. Culver City has never defaulted on bonded debt. Culver City has no General Obligation Bonds. The City’s current rating with Moody’s Investor Service for Wastewater Revenue Bonds is Aaa, “minimal credit risk”. The City’s contingency reserves were 28 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $17 million in undesignated general fund reserves and reserves designated for contingencies. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. Culver City Police Department budget constraints may have an impact in the Department’s ability to meet future demand needs. 6633 GLENDALE The City of Glendale received $103 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $521 per capita.28 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median city in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is 45 percent lower than the median city in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median city countywide. Glendale does generate more revenue than the median city countywide. Figure 3-21: Glendale General Fund Revenue Share Glendale General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 30% Glendale 25% MSR Median 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sales & U U se t i T lit a y x Users T P a r x operty T U a s x e Mon V e L y F & P F r r o a p n e c r h ty ise I H R nc e o o a te l m l P e T ro a p x e ( r T ty O T T r ) an O sf B e th r u e s T r i n a N x es o s n L - i P ce ro n p se L er i t c y e n T se a s x e a s nd F i P n e e r s m S & u it b s F v o e r n f t e i i o tu n r s e a s nd O G th r e a r n t T s ax-in- Lieu Other The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the city in comparison to the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area.29 Glendale received most of its general fund revenue in Fiscal Year 03-04 from sales and use tax, utility user’s tax, and property tax. These three revenue sources accounted for 65 percent of the general fund. Sales tax was 25 percent of the general fund revenues, utility tax was 22 percent, and property tax was 18 percent. The City depends more heavily on sales and use tax, utility users’ tax, vehicle license fees, interest income, and franchise income than does the median city. The City general fund relies less on property business, service charges, hotel tax, fines, business license tax, licenses and permits, fines, and other sources for revenue than does the median city. The City levies a utility users’ tax of seven percent and a transient 28 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 29 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 03-04. 64 occupancy tax of ten percent. Glendale has a minimum business license tax levied only on select businesses such as massage parlors. In addition to its governmental activities, the city has enterprise activities. Glendale’s major enterprise activities involve power, water, and sewer. The City of Glendale’s long-term debt from governmental activities per capita was $1,232 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median city in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Over a third (43 percent) of the city’s long-term debt consisted of redevelopment bonds. A quarter (25 percent) of the city’s long-term debt consisted of certificates of participation to finance a police facility. Landfill closure liability amounted to seven percent of the city’s debt. The City’s sewer enterprise carried a long-term debt of $341 per capita at the end of FY 03-04. The City had $168,182,160 in total bonded debt outstanding; of this amount, $62 million in Certificates of Participation was issued for a Police facility and approximately $105 million was issued in tax allocation bonds. Glendale has not defaulted on payment of any bonds or any other debt. Glendale has no General Obligation Bonds. Glendale’s underlying Long-Term Obligation rating with Moody’s Investor Service is Aa2, “mid-range minimal credit risk” The City’s contingency reserves were 43 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $38 million in undesignated general fund reserves. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. The City’s sewer enterprise had unrestricted reserves of $68 million at the end of FY 03-04. The wastewater reserves amounted to 722 percent of annual wastewater enterprise expenditures. 6655 LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles received $3.4 billion in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $865 per capita.30 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median City in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is eight percent lower than the median City in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median City countywide. The City generates more revenue than the median City countywide. Figure 3-22: Los Angeles General Fund Revenue Share Los Angeles General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 25% Los Angeles 20% MSR Median 15% 10% 5% 0% Pr o p U er t t i y li t T y a U x se S r a s l e T s a & x R U e B a s u l e s P T in r a o e x p ss e r L t i y c e T n r s a e nsfer Tax H ot V el L T F a F x r ( a T U n O c s h e T i O s M ) e t o h I n n er c e o y N m & o e n P - r P o r p o e L p rt e i y c r e t n y s e T s a x an e F s d i n P e e S s r u & m b v i F t e s o n r t f i o ei n t u s r a e n s O d t G he r r a T nt a s x-in- Lie u Ot her The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the City in comparison to the median City in the Los Angeles MSR area.31 The major revenue sources for the City of Los Angeles for Fiscal Year 02-03 were property tax, utility user’s tax, and sales tax. These top three revenue sources accounted for 54 percent of general fund revenues. Property tax accounted for 23 percent of general fund revenues, utility user’s tax 18 percent, and sales tax 13 percent. The City depends more heavily on property tax, utility users’ tax, business tax, vehicle license fees, fines, and other revenue sources than does the median City. The City general fund relies less on sale tax, service charges, hotel tax, interest income, franchise income and license fees for revenue than does the median City. The City levies a 30 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 31 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 02-03. 66 business license tax based on the gross receipts of each business. Los Angeles levies a 10 percent utility user’s tax with the exception of a 12.5 percent tax on commercial energy use. Transient Occupancy Tax is assessed at 14 percent. In addition to the City’s governmental activities, Los Angeles is engaged in several enterprise activities. The City’s major enterprise activities include its power, water, sewer, harbor, airports, and convention center. The City of Los Angeles’s long-term debt per capita was $1,545 at the end of FY 03- 04. By comparison, the median City in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Lease revenue bonds constituted 27 percent of the City’s long-term debt; these bonds were issued to finance the Los Angeles Convention Center, Staples Arena, police communications system, and the Central Library and various other improvements. General obligation bonds comprised 20 percent of the City’s debt; these bonds were issued to finance public safety, zoo, and library facilities. Claims and judgments constituted 27 percent of the long-term debt. Redevelopment bonds comprised 10 percent of the debt. The City’s wastewater enterprise, which serves not only the City of Los Angeles but also serves many cities in the region, had debt of $2.3 billion at the end of FY 03-04. The Port of Los Angeles enterprise had long-term debt of $885 million. The airport enterprise had long-term debt of $483 million at the end of FY 03-04. At the end of fiscal year 03-04, the City had a total bonded debt outstanding of $3,176,432,000, the majority were for Certificates of Participation and Lease Revenue Bonds for various MICLA (Municipal Improvement Corporation of Los Angeles) projects, General Obligation bonds as notes above, Judgment Obligation Bonds, and Special Assessment and Revenue bonds. Los Angeles has never defaulted on payment or bonds or any other debt. Los Angeles’ underlying rating for General Obligation Bonds with Moody’s Investor Service is Aa2, “mid-range minimal credit risk”. The City’s contingency reserves were 12 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $395 million in undesignated general fund reserves.32 The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. The Port of Los Angeles had unrestricted net assets of $162 million, which amounts to 78 percent of annual operating expenditures. The airport enterprise had unrestricted net assets of $613 million, which amounted to 133 percent of annual operating expenditures. 32 At the end of FY 05-06, the City had $432 million in undesignated general fund reserves. 6677 SAN FERNANDO The City of San Fernando received $14 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $579 per capita. 33 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median City in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is 38 percent lower than the median City in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median City countywide. The City does generate slightly more revenue than does the median city countywide. Figure 3-23: San Fernando General Fund Revenue Share San Fernando General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 40% San Fernando 35% 30% MSR Median 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sales & Use T Pr a o x perty Tax Bus V in L e O F ss t h L e i r c e N n o se n - Pr O o t p h e e r r t F y r a T n U a c x s h e e i s s M e o I n n c e o y m & e R P H e r a o o l p t P e e r l r o t T y p a e x r t ( y T T O ra T n ) s U fe t r i l T ity L a x U ic s e n er s s e s T a an x F d i n P e e S s r u & m b v i F t e s o n r t f i e o i n t u s r a e n s O d t G he r r a n T t a s x-in- Lieu The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the City in comparison to the median City in the Los Angeles MSR area.34 The City serves as a commercial center for the San Fernando Valley area. In Fiscal Year 02-03, San Fernando received 43 percent of its revenues from sales tax, 13 percent from vehicle license fees, and 10 percent in property taxes. These three revenue sources account for 66 percent of general fund revenues. San Fernando depends more heavily on sales tax, vehicle license fees, service charges, and other revenue sources than does the median City. The City general fund relies less on property tax, business license tax, fines, franchise income, interest income, hotel tax, license fees, and utility users’ tax than does the median City. The City does not levy a utility users’ tax or a transient occupancy tax. The City levies a business license tax based on the gross receipts of each business. 33 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 34 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 02-03. 68 The City’s long-term debt per capita was $493 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median City in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Most (53 percent) of the City’s long-term debt consisted of redevelopment bonds. A redevelopment loan from the County comprised 14 percent of the City’s debt. Five percent of the City’s debt consisted of a housing loan from California Housing Finance Agency used to finance senior citizen rental units. San Fernando has a total bonded debt outstanding of $6,525,000, consisting of tax allocation bonds issued for several Redevelopment projects. The City has never defaulted on payment of bonded debt. No bond rating information is available for the City of San Fernando. The City’s contingency reserves were two percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $0.4 million in undesignated and unreserved funds. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. LAFCO reviewed the City’s reserves in prior years, and found that the City had no contingency reserves at the end of FY 01-02, and one percent at the end of FY 02-03. 6699 SANTA MONICA The City of Santa Monica received $184.9 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $1,623 per capita.35 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median City in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is 73 percent higher than the median City in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median city countywide. Figure 3-24: Santa Monica General Fund Revenue Share Santa Monica General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 45% 40% Santa Monica 35% MSR Median 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Uti O lit t y h e U r se S r a s l e T s a & x Use P T r a o x p H er o ty te T l a T x ax B ( u T s O i L n T i e c s ) e s n L se ic s e a n n F se d i n P e e s U r & m se i F t M R s or e o f a n e l i e t P y u r r o & e p s e P r r t o y p T e r r a ty nsfer Ta O x F t h r e a r n V c N h L o i F s n e - I P n S r c u o o b p m v e e r e n ty ti o T n a s x a e n O s d t h G e r r a T n a ts x-in- Lie u The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the city in comparison to the median city in the Los Angeles MSR area.36 Santa Monica’s three major revenue sources in Fiscal Year 02-03 were utility user’s tax, sales tax, and property tax, which accounted for 42 percent of general fund revenues. Santa Monica depends more heavily on, hotel tax, license fees, interest income, fines, and other revenue sources. The City general fund relies less on utility users’ tax, sales tax, property taxes, business license tax, service charges, vehicle license fees, and franchise income for revenue than does the median City. The City levies a 10 percent utility users’ tax, a 12 percent hotel tax, and a business license tax based on the gross receipts of each business. In addition to its governmental activities, the City operates enterprise activities. The City’s major enterprise activities involve wastewater and transportation. 35 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 36 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 02-03. 70 The City’s long-term debt per capita was $1,617 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median City in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita. Redevelopment bonds constitute 46 percent of the City’s long-term debt. Lease revenue bonds issued to finance public safety and parking facilities constitute 21 percent of the debt. General obligation bonds issued to finance library improvements comprised 14 percent of the debt. Wastewater enterprise debt amounted to $247 per capita. Santa Monica’s bonded debt obligation for 03-04 was $150.6 million, which consisted of $26.6 million in General Obligation bonds for library improvements; $29 million in Public Safety Lease Revenue Bonds; $85.2 million in Downtown Redevelopment Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Bonds, and Ocean Park Redevelopment Projects Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds; and $10.4 million in Parking Authority Lease Revenue Bonds. The City has never defaulted on payment of bonded debt. Santa Monica’s underlying rating for General Obligation Bonds with Moody’s Investor Service is Aaa, “minimal credit risk”. The City’s contingency reserves were 10 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $19.5 million in unreserved contingency funds. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. The City’s wastewater enterprise had an unrestricted fund balance of $12 million at the end of FY 03-04, which amounted to 257 percent of annual operating expenditures. 7711 WEST HOLLYWOOD West Hollywood received $48 million in general fund revenue in FY 03-04, which amounted to $1,032 per capita.37 By comparison, municipal general fund revenue per capita in the median City in the MSR area was $939. The City’s revenue per capita is ten percent higher than the median City in the MSR area. As a group, MSR area cities collect twice as much general fund revenues as does the median City countywide. Figure 3-25: West Hollywood General Fund Revenue Share West Hollywood General Fund Revenue Share FY 03-04 25% West Hollywood 20% MSR Median 15% 10% 5% 0% H otel Ta x S ( a T le O s T & ) Us U e P T s r e a o M x pe o r n ty e y T & ax P B r u o s p in er F e t s y i s n e L s i c & e n F se orfeit ure R s F e r a a l n P V c r h L o O i p F s t e e h r I e t n y r c N T o r o m a n n e s - f P e r r o T p a e x rt U y t i T lit a L y x i U e c s e s n e s S r e s u s T b a v a n e x d n t P i o e n r m s a it O n s d t h G er r a T n a t x s -in- Lie u Ot her The chart above illustrates the major revenue sources for the City in comparison to the median City in the Los Angeles MSR area.38 Sales and Use tax, Hotel tax, and Property tax were the major sources of general fund revenues for West Hollywood, in Fiscal Year 02-03. They comprised 62 percent of general fund revenues. Sales tax, and Hotel tax each accounted for 22 percent of the annual fund budget, and property tax was 18 percent. The City depends more heavily on transient occupancy tax, property tax, other revenue sources, fines, franchise income, and license fees than does the median City. The City general fund relies less on sales tax, vehicle license fees, business license tax, interest income, service charges, license fees, and utility users’ tax than does the median City. The City does not levy a utility users’ tax. The hotel tax rate is 13 percent. The City’s business license tax is levied on the basis of gross receipts of each business. The City’s long-term debt per capita was $903 at the end of FY 03-04. By comparison, the median City in the MSR area had long-term debt of $1,474 per capita at the end of 37 General fund revenue per capita is calculated based on the 24-hour population. See Chapter 3 of the main report for 24-hour population level. 38 For purposes of comparing revenue shares, general fund revenue is defined consistently across agencies to include general revenues and selected functional revenues, such as parking taxes, building permits, plan check fees, alarm permits, and vehicle code fines. Data utilized was from the California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Year 02-03. 72 FY 03-04. Most (67 percent) of the City’s long-term debt consisted of lease revenue bonds issued to finance City Hall and park improvements. Redevelopment bonds constituted 27 percent of the City’s debt. At the end of 2004, the City had a total bonded debt of $39.9 million, of which $28.4 million was for Certificates of Participation and $11.5 million was for Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds. West Hollywood has never defaulted on bonded debt. West Hollywood has no General Obligation Bonds. West Hollywood’s Long-Term Obligation rating with Moody’s Investor Service is A1, “low credit risk”. The City’s contingency reserves were 11 percent of general fund expenditures at the end of FY 03-04. The City’s reserves included $4.7 million in undesignated general fund reserves and reserves designated for emergencies. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends an undesignated reserve ratio of at least 5-15 percent. 7733 Cost Avoidance Opportunities Purpose: This determination identifies opportunities that provide economies of scale, eliminate costs and duplication of services. The Verdugo Fire Communications Center is a regional 9-1-1 dispatch center for the cities of Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena under a tri-City agreement and share operating and maintenance costs. Dispatch service is also provided to the Cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena through contractual agreement. Fire Station 21, in Glendale serves as the Communications Center facility, maintained and operated by the City. All cities in the MSR area have mutual aid and automatic aid agreements that lead to reduced costs for services that they could not otherwise afford. The Cities of Burbank and Glendale, along with La Canada-Flintridge and Pasadena, have a Cooperative Equipment and Services Agreement that is utilized on a mutual basis. Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena share the use of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) sewer van. Closed circuit television technology is used to inspect sewer lines and mains. Shared use of the equipment provides cost-saving measures and early detection of problems prevents future costly maintenance and adequate funding of capital improvements. The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (CSD) serve as large regional providers of wastewater service. With the exception of West Hollywood, all other cities in the MSR area contract with the City of Los Angeles for all or part of their wastewater treatment and disposal needs. CSD provides service for portions of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles and all of West Hollywood. BEVERLY HILLS Culver City Beverly Hills contracts with Culver City’s Parks Department to provide services for the Senior Nutrition Program at Roxbury Park. City of Los Angeles Beverly Hills contracts with the City of Los Angeles for wastewater treatment and disposal. BURBANK The City of Burbank has numerous contracts and agreements with other government agencies and private industry to provide services. Listed below are some of the services the City contracts for with other agencies. City of Los Angeles Burbank has a contract with the City of Los Angeles to treat a portion of sewage generated in Los Angeles, the majority of which comes from the North Hollywood area, and Los Angeles treats a portion of sewage that is generated in Burbank, and solids from Burbank’s wastewater treatment plant are sent to Los Angeles for further treatment. 74 County of Los Angeles Burbank’s Community Development Department contracts with the County Health Department for inspections of food and massage establishments, and a General Services Agreement for miscellaneous services provided to various City departments. The City also has a service agreement with the County for citywide weed spraying and abatement for public nuisances. Glendale Burbank has a contract with the City of Glendale for heliport services. The City also has an agreement for residents to dispose of household hazardous waste at the Glendale Environmental Management Center. Other The City contracts with the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for cost savings in health and retirement benefits. It also contracts with the Department of Justice for fingerprinting services, and the City of Inglewood for citation processing and follow-up. As a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District, there are significant economies for the treatment, storage, and delivery of imported wholesale water. State of California The Department contracts with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Los Angeles for street signal maintenance at seven intersections and to maintain Caltrans’ right-of-way bridge surface improvements. CULVER CITY City of Los Angeles Culver City Fire Department has mutual and automatic aid agreements with the City. The Culver City Public Works Department (CCPWD) contracts with the City of Los Angeles for street signal maintenance, maintenance of street lights at shared intersections; highway safety lighting, and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for the City are contracted with the City of Los Angeles. County of Los Angeles As a service provider, the City contracts with the Los Angeles County to provide Paratransit services in the unincorporated communities of Ladera Heights, View Park, and Windsor Hills. Beverly Hills CCPWD contracts with Beverly Hills for greenwaste transfer and processing. State of California CCPWD contracts with the California Department of Transportation and the City of Los Angeles for street signal maintenance. 7755 Other The Fire Department has mutual aid agreements with the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (CFPD) as a member of Area A and an automatic aid agreement for truck service with the CFPD. The Community Development Department participates in the California Statewide Development Authority for low-cost tax exempt financing, which results in reduced administrative cost and time, and expertise to provide activity bonds. Culver City’s Transportation Department participates in the California Transit Systems Joint Powers Insurance Authority for insurance cost savings. CCPWD contracts for recycling services with private contractors. GLENDALE Burbank Glendale has a contract with the City of Burbank for maintenance and repair of traffic signals and other traffic related devices in the City of Glendale. The City also has a Workforce Investment Act Services Contract with the City of Burbank to provide workforce development service through the City of Burbank’s Work Force Connection. Other The City participates in a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for operation of the City of Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Facility. The City has another JPA with the Sanitation District for the Scholl Canyon Landfill. The District is responsible operating the facility and the City maintains the closed northern portion.39 LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles, City Administrator Officer, provided LAFCO with a listing of contract agreements for services the city has with other agencies; however, it did not specify what those services were. Burbank Approximately 23 percent of Burbank’s wastewater is treated by Los Angeles and approximately 5 percent of the wastewater treated at Burbank’s facility comes from Los Angeles. SAN FERNANDO City of Los Angeles The City has contracts with Los Angeles for fire protection and paramedic services, and for wastewater treatment and disposal. 39 LSA Associates, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Municipal Service Review, May 2005. 7766 SANTA MONICA City of Los Angeles Santa Monica has contract agreements with Los Angeles for wastewater treatment and disposal, operation and maintenance of the Moss Avenue Pumping Station, and Storm water treatment at SMURRF (Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility). Other The City participates in an insurance joint powers agreement (JPA) - Authority of California Cities Excess Liability (ACCEL), in which there are cost savings of millions of dollars. Santa Monica is also part of Area A JPA – Disaster Preparedness Equipment Purchasing for savings on related equipment. WEST HOLLYWOOD Other West Hollywood participates in a JPA with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority for savings on liability and workers compensation programs. 7777 Opportunities for Rate Restructuring Purpose: LAFCO may recommend sphere of influence changes, consolidations or other reorganizations that would reduce costs to residents. The determination identifies and compares rate structures for services, where applicable, and conditions that may impact future rates. Service reviews identify strategies for rate restructuring that would further LAFCO’s mission of ensuring efficiency in providing public services. Wastewater rates for the County Sanitation Districts are likely to increase in the future to finance regulatory requirements. BEVERLY HILLS No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. BURBANK No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. CULVER CITY No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. GLENDALE No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. LOS ANGELES No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. SAN FERNANDO There are no opportunities for rate restructuring SANTA MONICA No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. WEST HOLLYWOOD No opportunities for rate restructuring were identified. 78 Opportunities for Shared Facilities Purpose: LAFCO may consider how sphere of influence changes could create opportunities for agencies to share facilities and eliminate costly duplication of services. The service review identifies sharing of facilities and resources that promote economies of scale. The Verdugo Fire Communications Center ICIS (Interagency Communications Interoperability System) is a common radio public safety network shared by several cities in Los Angeles County. The Verdugo Fire Communications Center (VFCC) is located in and operated by the City of Glendale. Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena share the cost of operating and maintaining the facility. With the exception of West Hollywood, all the remaining cities contract with the City of Los Angeles for wastewater treatment. Ownership and operation of the Bob Hope Airport is governed by the Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena Airport Authority, an agency created by a JPA between the three cities. BEVERLY HILLS The majority of recreational facilities at the City’s public schools are open to the public under a joint agreement with the Beverly Hills Unified School District. Facilities are maintained and operated by the District, with recreational programs sponsored by the City. The City provides water to portions of West Hollywood and Los Angeles. Both Los Angeles and Beverly Hills have a mutual agreement to provide emergency water. BURBANK In addition to participating in the VFCC, Burbank participates in other cost-sharing agreements. Operation and maintenance of Bob Hope Airport is shared by the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. There is a wastewater treatment agreement with the City of Los Angeles in which the cities treat a portion of each others wastewater. The Burbank Police Department shares its heliport with the City of Glendale. CULVER CITY Culver City’s Police Department identified opportunities for shared facilities for task force operations with other agencies. The City participates in a JPA with the Culver City Unified School District for shared use of facilities and cost savings associated with operating programs and a swimming pool. The Culver City Fire Department stated that opportunities for sharing facilities with other agencies may exist in areas on the outskirts of the city. GLENDALE The City maintains and operates the VFCC. Glendale also shares costs for the operation of Bob Hope Airport. 79 LOS ANGELES No shared facilities were identified by the City; however, the City is a regional provider of wastewater services. The City also provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of San Fernando. SAN FERNANDO No shared facilities were identified for the City. SANTA MONICA The Fire Department’s drill yard and tower facilities are underutilized and could be shared with adjoining communities. WEST HOLLYWOOD No shared facilities were identified for the City. 8800 Government Structure Options In addition to performing service reviews to update an agency’s SOI, they can also be utilized as tools to determine alternative policy changes for agencies under LAFCO jurisdiction. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56375(a), the Commission is empowered to initiate certain changes of organization such as, district consolidation, reorganizations, dissolutions, and mergers, or the establishment of a subsidiary district. No policy alternatives are recommended for Beverly Hills, Culver City, Glendale, San Fernando, or West Hollywood. As a result of the service review, expansion of the City of Los Angeles SOI and reduction of the City of Burbank SOI is recommended. BEVERLY HILLS The City of Beverly Hills’ municipal boundary is coterminous to its SOI. It is mainly surrounded by Los Angeles with the exception of West Hollywood to the east. Beverly Hills has no apparent opportunities for alternative governmental structure options. BURBANK The City of Burbank is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, west, and south, and the City of Glendale to the east. Areas 1a, 1b and 2, indicated on Burbank’s sphere of influence map located in the Map Appendix of this report, are territories within the City of Los Angeles’ boundary limits that are currently within the City of Burbank’s sphere of influence. On July, 25, 1984, the LAFCO adopted a sphere of influence amendment to potentially annex these areas into Burbank’s SOI, thereby adopting joint SOIs. It was recommended that both Cities work to resolve the boundary issues. Areas 1a and 1b - Historically, the southern border between Los Angeles and Burbank was the Los Angeles River. Over the years the course of the river was altered when the river was channelized. It was established that the southern boundary between the two cities should be adjusted along the Los Angeles River Flood Control Channel. There are three small areas of City of Los Angeles territory that lie north of the flood control channel, within the City of Burbank’s sphere of influence. Staff recommends that the City of Burbank work with the City of Los Angeles to request, from LAFCO, a reorganization of the boundary areas along the flood control channel, annexing the areas to the City of Burbank and detaching them from the City of Los Angeles. Area 2 - is a small area of City of Los Angeles territory that consists of airport/aerospace related industries and contains a small portion of Bob Hope Airport’s north-south runway. Burbank’s SOI was amended to also include this area in 1984. Correspondence in LAFCO’s files indicates that the City of Burbank was concerned that the Airport was bisected, and the area was receiving emergency services from the Airport Authority. Staff believes that the Commission adopted a joint sphere with the understanding that the both Cities would work together to resolve territorial boundary issues. There is no indication that there have been any attempts to reconcile these boundary changes. This area has historically been within the City of Los Angeles’ municipal boundary. 81 Staff recommends no changes to the City of Burbank’s sphere of influence; however, Burbank should work with Los Angeles to formally request a change of organization from LAFCO to detach the area from Los Angeles and annex it into the city. CULVER CITY Culver City is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, west and south, and county unincorporated territory to the east. A large pocket of the unincorporated area of Baldwin Hills, west of La Cienega Blvd., is within the City’s sphere of influence boundary. No policy options or government structure options are proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. GLENDALE Glendale is surrounded by the Angeles National Forest to the north, La Cananda- Flintridge and Pasadena to the west, Los Angeles to the south and northwest, and Burbank to the west. The unincorporated communities of La Cresenta and Montrose, to the northeast, are separated by the I-210 Foothill Freeway and lie within the City’s SOI boundaries. No policy options or government structure options are proposed as a result of the service review study. No changes to the existing SOI boundary are recommended. LOS ANGELES Of the 88 Cities in the County, 27 shares a common border with Los Angeles, five of them are almost entirely surrounded by the City. San Fernando is entirely surrounded by Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles’ sphere of influence expands beyond its municipal boundaries. Several pockets of unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory exist with the City’s limits and SOI boundary. Area 1 – Oat Mountain Area 2 – West LA (Sawtelle Veteran’s Administration Complex, the Los Angeles National Cemetery, and Westwood Park) Area 3 – East Los Angeles Area 4 – Franklin Canyon Area 5 – Playa Vista, Wet Fox Hills Area 6 – Ladera Heights, Viewpark, Windsor Hills Area 7 – Lennox, West Athens, Westmont Area 8 – West Carson Area 9 – La Rambla Area 10 – Florence, Firestone Area 11 – Willowbrook, West Rancho Dominguez, Victoria Area 12 – Burbank Airport/LA River Channel On June 16, 2005, the City of Los Angeles submitted an application to LAFCO for an amendment to the City’s SOI. The request proposes to expand the current SOI by 19,242 acres comprised of eight contiguous areas; however, a majority of the proposed 8822 area is already within the City’s SOI and LAFCO’s records indicate that the areas to the northwest and a majority of the proposed area to the north were approved by the Commission in April 1993. A majority of the proposed area follows the natural ridgeline of the San Fernando Valley, and is important to the city because it contains part of the San Fernando Valley watershed that feeds into the Los Angeles River and San Fernando Valley aquifer. The terminus of the Los Angeles Aqueduct also falls within the proposed SOI. The City has historically provided services to these areas. A map of the proposed SOI changes is included in the Map Appendix at the end of this report. Staff recommends that the City of Los Angeles SOI boundary be expanded to include those parcels to the north and northeast, along the Ventura County line, primarily along the ridgeline of the Santa Susanna Mountains to the common watershed line with the City of Santa Clarita. SAN FERNANDO The City of San Fernando’s SOI boundary is coterminous to its City boundary. It is entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles. The common boundary bisects many residential and industrial lots. Both Cities should work together to realign the City boundary lines for purposes of eliminating confusion for emergency response units. The City has no apparent opportunities for alternative government structure options. SANTA MONICA Santa Monica’s municipal boundary is coterminous to its SOI boundary. The City is almost entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles, except the southwest boundary of the City which is bordered by the Pacific Ocean. The City has no apparent opportunities for alternative government structure options. WEST HOLLYWOOD West Hollywood’s municipal boundary is coterminous to its SOI boundary. It is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, east and south, and Beverly Hills to the west. The City has no apparent opportunities for alternative government structure options. 8833 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies This determination refers to the effectiveness of the agency’s internal organization and its ability to provide efficient, quality public services. Efficiently managed agencies contain costs, deliver adequate public services, maintain adequate contingency reserves, and maintain open dialogue with the public. Four cities of the eight cities in the MSR area conduct both performance evaluations and workload productivity monitoring. These cities include Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. Beverly Hills, Culver City, and West Hollywood indicated they conducted either performance evaluation or workload monitoring. The City of San Fernando does not conduct either performance evaluations or workload performance monitoring. BEVERLY HILLS The agency conducts management and financial audits to evaluate its performance but does not track and monitor agency and staff activities or workload. Beverly Hills has received awards for its water treatment facility- for innovative public/private partnership, financing, and Cable TV program. BURBANK The City provides performance indicators for each department as part of the annual budget. City Council reviews items to be included in the Work Program annually. Departments must provide a report on the final status of their program items to the City Manager. Departments monitor workload and productivity through performance indicators and annual performance appraisals of staff. The City has received a number of awards for financing, transportation, housing, recycling and other environmental programs. CULVER CITY The City does not conduct performance evaluations but does track workload and productivity monitoring of departments and staff for Budget and Finance, the City Treasurer, Community Development, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Personnel, Police, Public Works, Risk Management, and Transportation. The City has received numerous awards in the areas of finance, fire safety, information technology, affordable housing, transportation, redevelopment, and others. GLENDALE Performance evaluations of the agency are conducted through the City’s Internal Audit division to the City Manager’s office. Only certain departments such as Public Works, monitors the workload and productivity of its staff. LOS ANGELES Workload productivity of staff is monitored by the departments on an individual basis. 84 SAN FERNANDO The City does not conduct performance evaluation or productivity and workload monitoring of agency staff. The City has received awards in the area of finance. SANTA MONICA Santa Monica evaluates its performance through telephone surveys of residents every two years and performance measures included in the City’s annual budget. Workload monitoring and staff productivity are presented in the City’s annual budget. WEST HOLLYWOOD The City did not indicate whether it conducts performance evaluations and it does not track or monitor workload and staff productivity. West Hollywood has received many awards in the area of finance, transportation, parks and recreation, and for public works projects. 8855 Local Accountability and Governance LAFCO considers the degree to which local accountability exists. The service review assesses the agency’s decision making and operational management processes that include the following evaluations: is the agency’s elected or appointed decision making body accessible and accountable to its residents; does the agency encourage and value public participation; does the agency disclose budgets, programs and plans. BEVERLY HILLS Beverly Hills has a Council-City Manager form of government, consisting of a five- member City council elected at-large. Council elects a Mayor and Vice Mayor from its members to serve a one-year term. Council meetings are scheduled on the first and third Tuesday of each month. Meetings are televised and broadcast live and replayed during the following week. The City also maintains a Website that provides information on City and cultural events and activities. Information is also available at the City Clerk’s office and the library. Council agendas and minutes are posted online and information regarding commission meetings and synopses of the meetings are also available. The City’s Website provides e-noticing, in which subscribers can get notices of various meetings and programs emailed to them. Complaints can be filed with the City Ombudsperson. The City Council was investigated by the District Attorney for an alleged Brown Act violation in 2004 by one councilmember. No legal action was taken.40 BURBANK Burbank has a Council-City Manager form of government, consisting of a five-member City council elected at-large. Council elects a Mayor and Vice Mayor from its members to serve a one-year term. Council meetings are scheduled every Tuesday of each month. Council meetings are broadcast live Tuesday evenings. The City’s government access channel provides repeats of the Council meetings as well as, planning board meetings, parks department meetings, school board meetings, and others. It also produces a weekly Council news program that reports on actions taken by the City Council and provides citizens information on upcoming Council agenda items. In addition, council agendas are available online and posted at several public venues. Other forms of public outreach and communication include a City Website, a City-wide newsletter, and an active media relations program. The City has an ombudsman to which they can file a complaint. CULVER CITY The City Council is the governing body of the City consisting of a five-member City council elected at-large. Council elects a Mayor and Vice Mayor from its members to serve a one-year term. Council meetings are scheduled the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Those months having a fifth Monday are scheduled as Community Town Hall meetings and held in a Culver City neighborhood. Council and Commission meetings are broadcast live via the City’s cable channel 35, webcast on the City’s Website, and 40 California Newspapers Publishers Association, Legislative Bulletin, Freedom of Information Watch. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cnpa.com/Leg/GA/foiarchive/los%20angeles.htm#2004 86 simulcast on the local Culver City radio station AM 1680. Webcast meetings are archived and available to the public. Council agendas are posted on the City’s Website. A sign-up email notification system allows residents to receive notification of Council agendas and other items of interest. Postcards are mailed Citywide or to targeted areas to notify the public of up-coming public hearings or high profile Council Agenda items. The City publishes a quarterly publication containing information on City projects, interests, and recreational programs. The City does not maintain a record of the number and type of complaints received. Citizen complaints are brought to the Department for the service in question. If a complaint is made to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the CAO will meet with the appropriate Department Head to resolve the issue. Dissatisfied constituents can further address the City Council during a meeting or approach Council members directly. Police and Fire customer service issues are handled by any available police employee, in compliance to California Penal Code Section 832.5. GLENDALE Glendale has a Council-City Manager form of government, consisting of a five-member City council elected at-large that serve a four-year term. Council elects a Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem from its members to serve a one-year term. Council meetings are held every Tuesday evening and are televised on cable television. The City provides programming on two cable channels. Council and Commission agendas are posted online. Glendale also publishes a City-wide newsletter. Complaints are addressed directly to the Department responsible or the City Manager’s Office. LOS ANGELES Los Angeles has a Mayor-Council-Commission form of government, consisting of an elected fifteen-member City Council. City Council members, the Mayor, the City Attorney, and the City Controller elected at-large for a four-year term, and can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. Council meetings are held every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday of the week. Information regarding council, council committees, commissions, and board meetings is provided on the City’s Website, and individuals may subscribe an early notification system that provides information on meetings. Council meetings are televised, and web cast on the Internet, and there is a phone dial-up system where the public can listen to live coverage of council and council committee meetings. Elected officials and various departments utilize newsletters, brochures, bulletin boards, mailing lists and other methods for keeping the public informed and to encourage voter participation. Complaints are addressed through the City’s newly implemented 311 Call Center. The system provides information on City services and complaints can be routed directly to the responsible departments. Constituents may also file complaints directly to the Mayor’s Office, the Councilmember, or department general manager. The recent City of Los Angeles charter reform, which established the formation of neighborhood councils, was designed to encourage citizen participation in government. It is too early to evaluate whether this new model of governance is effective. 8877 SAN FERNANDO The City Council is the governing body of the City consisting of a five-member City council elected at-large. Council elects a Mayor and Mayor Pro- Tem from its members yearly. Council meetings are held in the first and third Monday of each month. Information is available through the City’s Website, local, cable programming, direct mail, and community workshops. Constituents can file complaints to the City Administrator’s Office or department head. SANTA MONICA Santa Monica has a Council-City Manager form of government with a six member City council and a mayor elected at-large. Council appoints one of its members to serve as Mayor for a two-year term. Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Meetings are broadcast live on the City’s government channel, web cast on the internet, and on the local radio stations. An e-mail subscription and auto-fax service is available for notification of agendas and minutes. The public can also use the City’s 24- hour recorded message telephone service. Information on meetings, programs, activities and elections is available on the City’s Website, through mailed newsletters, newspaper publications, at public counters, the City’s 24-hour message system, and the City TV channel. Complaints can be submitted directly to Council, the City Manager, department heads, via fax, phone, or e-mail. A special form is available on-line for constituents to fill-out and submit. Complaints are logged and tracked using a central tracking system but some departments have their own tracking system. The Assistant City Manger for Community Relations coordinates the complaint process. WEST HOLLYWOOD West Hollywood has a Council-City Manager form of government, consisting of a five- member City council elected at-large. Council elects a Mayor and Mayor Pro- Tem from its members yearly. Council meetings vary but are usually held every first and third Monday of the month. Council meetings are broadcast on the City TV channel, and on the City’s webpage through live audio. Planning and Rent Stabilization Commission meetings are also televised. Meeting agendas and minutes are posted on-line and available to anyone that requests them. Meeting notifications and election information are posted at public facilities, newspapers, City publications, the City Cable Channel, and the City’s Website. Customer complaints can be submitted by fax, filing out the City’s “How Are We Doing?” brochure, by e-mail through the City Website, directly to Council, the City Manager’s office, or department. The City has an ombudsman for internal complaints and investigations. 8888 Chapter 4 Public Safety Most cities finance police, fire and emergency medical service through general fund resources. Other sources of funding for public safety include Proposition 172 funds, federal and state grants, parcel taxes, criminal asset seizure, ambulance service charges, and fees. General Fund Operating Expenditures Per Capita Table 4-1: General Fund Operating Police & Fire Services FY 03-04 Expenditures per Capita Police & Fire Police Fire Services Beverly Hills $948 $361 Per capita general fund operating Burbank $295 $150 Culver City $564 $192 expenditures41 for police services were highest in Beverly Hills, Santa Glendale $213 $172 Monica, Culver City and Los Los Angeles $411 $128 Angeles and lowest in Glendale, San San Fernando $234 $80 Fernando, Burbank and West Santa Monica $603 $214 Hollywood. Operating expenditures West Hollywood $308 NA for fire services, excluding emergency medical service, were highest in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City and Glendale and lowest in San Fernando, Los Angles and Burbank. Studies have shown that there are economies of scale for police and fire services among smaller cities and diseconomies of scale among larger cities, where per capita costs tend to be higher.42 Fire Protection and Emergency Services The Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica provide direct fire and emergency services to its residents. Fire protection and emergency service is provided to the City of San Fernando by the City of Los Angeles Fire Department and West Hollywood is serviced by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County. The CFPD is a dependent special district, in which the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles serves as the board of directors. There are several factors in determining whether an agency is able to provide adequate emergency services such as; staffing levels, response times, equipment, adequate infrastructure, geographic constraints, and service agreements with other agencies. Comparing agencies is not the intention of this report, the data provided is for informational purposes only. 41 Per capita operating expenditures based on State of California Controller, Cities Annual Report, Fiscal Year 03-04. 42 Burr Consulting, Local Government Service Costs and Size. September 2006. 8899 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL The majority of the cities within the MSR area provide direct fire, emergency medical, and fire inspection services with the exception of San Fernando and West Hollywood. San Fernando provides fire and emergency medical service through contract with the City of Los Angeles. West Hollywood is the only City in the MSR area that is part of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (CFPD.) Most cities in Los Angeles County contract with the CFPD for fire services. CFPD is a special district whose boundary service area is under the jurisdiction of LAFCO. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT SERVICES San Fernando and West Hollywood do not provide direct services for ambulance transport. San Fernando is serviced by the City of Los Angeles and West Hollywood is serviced by Westmed/McCormick. The remaining cities provide direct ambulance service. American Medical Response (AMR) is a private company that provides contract service to many of the cities in the region including Los Angeles and Santa Monica through contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS). Similarly, Westmed/McCormick Ambulance Service provides ambulance service to West Hollywood through a contract with the LACDHS. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica provide hazardous material response. West Hollywood receives service through CFPD and Culver City relies on mutual aid agreements. AIR RESCUE AND AIR AMBULANCE HELICOPTER The CFPD and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department provide air rescue and air ambulance services in the region. Cities in the MSR area receive services through mutual aid or automatic aid agreements. Culver City has an automatic aid agreement with the City of Los Angeles. FIRE SUPPRESSION HELICOPTER The City of Los Angeles and the CFPD are the only providers of fire suppression helicopter service in the region. Most cities rely on mutual aid agreements. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES Table 4-2: San Fernando Services Provided by Los City of San Fernando Angeles Services Provided by City of Los Angeles Los Angeles provides a variety of fire and Fire Suppression emergency services as listed to the City of San Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Transport Fernando, including fire and emergency Air Ambulance dispatch, and Community Emergency Fire/EMS Dispatch Response Training. (C.E.R.T.) CERT is a Hazardous Materials disaster preparedness certification program, Swift Water Rescue available to community members to train Urban Search and Rescue them in the event of a disaster. The program C.E.R.T. Training was developed to provide a skilled citizen Tactical Training workforce. 9900 STAFFING AND SERVICE LEVELS The following provides a short definition of some of the basic apparatus utilized by fire protection agencies in Los Angeles County. The City of Los Angeles has more specialized equipment available. The appendix of this report has a listing of all fire stations within the MSR area. It includes the location, year built, the condition of the facility, the number of assigned personnel, and equipment. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a four-person minimum for staffing a first-response unit. NFPA is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers, and consultants.43 The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that a minimum of two individuals conduct firefighting operation inside a structural fire, while two others are outside to provide assistance or rescue. It is commonly known as the “two-in/two-out” provision.44 23 states have adopted the OSHA standards, including California.45 BASIC EQUIPMENT Basic Life Support Engine (BLS) - is the most versatile and basic equipment of an urban fire department. The BLS Engine is normally staffed with a fire captain, a fire apparatus engineer, and a firefighter. In most cases engine company personnel are trained to provide emergency medical response at some level. Advanced Life Support Assessment Engine (ALS) – is staffed the same as a BLS engine; however, it is equipped for advanced life support and one firefighter is replaced with a paramedic. Squad - is equipped as the basic BLS; however, it is staffed with a two-person firefighter/paramedic team. ALS Engine – the engine is staffed with four personnel, at least two of which are firefighters/paramedics. Truck – truck companies vary on staffing and capabilities. They are usually staffed with four persons and generally are not equipped with a water tank, pump and hose that an engine carries. In some cases where a truck apparatus is equipped with a water tank, pump and hose, the apparatus is known as a Quint. Paramedic Light Force – this configuration is composed of a two vehicle company, a single engine company paired with a truck company (quint). It is staffed with one captain, two fire apparatus engineers and three firefighters, two of which are firefighter/paramedics. 43 NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. 44 [29 CFR 1910.134(g) (4)] 45 United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety Administration, Firefighters’ Two-in/Two-out Regulation 91 ISO CLASSIFICATION Table 4-3: ISO Classifications The Insurance Service Organization (ISO) is an ISO Classifications independent private insurance research group that rates Beverly Hills 1 fire departments on their ability to provide protection. Burbank 2 The agency uses a rating scale of Class 1 (best Culver City 1 protection) to Class 10 (least protection) to rate City fire Glendale 1 departments on a national basis. Residents of cities Los Angeles 1 having a lower number receive better insurance rates. San Fernando 1 The grading system preference is that the first in- Santa Monica 2 response engine company be within 1.5 miles and a West Hollywood 2 ladder company within 2.5 miles. All cities within the MSR area have a rating of two or better. FACILITIES The following pages provide a list of fire facilities providing service in the MSR area. It includes information regarding the location, staffing, equipment, condition and year the facility was built. City of Los Angeles Fire Stations No. 75, 91, and 98 service the City of San Fernando and the surrounding incorporated area of Los Angeles. CFPD Fire Stations No. 7 and 8 serve the City of West Hollywood and the surrounding unincorporated area. Beverly Hills has three fire stations providing service to the City; Burbank has six fire stations, Culver City has three, Glendale has nine, Los Angeles has 103, and Santa Monica has four. Table 4-4: Beverly Hills Fire Department Facilities Beverly Hills Fire Department Station Location Condition Year Built Staff per Shift Equipment 4 Engines 1 Truck 1 Battalion Chief No. 1 2 Rescue Headquarters 445 N. Rexford Drive Good 1914 17 firefighters per shift Ambulances No. 2 1100 Coldwater Canyon Good 1914 4 firefighters per shift 1 Engine No. 3 180 S. Doheny Drive Good 1971 4 firefighters per shift 1 Engine Table 4-5: Burbank Fire Department Facilities Burbank Fire Department Station Location Condition Year Built Staff per Shift Equipment Headquarters 311 E. Orange Grove Ave. Good 1997 NP NP Engine 11 Truck 11 Rescue Ambul. 11 No. 11 311 E. Orange Grove Ave. Good 1997 NP Battalion Chief Engine 12 Truck 12 Haz No. 12 644 N. Hollywood Way Good 1990 NP Mat 12. Engine 13 No. 13 2713 Thornton Ave. Good 1992 NP Rescue Ambul.13 No. 14 2305 W. Burbank Blvd. Good 1991 NP Engine 14 Engine 15 No. 15 1420 W. Verdugo Ave. Good 1992 NP Rescue Ambul. 15 Engine 16 Water No. 16 1600 N. Bel Aire Dr. Good 1968 NP Tender 16 92 Table 4-6: Culver City Fire Department Facilities CULVER CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES STATION LOCATION CONDITION YEAR BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Battalion Chief Captain Fire Engineer No. 1 9600 Culver Blvd. Good 1993 3 Firefighter/Paramedic NA 2 Fire Captains 2 Fire Engineers No. 2 11252 Washington Blvd. Good 1981 3 Firefighter/Paramedic NA Fire Captain 1976 Fire Engineer No. 3 11304 Segrell Way Poor Remod. 3 Firefighter/Paramedic NA Training Facility 9275 Jefferson Blvd. Poor 1970 Training Officer NA Table 4-7: Glendale Fire Department Facilities GLENDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES STATION LOCATION CONDITION YEAR BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 2 Fire Captains 1 Engine 2 Fire Engineers 1 Truck 2 Firefighter/Paramedics 1 Ambulance No. 21 421 Oak Street Good 1993 4 Firefighters 1 Command Vehicle 1 Fire Captain 1 Fire Engineer No. 22 1201 S. Glendale Ave. Good 1989 2 Firefighters 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 3303 E. Chevy Chase 1 Fire Engineer No. 23 Dr. Good 1971 2 Firefighters 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 1 Fire Engineer No. 24 1734 Canada Blvd Good 1974 2 Firefighters 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 1 Fire Engineer 353 N. Chevy Chase 2 Firefighter/Paramedics 1 Engine No. 25 Dr. Good 1995 2Firefighters 1 Ambulance 2 Fire Captains 1 Engine 2 Fire Engineers 1 Truck 2 Firefighter/Paramedics 1 Ambulance No. 26 1145 N. Brand Blvd Poor 1951 4 Firefighters 1 Command Vehicle 1 Fire Captain 1 Fire Engineer No. 27 1127 Western Ave. Poor 1968 2 Firefighters 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 1 Fire Engineer No. 28 4410 New York Ave. Good 1956 2 Firefighters 1 Engine 2 Fire Captains 1 Engine 2 Fire Engineers 1 Truck 2 Firefighter/Paramedics 1 Ambulance No. 29 2465 Honolulu Ave. Poor 1961 3 Firefighters 1 Command Vehicle VFCC 421 Oak Street Good 1993 NA NA Fire Mech. Maintenance 210 E. Palmer Ave. Good 1989 NA NA Training 541 W. Chevy Chase Facility Dr. Poor 1962/ 1984 NA NA Environ. Mngmt. Ctr. 780 Flower Street Good 1989 NA NA Prevention. Bureau 420 Harvard Street Good 1993 NA NA 93 Table 4-8: Los Angeles Fire Department Facilities LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Headquarters 200 N. Main St. - City Hall NP NP NA NA Truck 1 Engine 1 Engine 201 2230 Pasadena Avenue 9 Firefighters Rescue 1 No. 1 Lincoln Heights NP 1941 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rehab 1 Truck 2 Engine 202 1962 East Cesar Chavez 12 Firefighters Rescue 2 No. 2 Ave. Boyle Heights NP 1947 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 7 Truck 3 Engine 3 Engine 203 Rescue 3 Rescue 803 Lighting 3 Division 1 108 North Fremont Ave. 14 Firefighters Command Post No. 3 Civic Center/Bunker Hill NP 1980 2 Firefighter/paramedics 3 Bus 3 Truck 4 Engine 4 800 North Main Street Engine 204 Chinatown/Olvera Street - Rescue 4 Relocation to 450 E. New 16 Firefighters Squad 4 No. 4 Temple St. Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Hazmat 4 Truck 5 6621 West Manchester Engine 5 Avenue Westchester/LAX Engine 205 (Relocation to 8900 New 12 Firefighters Rescue 5 No. 5 Emerson Ave.) Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 4 Engine 6 326 North Virgil Avenue 6 Firefighters Rescue 806 No.6 Angeleno Heights NP 1987 3 Firefighter/paramedics EMS 11 New No. 7 NA – San Fernando Valley Facility NA NA NA 11351 Tampa Avenue 3 Firefighters Engine 8 No. 8 Porter Ranch NP 1971 1 Firefighter/paramedic Brush 8 Truck 9 Engine 9 Engine 209 430 East 7th Street 13 Firefighters Rescue 9 No. 9 Central City NP 1960 4 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 209 Truck 10 Engine 10 Engine 210 1335 South Olive Street 11 Firefighters Rescue 10 No. 10 Convention Center Dist. NP 1951 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 810 Truck 11 Engine 11 1819 West 7th Street 12 Firefighters Rescue 11 No. 11 Westlake/MacArthur Park NP 1958 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 811 Truck 12 5921 North Figueroa Engine 12 Street Highland Park/ 10 Firefighters Engine 212 No. 12 Arroyo Seco NP 1949 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 812 94 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 1206 South Vermont Avenue Koreatown/Pico Heights (Relocation to New 4 Firefighters Engine 13 No. 13 2415 W. Pico Blvd.) Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 13 Truck 14 Engine 14 Engine 214 3401 South Central Ave. 11 Firefighters Rescue 14 No. 14 Newton NP 1950 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 814 Truck 15 Engine 15 915 West Jefferson Engine 215 Boulevard University 11 Firefighters Rescue 15 No. 15 Village/USC NP 1950 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 3 2011 North Eastern Ave. 3 Firefighters Engine 16 No. 16 South El Sereno NP 1962 1 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 401 Truck 17 Engine 17 Engine 217 Battalion 1 Foam Carrier 17 1601 South Santa Fe Ave. 11 Firefighters EMS 1 No. 17 Industrial Eastside NP 1980 3 Firefighter/paramedics Decon 17 12050 Balboa Boulevard 3 Firefighters No. 18 Knollwood/Granda Hills NP 1968 1 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 18 Engine 19 12229 West Sunset Blvd. 4 Firefighters Rescue 19 No. 19 Brentwood NP 1949 2 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 19 Truck 20 Engine 20 2144 West Sunset Blvd. 9 Firefighters Engine 220 No. 20 Echo Park NP 1953 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 20 1187 East 52nd Street Avalon - Relocation to New 4 Firefighters Engine 21 No. 21 1192 E. 51st St. Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 21 17281 Sunset Boulevard 2 Firefighters No. 23 Palisades Highlands NP 1963 2 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 23 9411 Wentworth Street 3Firefighters Engine 24 No. 24 Shadow Hills/Sunland NP 1969 2 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 24 2927 Whittier Boulevard 7 Firefighters Engine 25 No. 25 South Boyle Heights NP 1979 1 Firefighter/paramedics Arson 1 Truck 26 Engine 26 Engine 226 2009 South Western Ave. 12 Firefighters Rescue 26 No. 26 West Adams NP 1970 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 826 Truck 27 Engine 27 Engine 227 Rescue 27 Rescue 287 1327 North Cole Avenue 14 Firefighters USAR 27 No. 27 Hollywood NP 1992 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 5 11641 Corbin Ave. 7 Firefighters Engine 228 No. 28 Porter Ranch NP 1994 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 828 9955 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Truck 29 Engine 29 Engine 229 4029 West Wilshire Blvd. 13 Firefighters Rescue 29 No. 29 Hancock Park NP 1991 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 11 Truck 33 Engine 33 Engine 233 Rescue 33 6406 South Main Street 14 Firefighters Rescue 833 No. 33 South Central NP 1971 2 Firefighter/paramedics Division 2 3661 7th Avenue 6 Firefighters Engine 34 No. 34 Crenshaw NP 1951 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 34 Truck 35 Engine 35 Engine 235 1601 North Hillhurst Ave. 12 Firefighters Rescue 35 No. 35 Los Feliz NP 1953 2 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 35 No. 36 1005 N. Gaffey Street Excellent 2006 New facility New facility Truck 37 Engine 37 Engine 237 1090 Veteran Avenue 12 Firefighters Rescue 37 No. 37 Westwood/UCLA NP 1943 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 9 Truck 38 Engine 38 124 East "I" Street 9 Firefighters Engine 238 No. 38 Wilmington NP 1948 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 38 Truck 39 Engine 39 Engine 239 Rescue 39 14415 Sylvan Street 17 Firefighters Squad 39 No. 39 Van Nuys NP 1939 3 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 10 330 Ferry Street 3 Firefighters Engine 40 No. 40 Terminal Island NP 1985 1 Firefighter/paramedics Bus 40 1439 North Gardner Street Engine 41 Hollywood (Hills & 6 Firefighters Rescue 41 No. 41 Northwest) NP 1923 2 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 41 2021 Colorado Blvd. 3 Firefighters No. 42 Eagle Rock NP 1959 1 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 42 10234 National Blvd. Palms (Relocation to 3690 New 4 Firefighters Engine 43 No. 43 Motor Ave.) Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 43 Engine 44 1410 Cypress Avenue 5 Firefighters Brush 44 No. 44 Cypress Park NP 1987 1 Firefighter/paramedics Swift Water 44 Engine 46 4370 South Hoover St. 6 Firefighters Rescue 46 No. 46 Coliseum Area NP 1979 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 846 Truck 47 Engine 47 Engine 247 4575 Huntington Drive 9 Firefighters Rescue 47 No. 47 South El Sereno NP 1981 3 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 47 9966 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Truck 48 Engine 48 1601 South Grand Ave. 15 Firefighters Engine 248 No. 48 San Pedro NP 1987 1 Firefighter/paramedics Squad 48 Engine 49 Boat 4 400 Yacht St., Berth 194 13 Firefighters Boat 3 No. 49 East Harbor Basin NP 1968 1 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 6 Truck 50 3036 Fletcher Drive Engine 50 Glasell Park/Atwater 8 Firefighters Engine 250 No. 50 Village NP 1958 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 2 10435 Sepulveda Blvd. 3 Firefighters No. 51 LAX/Terminal Area NP 1956 4 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 51 Engine 52 4957 Melrose Avenue 4 Firefighters Rescue 52 No. 52 (Hollywood - Southeast) 1988 3 Firefighter/paramedics EMS 5 4455 East York Blvd. 7 Firefighters per shift Engine 55 No. 55 Eagle Rock NP 1989 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 55 2759 Rowena Avenue 7 Firefighters Engine 56 No. 56 Silver Lake NP 1989 1 Firefighter/paramedics Heavy Rescue Engine 57 Rescue 57 7800 South Vermont Ave. 6 Firefighters Rescue 257 No. 57 South Central NP 1988 5 Firefighter/paramedics Ems 13 Truck 58 1556 S. Robertson Blvd. 10 Firefighters Engine 58 No. 58 Pico/Robertson NP 1949 2 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 258 11505 Olympic Blvd. 3 Firefighters No. 59 West Los Angeles Upgraded 1963 4 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 59 Truck 60 Engine 60 Engine 260 Rescue 60 5320 Tujunga Avenue 14 Firefighters Rescue 860 No. 60 North Hollywood NP 1949 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 14 Truck 61 Engine 61 Engine 261 Rescue 61 5821 West 3rd Street 14 Firefighters Rescue 861 No. 61 Fairfax NP 1987 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 18 3631 Centinela Avenue Engine 62 Mar Vista (Relocation to New 5 Firefighters Rescue 862 No. 62 11970 W. Venice Blvd.) Facility NA 1 Firefighter/paramedics Swift Water 62 Truck 63 Engine 63 1930 Shell Avenue 9 Firefighters Engine 263 No. 63 Venice NP 1942 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 63 Truck 64 118 West 108th Street Engine 64 South Los Angeles Engine 264 (Relocation to 10811 S. New 12 Firefighters Rescue 64 No. 64 Main St.) Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 864 9977 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Truck 66 Engine 66 Engine 266 Rescue 66 Rescue 866 1909 West Slauson Blvd. 14 Firefighters USAR 66 No. 66 Southwest LA/Hyde Park NP 1989 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 13 5451 Playa Vista Dr. New No. 67 Mid-City Facility 2006 NA NA Engine 68 5023 Washington Blvd. 7 Firefighters Rescue 68 No. 68 Mid-City NP 1987 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 868 Truck 69 Engine 69 15045 Sunset Boulevard 9 Firefighters Engine 269 No. 69 Pacific Palisades NP 1967 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 69 Truck 70 Engine 70 9861 Reseda Boulevard 17 Firefighters Engine 270 No. 70 Northridge NP 1980 1 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 15 107 S. Beverly Glen Blvd 3 Firefighters per shift No. 71 Bel Aire/Holmby Hills NP 1948 3 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 71 Truck 72 Engine 72 Engine 272 6811 De Soto Avenue 12 Firefighters Rescue 72 No. 72 Canoga Park NP 1978 2 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 17 Truck 73 Engine 73 7419 Reseda Boulevard 10 Firefighters Engine 273 No. 73 Reseda NP 1989 1 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 873 Truck 74 Engine 74 Engine 274 7777 Foothill Boulevard 8 Firefighters Rescue 74 No. 74 Tujunga/Sunland NP 1950 3 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 74 Truck 75 Engine 75 15345 San Fernando 9 Firefighters Engine 275 No. 75 Mission, Mission Hills NP 1960 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 875 3111 N. Cahuenga Blvd. 3 Firefighters No. 76 Cahuenga Pass NP 1951 1 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 76 9224 Sunland Boulevard 3 Firefighters Engine 77 No. 77 Sun Valley Excellent 1941 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 877 4230 Coldwater Canyon New 4 Firefighters No. 78 Ave. Studio City Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 78 18030 S. Vermont Ave. 3 Firefighters No. 79 Harbor Gateway NP 1942 3 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 79 Crash 80 Foam 180 6911 World Way West Foam 280 No. 80 LAX/Crash Rescue NP 1985 14 Firefighters Foam 380 9988 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 14123 Nordhoff Street 5 Firefighters Engine 81 No. 81 Arleta/Panorama City NP 1950 3 are paramedics Rescue 81 1800 North Bronson Avenue Hollywood (Hills & Engine 82 Northeast) - New site New 4 Firefighters Rescue 82 No. 82 undetermined Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Tunnel Utility 82 5001 Balboa Boulevard Engine 83 Encino - Relocation to New 5 Firefighters Brush 83 No. 83 4960 N. Balboa Blvd. Facility NA 1 Firefighter/paramedics Lighting 83 5340 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills - Engine 84 Relocation to 21050 W. New 3 Firefighters Rescue 84 No. 84 Burbank Blvd. Facility NA 3 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 84 Truck 85 Engine 85 Engine 285 1331 West 253rd Street 10 Firefighters Rescue 85 No. 85 Harbor City NP 1980 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rehab 85 Engine 86 Swift Water 86 Foam Carrier 86 4305 Vineland Avenue 5 Firefighters EMS 14 No. 86 Toluca Lake NP 1961 2 Firefighter/paramedics EMS 3 10241 Balboa Boulevard Granda Hills - Relocation New 3 Firefighters Engine 87 No. 87 to 10124 N. Balboa Blvd. Facility NA 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 87 Truck 88 Engine 88 Engine 288 Rescue 88 Rescue 888 Water Tend.88 Dozer 1 Dozer 2 Dozer Tender 1 Dozer Tender 2 Transport 4 Transport 3 Transport 2 Transport 1, TD2 SK 3 Loader 4 Loader 3 Loader 2 Loader 1 Air 88 USAR 88 Division 3 Dump Truck 88 Cushion 88 5101 N. Sepulveda Blvd. 14 Firefighters Diesel 88 No. 88 Sherman Oaks Excellent 1975 2 Firefighter/paramedics Comm. Post 88 9999 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT Truck 89 Engine 89 Engine 289 Rescue 89 7063 Laurel Canyon Blvd. 12 Firefighters Rescue 889 No. 89 North Hollywood Upgraded 1959 2 Firefighter/paramedics Bus 89 Truck 90 Engine 90 Engine 290 Rescue 90 7921 Woodley Avenue 10 Firefighters Crash 90 No. 90 Van Nuys Airport NP 1956 3 Firefighter/paramedics Foam 90 14430 Polk Street 5 Firefighters Engine 91 No. 91 Sylmar NP 1956 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 91 Truck 92 Engine 92 Engine 292 10556 West Pico Blvd. 10 Firefighters Rescue 892 No. 92 Century City NP 1959 1 Firefighter/paramedics EMS 18 Truck 93 Engine 93 19059 Ventura Blvd. 9 Firefighters Engine 293 No. 93 Tarzana NP 1960 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 93 Truck 94 Engine 94 Engine 294 Rescue 94 4470 Coliseum Street New 12 Firefighters Rescue 894 No. 94 Crenshaw Dist/Baldwin Hills Facility NA 2 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 94 Truck 95 Engine 95 Engine 295 10010 International Rd. 9 Firefighters Rescue 95 No. 95 LAX Area/ Hotel District NP 1959 1 Firefighter/paramedics Cushion 95 Truck 96 Engine 96 21800 Marilla Street 10 Firefighters Engine 296 No. 96 Chatsworth NP 1962 1 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 896 8021 Mulholland Drive 2 Firefighters No. 97 Laurel Canyon/Mulholland NP 1962 2 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 97 Truck 98 Engine 98 Engine 298 Rescue 98 13035 Van Nuys Blvd. 13 Firefighters Rescue 898 No. 98 Pacoima NP 1960 3 Firefighter/paramedics Battalion 12 Engine 99 Rescue 99 14145 Mulholland Drive 5 Firefighters Brush 99 No. 99 Beverly Glen NP 1963 3 Firefighter/paramedics Arson 2 Engine 100 Rescue 100 Foam Carrier 6751 Louise Avenue 4 Firefighters 100 Swift Water No. 100 West Van Nuys/Lake Balboa NP 1961 3 Firefighter/paramedics 100 EMS 17 110000 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 1414 25th Street 4 Firefighters Engine 101 No. 101 San Pedro NP 1962 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 101 Truck 102 13200 Burbank Blvd. S. 6 Firefighters Engine 302 No. 102 Van Nuys/Valley Glen NP 1962 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 102 18143 Parthenia Street 3 Firefighters Engine 103 No. 103 Northridge/CSUN NP 1961 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 903 8349 Winnetka Avenue 4 Firefighters Engine 104 No. 104 Winnetka NP 1962 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 104 Truck 105 Engine 105 6345 Fallbrook Avenue 9 Firefighters Engine 305 No. 105 Woodland Hills NP 1962 3 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 105 23004 Roscoe Blvd. 5 Firefighters Engine 106 No. 106 West Hills NP 1962 1 Firefighter/paramedics Diesel 106 20225 Devonshire Street 4 Firefighters Engine 107 No. 107 Chatsworth NP 1963 2 Firefighter/paramedics Rescue 107 12520 Mulholland Drive 3 Firefighters No. 108 Franklin Canyon NP 1963 1 Firefighter/paramedics Engine 108 16500 Mulholland Drive 3 Firefighters Engine 109 No. 109 Encino Hills NP 1972 1 Firefighter/paramedics Brush 109 2945 Miner Street No. 110 Berth 44-A , Ft. MacArthur NP 1992 3 Firefighters Boat 5 954 South Seaside Ave. No. 111 Berth 260, Fish Harbor NP 1927 3 Firefighters Boat 1 Engine 112 Rescue 112 444 South Harbor Blvd. 12 Firefighters Boat 2 No. 112 Berth 86 Ports O'Call NP 1925 3 Firefighter/paramedics Foam Carrier Helitender 2 Fire 1 Fire 2 Fire 3 Fire 4 16621 Arminta Street Fire 5 Air Operation/Crash New 10 Firefighters Fire 6 No. 114 Rescue Facility New 2 Firefighter/paramedics EMS 10 OTHER FACILITIES Central Shops 140 Avenue 19 NA 1987 NA NA 1455 Sylvan St. Valley FPD Van Nuys NA NA NA NA Training 1700 Stadium Way NA NA NA NA 110011 Table 4-9: Santa Monica Fire Department Facilities SANTA MONICA FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND RESOURCES YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 1 Fire Chief 1 Fire Marshall 1 Asst. Fire Marshall 1 Support Services Chief 1 Admin. Captain 1 Paramedic Coordinator 6 Fire Inspectors 1 Emerg. Serv. Coord. PSF - 5 Support Staff 15 Command Headquarters 333 Olympic Dr. Excellent 2003 1 FCC Supervisor Staff Sedans 1 Battalion Chief Battalion 1 2 Engineers Truck 1 No. 1 1444 7th Street Fair 1955 7 Firefighters Rescue 1 Engine 2 1 Captain Squad 2 1 Engineer USAR 2 No. 2 222 Hollister Ave. Excellent 2002 4 Firefighters Reserve Engine Engine 3 & 4 2 Captains Hazmat 4 2 Engineers Utility 4 No. 3 1302 19th Street Good 1972 4 Firefighters Reserve Engine Engine 5 1 Captain Rescue 5 1 Engineer Reserve Engine No. 5 2450 Ashland Ave. Good 1983 2 Firefighters Reserve Truck 2 Table 4-10: Consolidated Fire Protection District – West Hollywood WEST HOLLYWOOD - CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PRIMARY JURISDICTION FIRE STATIONS YEAR STATION LOCATION CONDITION BUILT STAFF PER SHIFT EQUIPMENT 1 Battalion Chief 1 Battalion 1 Captain 1 Chief Vehicle 1 Utility Driver 1 Engine 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Squad No 7 864 N. San Vicente Blvd. Good 2001 4 Firefighter/Paramedic 1 Utility 1 Engine 1 Squad 2 Captains 1 Engine* 5 Firefighters 1 Truck* 3 Firefighter Specialists *Combine as No 8 7643 Santa Monica Blvd. Fair 1950 3 Firefighter/Paramedic Light Force Although CFPD Fire Stations 7 and 8 have primary jurisdiction for providing services to the City of West Hollywood, the following chart provides additional information on resources serving the unincorporated areas within the Los Angeles MSR area. There are a total of 8 CFPD Fire Stations and one camp facility providing service to the unincorporated area of the MSR region. 102 Table 4-11: CFPD Facilities, Unincorporated Areas Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District - Unicorporated Area of MSR Region Station Location Condition Year Built Staff per Shift Equipment CFPD No. 14 1401 W. 108th St. Good 1973 1 Captain 1 PM Engine Los Angeles 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Squad 4 Firefighter/Paramedics CFPD No. 38 3907 W. 54th Street Poor 1938 1 Captain 1 Engine Los Angeles 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Firefighter/Paramedics CFPD No. 51 3907 W. Lankershim Blvd. Good 1995 1 Captain 1 Engine Universal City 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Squad 3 Firefighter/Paramedics CFPD No. 58 5757 S. Fairfax Ave. Good 1978 1 Captain 1 Engine Los Angeles 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Squad 3 Firefighter/Paramedics 1 Firefighter CFPD No. 63 4526 Ramsdell Ave. Good 1951 1 Captain 1 Engine La Crescenta 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Firefighter CFPD No. 74 12587 N. Dexter Park Rd. Good 1972 1 Captain 1 Engine San Fernando 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Firefighter CFPD No. 75 23310 Lake Manor Dr. Good 1966 1 Captain 1 Engine Chatsworth 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Firefighter CFPD No. 110 4433 Admiraly Way Good 1973 2 Captains 1 Assessment Engine Marina Del Rey 3 Firefighter Specialists 1 Truck 1 Firefighter/Paramedic 1 Fire Rescue Boat 3 Firefighters CFPD Camp 15 125000 Mount Gleason Fair NA 1 Captain 1 Truck (Probation Camp Tujunga 9 Firefighter Specialist 4 Crew Buses for Men) (Foreman) 1 Firefighter 103 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES Beverly Hills The Beverly Hills Police Department stated that the current system of dispatch centers is redundant and inefficient when requesting additional resources. The City is looking into the possibility of consolidating dispatching services with the City or County of Los Angeles. Fire Stations 1, 2, and 3 need renovation. Culver City The CCFD training facility is in poor condition and needs upgrading. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is too small to be fully functional. There are plans to re-model Fire Station #3 and re-locate the facility to an industrial area of Bristol Parkway. Budgetary constraints have delayed the planned upgrades. In addition, the department is limited by the amount of personnel and apparatus available and budgeted. Glendale Fire Stations 26, 27, 29, and the Department Training Center are in poor condition and need replacement because they are too small and functionally obsolete. Los Angeles Los Angeles completed a Public Facilities Master Plan Study in 1998, which showed that most of the City’s fire stations were inadequate for housing necessary equipment and for deployment of resources. In 2000, voters approved the Proposition F Fire Facilities bond measure, with authorization to issue $532.6 Million in General Obligation Bonds to finance the rehabilitation and construction of fire stations and animal shelters throughout the city. Prop F allocated $379 million of the bond to build a Regional/Training facility, 18 fire/paramedic stations throughout the city, and an EOC maintenance facility. New facilities proposed for construction include the EOC maintenance facility, one Regional/Training fire station facility, and one new satellite fire station in San Pedro. Facilities proposed for rehabilitation includes replacement of nine existing Standard fire stations, and replacement of five existing and expansion of three Regional fire stations. All projects are scheduled to be completed by 2007. Additional Proposition Q bond funding includes $49.2 million issued in 2002 and $97 million issued in 2003. The following chart shows all project proposals under the Propositions F Fire Facilities Bond. As of the September 2006 report, Fire Stations 5, 59, 65, 77, 83, and 89 projects have been completed. The following projects were under construction: The Air Operations Facility, Fire Stations 4, 13, 21, 36, 43, 62, 64, 78, 81 (Regional Training Center), 82 , 84, 87, and 94.46 Table 4-12: Proposition F – Facilities Proposed for New Construction 2000 PROPOSITION F FIRE FACILITIES BOND PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION Station Area Facility Location No. 81 Arleta/Panorama City Fire Station /Regional Training Ctr. 14350 W. Arminta St. No. 36 San Pedro Satellite Fire Station 1005 N. Gaffey St. Van Nuys Air Operations 16621 Arminta St. 46 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Los Angeles 2000 Prop F Fire Facilities Bond Progress Report September 2006. 104 Table 4-13: Proposition F – Facilities Proposed for Relocation and Replacement 2000 PROPOSITION F FIRE FACILITIES BOND PROPOSED FOR RELOCATION AND REPLACEMENT Regional Fire Stations Station Area Facility Location No. 5 Westchester Fire Station 8900 Emerson Ave. No. 21 South Central Fire Station 1192 E. 51st St. No. 82 Hollywood Fire Station Not Determined No. 84 Woodland Hills Fire Station 21050 W. Burbank Blvd. No. 87 Northridge Fire Station 10124 N. Balboa Blvd. No. 94 Crenshaw Fire Station 4470 Coliseum St. Standard Fire Stations No. 4 Civic Center Special Fire Facility 450 E. Temple Street No. 13 Pico/Union Fire Station 2415 W. Pico Blvd. No. 43 Palms Fire Station 3690 Motor Ave. No. 62 Mar Vista Fire Station 11970 W. Venice Blvd. No. 64 South Central Fire Station 10811 S. Main St. No. 65 Watts Fire Station 1801 E. Century Blvd. No. 77 Sun Valley Fire Station 9224 N. Sunland Blvd. No. 78 Studio City Fire Station Not Determined No. 83 Encino Fire Station 4960 N. Balboa Blvd. PROPOSED FOR EXPANSION No. 89 North Hollywood Apparatus Storage/Multipurpose 7063 N. Laurel Canyon Blvd. West Hollywood There are two fire stations that have “first-in” response jurisdiction with the City of West Hollywood, Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) Stations 7 and 8. Fire Station No. 8 is in fair condition. However, it is small and maintenance of equipment is performed outside. The facility also does not have enough parking. SERVICE DEMAND Standards and Response Times Response times by themselves are not an accurate measure of an agency’s capability to respond because they can be affected by topography, a large number of rural areas, road access constraints, and traffic congestion. Time is important but an agency must also have the appropriate resources to handle current and future demand. The NFPA adopted standards for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time for first in-response units, which includes turn-out time and 9-1-1 call time. NEPA recommends a response time of six minutes 90 percent of the time for Basic Life Support (BLS) and ten minutes 90 percent of the time for Advanced Life Support (ALS).47 The State of California Emergency Medical Services Authority Standards for providing emergency medical service for basic life support calls are: five minutes for Metro/Urban areas and 15 minutes for Suburban/Rural areas. For advanced life support calls, the standard response time is eight minutes for Metro/Urban areas and 20 minutes for Suburban/Rural areas. 48 47 NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. 48 California Emergency Medical Services Authority. EMS System Standards and Guidelines, 1993. 105 Culver City’s Fire Department is unique in that it is the only fire agency in the MSR area that is accredited by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). The CFAI fire standard for first-in response time is five minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time. The Department met all criteria standards and received a Credible rating in all categories. AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES Table 4-14: Average Response Times Beverly Hills 3:30 Min. Response times for Beverly Hills for 2005 Burbank 4:19 Min. averaged 3 minutes lower than the NFPA Culver City < 5 Min. guideline requirement. This is due to the fact that Glendale 7:28 Min. Beverly Hills is a small City, has relatively little or Los Angeles < 5 Min. no service challenges, and has a saturation of fire San Fernando 5.7 Min. stations given its size. The City of Glendale had Santa Monica 4:00 Min. the highest average response time – higher than West Hollywood 3:48 Min. the State and CFAI standards. Response times for the City of Los Angeles vary in certain areas. In comparison to the Central, East, and West Los Angeles areas, emergency medical incident responses averaged higher for South Los Angeles, the Airport, the Harbor; and San Fernando Valley areas. Response times in the San Fernando Valley area, on average, were slightly longer than other areas in the city. The average response time for CFPD in West Hollywood for 2005 was 3:48 minutes. Calls for Service Demand for service for Beverly Hills is anticipated to remain level, providing there are no dramatic population increases. SCAG projects the growth rate of the City to be 0.2 percent from 2005-2010. Table 4-15: Service Calls per 1,000 Population SERVICE CALLS PER 1,000 POP. The Cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Beverly Hills 151 Monica, and West Hollywood had the highest Burbank 83 volume of service calls or incidents per 1,000 Culver City 104 people in the MSR area while Glendale and Glendale 73 Burbank had the lowest call volume. Data for the Los Angeles 181 City of San Fernando was not provided by the San Fernando NP City of Los Angeles, its fire service provider. 49 Santa Monica 125 Call volume levels in Culver City increased by 23.5 West Hollywood 125 percent over a ten year period, from 1992 to 2002, while department staffing decreased by 8.2 percent. Although there is increasing demand for fire services, the Culver City Fire Department has the capacity to meet demand growth. The Fire Department cites that it can improve their emergency dispatch system by acquiring Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) equipment and by having direct administration of dispatch function and operation. The Culver City Police Department currently serves as the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), which utilizes a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. Calls are answered by dispatchers 49 Note: Per capita population rates are based on California Department of Finance population estimates for 2005. 110066 who assign Fire Department personnel for emergency response. The total number of calls the department received in 2005 was 4,228. Fire incidents in the City of Los Angeles are increasing at a rate of three percent per year and department responses are increasing at a rate of seven percent per year. The Department stated that as of 2004, 25 engine companies, 11 paramedic ambulances and three BLS ambulances exceeded the recommended workload guidelines established by the City Administrative Office in 1988. Staffing Table 4-16: Uniform Staff per 1,000 In FY 2005, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Burbank, and UNIFORM STAFF PER 1,000 POP. 2005 Santa Monica had the highest ratio of firefighters for Beverly Hills 2.3 every 1,000 people. West Hollywood, Glendale, and Burbank 1.1 Los Angeles had the lowest ratio. Data for the City of Culver City 1.5 San Fernando was not provided by Los Angeles. Glendale 0.9 West Hollywood data was not available.50 Los Angeles 0.9 Culver City has a total of 18 uniform personnel per San Fernando NA day. For a ten-year period, from 1992-2002, Santa Monica 1.1 department staffing decreased by 8.2 percent, while West Hollywood 0.3 call volume increased by 23.5 percent. Service Challenges Population density and high traffic volumes within the City of West Hollywood and surrounding areas present constraints that contributes to higher response times. There are many high-rise apartments in the City. The areas between West Hollywood, Hollywood, and Universal City provide challenges when special events occur such as the Oscars, the Gay Pride Festival, and the Halloween holiday, etc. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS Culver City Budget constraints have limited department personnel, equipment, and facility upgrades. San Fernando No information for the City of San Fernando fire service was provided by the City of Los Angeles. West Hollywood – Consolidated Fire Protection District Funding The CFPD depends on primarily on property tax revenues to finance its operation and maintain an appropriate level of service; therefore, increases or decreases in property tax revenues affect the Department’s ability to provide adequate future service. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES The City of Glendale provides Fire/EMS dispatching for Burbank within the MSR area and several other cities in Los Angeles County. The Department also provides household hazardous disposal by contract for the City of Burbank. Glendale is currently developing an Area C region wide automatic aid arrangement that could result in substantial service 50 50 Note: Per capita population rates are based on California Department of Finance population estimates for 2005. 110077 improvements and cost savings. Area C refers to the mutual aid area in which the City has emergency service agreements with other agencies in close proximity. It is further explained in the section on regional collaboration below. There may also be opportunities for lower costs on vehicle maintenance. SMFD fire services are duplicated to the extent that Santa Monica is surrounded by both the City of Los Angeles and the County Fire Department. However, resources are not close enough to provide the same level of service. Cost savings are also realized through mutual and automatic aid agreements, which provide saving in services that otherwise cannot be afforded and for the purchasing of equipment. No information for the City of San Fernando fire service was provided by Los Angeles. REGIONAL COLLABORATION Mutual and Automatic Aid Table 4-17: OES Mutual Aid Areas In a mutual aid agreement, two or more Los Angeles County OES Mutual Aid Areas agencies agree to provide mutually beneficial Area "A" Area "B" LAFD LA CoFD emergency services to each other, at the Beverly Hills Area "D" request of the first response agency. Culver City La Vern Automatic aid arrangements provide for the Santa Monica La Habra Heights reciprocal exchange of fire and rescue Area "C" West Covina services. There is a pre-arranged agreement Burbank Area "E" for an automatic response for service in Burbank Airport Downey which no request needs to be made. Under Glendale Compton the California Governor’s Office of Pasadena Santa Fe Springs Emergency Services (OES) Master Mutual Sierra Madre Montebello Aid Agreement, all agencies are required to San Gabriel Vernon South Pasadena Area "F" provide mutual aid in times of disaster. San Marino Long Beach These arrangements provide valuable Monrovia Area "G" resources, and the volume of calls affected Arcadia El Segundo by automatic aid responses is not significant. Montery Park Torrance The County has seven designated Mutual Alhambra Redondo Beach Aid areas A, B, C, D, E, and F. Area A Warner Bros. Studios Avalon includes the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica; Area B includes the Consolidated Fire Protection District and its contracting cities; and Area C includes the cities of Burbank and Glendale. Burbank, Pasadena, and Glendale have a tri-City Joint Powers Agreement utilizing the Verdugo Communications Center (VFCC), which is staffed and operated by the City of Glendale. The three cities share the cost of operating and maintaining the facility. Fire incident calls for the three cities are dispatched through the Communication Center. There are eight other cities utilizing the VFCC, Arcadia, Alhambra, Monrovia, Monterey Park, San Marino, South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, and San Gabriel. Within the Los Angeles MSR area, the CFPD has mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with the Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, and Los Angeles. Agencies having only mutual aid agreements with CFPD are San Fernando, Santa Monica, and the Angeles National Forest. 110088 With the implementation of the Homeland Security Act and the assistance of federal grants, fire departments are joining resources wherever possible to provide emergency dispatch service on a regional basis so they can respond to terrorist threats more quickly. Beverly Hills Beverly Hills has Mutual Aid agreements with the City and County of Los Angeles. Burbank Burbank has a six-member agency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service and Automatic Aid agreements with the City and County of Los Angeles. Culver City Culver City has mutual and automatic aid agreements with City of Los Angeles and the CFPD. Culver City has an agreement with the CFPD for Master Mutual Aid for Hazardous Materials Emergency Response, Air Rescue, and Air Ambulance Helicopter service. The Culver City Fire Department provides initial fire and EMS response for two areas within the City of Los Angeles in close proximity to Interstate 405 and the Culver City boundaries on the east. The Fire Department also provides assistance to the La Tijera area of the County for structures fires, entrapments, and vehicular accidents requiring extrication. There is an assistance agreement between the City of Culver City, the Culver City Fire Department and the U.S. Forest Service, Angeles National Forest. Glendale Glendale has a three-party agency agreement to provide Fire/EMS dispatch service and has a contract agreement with Burbank for household hazardous waste disposal. Los Angeles Los Angeles has Mutual Aid agreements with the Angeles National Forest, CFPD and Ventura County, and the Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and South Pasadena. The City has Automatic Aid agreements with Los Angeles County, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Vernon, and South Pasadena. Santa Monica Santa Monica Fire Department is a State Mutual Aid member and has an Automatic Aid agreement with the City of Los Angeles. West Hollywood The CFPD has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with the Cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, and Los Angeles, and Mutual Aid agreements with San Fernando, Santa Monica, and the Angeles National Forest Service. A recent Automatic Aide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement was established with the City of Beverly Hills for fire protection and emergency medical services in the West Hollywood area.51 51 Interview Los Angeles County Fire, Assistant Fire Chief Reginald Lee 4/6/2006. 110099 OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING No opportunities for rate restructuring of fire and emergency services were identified for cities within the MSR area. Traditional rate charges are not a source of revenue for fire service providers. However, there are opportunities for increased user fees and development impact fees. SHARED FACILITIES There are no opportunities for shared facilities in Los Angeles, San Fernando and West Hollywood. Burbank Burbank is a participating member of the VFCC. The Police Department and Fire Department share facilities. Culver City The Department cited that future opportunities, with adjacent agencies, may exist with for shared facilities in the fringed areas of the City, however, they would need to be researched and evaluated before consideration. Glendale The City of Glendale operates and maintains the VFCC which is a regional cooperative emergency dispatch center. Emergency 9-1-1 calls originating in any of the member cities are connected to the police or the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which determine the nature of the emergency. All fire and paramedic calls are then transferred to the VFCC. There are opportunities for the Department to share its Mechanical Maintenance facility with other departments by contract. Los Angeles No opportunities for shared facilities were identified. San Fernando No information for the City of San Fernando fire service was provided by Los Angeles. Santa Monica A new Public Safety Facility was recently constructed in Santa Monica with a new Communications Center. The facility also houses the Police Department, which is the public safety answering point for the City. The Fire Department’s drill yard and tower facilities are underutilized and could be shared with surrounding communities. West Hollywood No opportunities for shared facilities with CFPD were identified. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS According to CFPD, there may be opportunities to streamline or improve the provision of service through reorganization of service providers, but it is contingent upon cities desiring to annex to the District. Upon request by a City, the CFPD will evaluate a City’s level of service and look at ways to integrate their department through reorganization if the District can cost-effectively provide the same or better level of service. No governmental structure options were identified for any of the cities within the MSR area 111100 Law Enforcement City, County, and State law enforcement agencies provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with a set of crime statistics for their jurisdiction on an annual basis through the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR). UCR data has been utilized as a standard in the analysis of law enforcement agencies within the Los Angeles MSR region. There are various factors that are considered in gauging the effectiveness of a law enforcement agency, including agency resources, range of services, population, serious crimes offenses (FBI Index), crime clearance, arrest rates and response times. POLICE SERVICES West Hollywood is the only agency, within the Los Angeles MSR area that contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for police services. The City of Burbank Airport Police is under the jurisdiction of the City but works under the direction of the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority. CRIME LABORATORY Crime laboratory standards are established by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors-Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). Accreditation is a voluntary program whereby a lab is inspected to determine whether the lab’s policies, procedures, staff, physical plant, and work product meet published peer-based standards. California does not require accreditation of crime laboratories. There are 19 local accredited forensic laboratories throughout California, including the City of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Services include DNA testing, alcohol analysis, toxicology testing, crime scene analysis, as well as others. A new regional crime laboratory for LAPD and the County Sheriff is scheduled to open in 2007. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides crime lab services to Culver City, Glendale, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. Santa Monica however, contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for DNA testing as well as the City of Beverly Hills, which provides its own crime lab analysis services. Burbank does some crime scene processing and contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department for lab analysis. TEMPORARY HOLDING FACILITIES Four cities within the MSR area have temporary holding facilities. Beverly Hills has 28 beds, Burbank has 70 beds, Culver City has 34 beds, Glendale 100 plus beds, and Los Angeles has 1,400 beds. LONG TERM HOLDING FACILITIES Burbank has a long term holding facility consisting of 8 beds and Glendale has a 15 bed capacity. Beverly Hills, Culver City, San Fernando, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood rely on the Sheriff’s Department for long term jail facilities for prisoners at no additional cost. The City of Los Angeles contracts with the Sheriff for long term facility services for transportation of prisoners at a cost of $1.6 million annually and a prisoner maintenance cost of $250,000 annually. 111 BASIC ACADEMY TRAINING The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) has developed standards for the testing and selection of police officer applicants as well as the training of police officers, dispatchers and detectives. All of the cities in the MSR area and the Los Angeles County Sheriff conduct training to POST standards. The Rio Hondo College Police Academy, which is utilized by the cities of Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, and Glendale, also provides basic training to POST standards. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides academy training at no cost to the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Glendale, San Fernando, and West Hollywood. In addition, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, and Glendale contract with Rio Hondo Police Academy. The City of Los Angeles provides its own police academy training. Santa Monica contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. BOMB SQUAD All cities in the MSR area utilize the Sheriff’s Department for Bomb Squad services, with the exception of Los Angeles, which directly provides its own services. SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTIC (SWAT) Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica directly provide SWAT services. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides Special Response Unit services to the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, San Fernando, and West Hollywood. SEARCH AND RESCUE The Sheriff’s Department provides search and rescue services to all cities in the Los Angeles MSR area with the exception of Los Angeles. The Citizen’s Emergency Mobile Patrol, housed at the City’s Devonshire Division, assists with search and rescue operations. It is staffed by volunteers and also provides services to the City of Los Angeles’ Fire Department, the Sheriff Department, and other municipalities. CANINE SERVICES All cities within the MSR area directly provide canine service with the exception of Glendale, which relies on “Area C” mutual aid agencies. DISPATCH All cities within the MSR area provide dispatch services except West Hollywood. Service calls are dispatched through the Sheriff’s West Hollywood station. The City of Glendale operates the VFCC, an interagency emergency communications system that is a shared facility that is utilized by the City of Burbank as well as other cities outside of the MSR area. As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the federal government became concerned about the inability of public safety agencies on all levels to communicate amongst each other in the event of another incident. United Sates Department of Homeland Security oversees communications interoperability between agencies on the local, state, and federal level. Interoperability is achieved via the alignment of radio communication systems between agencies and the efficient exchange of data. The Interagency Communications Interoperability System (ICIS), is a cooperative effort to share a common radio network involving many cities in Los Angeles County. The system 111122 facilitates communication between cities. Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, and Glendale are affiliate ICIS cities in the MSR area. Beverly Hills Emergency calls for the City of Beverly Hills are answered by communications personnel, which assess, prioritize and determine the proper response agency. The Beverly Hills Fire Department stated that the city has a system of redundant dispatch centers that are inefficient when requesting additional resources. The City is currently looking into consolidating its dispatching services with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department. Burbank Emergency 9-1-1 calls in Burbank are fielded and dispatched through the City’s Communication Center. Culver City In Culver City, 9-1-1 calls are received by the City’s dispatch center. Police and fire units are dispatched by radio communication. The Culver City Police Department affirms that mobile computers with wireless communication in patrol and fire vehicles would provide better communication with the dispatch center. Glendale The Glendale Police Department is the answering point for all emergency calls. Los Angeles The City of Los Angeles has two communications centers, one in the Metropolitan area and one in the San Fernando Valley area. Both centers field call from all areas of the City. Upon receipt of a 9-1-1 call, an operator determines the nature of the emergency and location. The Location is entered into a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system that determines which unit the call is assigned to. If the call is an emergency, the operator directly dispatches a police unit to the call. If the call is non-emergency in nature, the call is transferred to a secondary police radio telephone operator. Fire or medical emergencies are transferred to the Fire Department’s emergency operators. San Fernando Emergency calls within the City of San Fernando go directly to Dispatch and are relayed to units in the field. Santa Monica In Santa Monica, 9-1-1 calls are answered by a crew of 4 to 6 operators at the Communications Center. The City has a state-of-the-art 9-1-1 system. A unit is immediately dispatched verbally and by sending the call information via Mobile Data Computers located in patrol cars. West Hollywood Emergency calls for West Hollywood are received at the Sheriff Department’s West Hollywood Station dispatch center. Once the situation is assessed, the information is reviewed and sent to the Dispatch/Watch Deputy that assigns it to a patrol unit. The call is then electronically dispatched to the Sheriff’s Communication Center. 111133 Violent Crime Rate The following charts reflect FBI crime index reported for years 1999 through 2004. FBI crime index data is reported in terms of the number of crimes committed per 10,000 residents. The data represents the number of violent crime incidents reported, and includes the categories of homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The chart below provides a comparison of the Violent Crime Rate reported by each City in 2004. The Violent Crime Rate was based on FBI and California Department of Finance population data. The category of larceny under $400 was not included. Figure 4-1: Violent Crime Violent Crime Rate Per 10,000 Population - 2004 Rate per 10,000 The City of Los Angeles, West Beverly Hills Hollywood, and Santa Burbank Monica had the highest Culver City violent crime rate per Glendale 10,000 residents in 2004. Given its small Los Angeles population and size, the San Fernando City of San Fernando Santa Monica has a high violent crime West Hollywood rate relative to its population. Burbank 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 and Glendale had the lowest per capita violent crime rates. The degree to which a particular category of violent crime occurs varies from City to City. Charts provided on the next page reflect the Violent Crime Rate for each City. Cities with the highest robbery incidents reported were Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. Robbery was the highest crime category reported in Beverly Hills and Culver City. In Culver City, the robbery rate was at its highest level in 2003; however, robbery maintained the same level of occurrence in Beverly Hills and Culver City throughout the six-year period. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Glendale had the highest rates of aggravated assault incidents. Aggravated assault was the highest violent crime category reported in Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles. Aggravated assaults have remained at relatively the same level in Burbank, but have been declining in Glendale and Los Angeles. Aggravated assaults have declined since the highest levels in 1999, with the exception of Glendale, which had a sharp increase in 2000 and in San Fernando in 2001. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Glendale had the highest reported incidents of murder and rape. 111144 Figure 4-2: Beverly Hills Violent Crime Rate Figure 4-3: Burbank Violent Crime Rate Beverly Hills Violent Crime Rate Burbank Violent Crime Rate 90 250 80 70 200 60 150 50 40 100 30 20 50 10 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Figure 4-4: Culver City Violent Crime Rate Figure 4-5: Glendale Violent Crime Rate Culver City Violent Crime Rate Glendale Violent Crime Rate 140 600 120 500 100 400 80 300 60 200 40 100 20 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Figure 4-6: Los Angeles Violent Crime Rate Figure 4-7: San Fernando Violent Crime Rate Los Angeles Violent Crime Rate San Fernando Violent Crime Rate 35,000 160 30,000 140 120 25,000 100 20,000 80 15,000 60 10,000 40 5,000 20 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault 115 Figure 4-8: Santa Monica Violent Crime Rate Figure 4-9: West Hollywood Violent Crime Rate Santa Monica Violent Crime Rate West Hollywood Violent Crime Rate 350 250 300 200 250 150 200 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault 116 Property Crime Rate The following charts represent the FBI Crime Index for the number of property crimes reported from 1999 to 2004. Crime rates are reported in terms of incidents per 10,000 residents. Property crime incidents include the categories of burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Prior to 2003, the FBI data included all Larceny crimes reported, subsequent data provides a breakdown of crimes reported for larceny under $400 and above $400. The chart below provides a comparison of the Property Crime Rate for each City in 2003. The category of larceny under $400 was omitted from the data to eliminate over inflated numbers and provide a more accurate comparison. Figure 4-10: Property Property Crime Rate Per 10,000 Population - 2004 Crime Rate per 10,000 Population The City of West Beverly Hills Hollywood had the Burbank highest robbery incidents, followed by Culver City Beverly Hills, and Los Glendale Angeles. The property Los Angeles crime rate for San San Fernando Fernando was high given the size and Santa Monica population of the City. West Hollywood Glendale and Burbank 0 50 100 150 200 had the lowest property crime rates.52 The type of property crime reported varies from each City. Larceny was highest property crime incident category reported in all the MSR cities. Larceny rates were highest in Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Glendale. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Glendale also ranked highest in burglary crimes committed per 10,000 residents. Burglary rates were lowest in San Fernando, Culver City, and West Hollywood. Motor vehicle theft rates were highest in Los Angeles and Glendale. There were slight fluctuations year to year in the overall property crime rate in Los Angeles, West Hollywood, and Glendale for the most part. 52 Property Crime Rate is based on FBI data and California Department of Finance population. Larceny incidents under and above $400 are included in the data. 117 Figure 4-11: Beverly Hills Property Crime Rate Figure 4-12: Burbank Property Crime Rate Beverly Hills Property Crime Rate Burbank Property Crime Rate 1200 2500 1000 2000 800 1500 600 1000 400 500 200 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Figure 4-13: Culver City Property Crime Rate Figure 4-14: Glendale Property Crime Rate Culver City Property Crime Rate Glendale Property Crime Rate 1000 3000 900 800 2500 700 600 2000 500 1500 400 300 1000 200 500 100 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Figure 4-15: Los Angeles Property Crime Rate Figure 4-16: San Fernando Property Crime Rate Los Angeles Property Crime Rate San Fernando Property Crime Rate 450 80,000 400 70,000 350 60,000 300 50,000 250 40,000 200 30,000 150 20,000 100 10,000 50 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson 118 Figure 4-17: Santa Monica Property Crime Rate Figure 4-18: West Hollywood Property Crime Rate Santa Monica Property Crime Rate West Hollywood Property Crime Rate 3500 1200 3000 1000 2500 800 2000 600 1500 400 1000 200 500 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson 111199 FBI Crime Clearance Rates Table 4-18: FBI Crime 2004 FBI CRIME CLEARANCE RATES - PROPERTY CRIMES Clearance Rates – Property Motor Crime Burglary Percent Vehicle Percent City Crimes Clearance Theft Clearance Cleared crimes refer to serious offenses for which Beverly Hills 15 5% 4 7% at least one person was Burbank 113 22% 66 14% arrested, charged with the Culver City 52 23% 24 15% offense, and turned over to Glendale 116 16% 19 3% the appropriate court for Los Angeles 3,282 14% 2,303 7% prosecution. Law enforcement agencies may San Fernando 21 21% 17 10% also clear crimes when the Santa Monica 183 24% 11 3% offender dies, the victim West Hollywood 37 28% 14 4% refuses to cooperate, or extradition is denied. In 2004, the cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank and San Fernando reported relatively high crime clearance rates for burglary crimes, while Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Glendale reported relatively low clearance rates. For motor vehicle thefts, the cities of Culver City, Burbank, and San Fernando had relatively high crime clearance rates while Santa Monica, Glendale, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles had relatively low clearance rates. 2004 FBI CRIME CLEARANCE RATES - VIOLENT CRIMES Table 4-19: FBI Crime Violent Clearance Rates – Violent Crime Crimes City Cleared % Clearance The chart on the left Beverly Hills 42 31% provides data for 2004 Burbank 130 50% crime clearance of Culver City 84 56% violent crimes, including Glendale 141 52% murder, forcible rape, Los Angeles 21,457 50% robbery, and aggravated San Fernando 78 59% assault, and the Santa Monica 235 42% percentage of crimes West Hollywood 129 41% cleared. San Fernando, Culver City, Culver City, Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles reported relatively high crime clearance rates while Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica reported relatively low clearance rates. 120 FACILITIES Table 4-20: Beverly Hills Police Facility City of Beverly Hills Police Facility Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 464 N Rexford Drive Good 1990 Table 4-21: Burbank Police Facilities City of Burbank Police Facilities Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 200 N. Third Street Good 1998 7540 Wheatland Ave., Air Support Operations Sunland Fair 1994 Shooting Range 2244 Wildwood Canyon Fair 1950'5 Animal Shelter 1150 Victory Place Fair 1990 Table 4-22: Culver City Police Facility City of Culver City Police Facility Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 4040 Duquesne Ave. Good 1962 Table 4-23: Glendale Police Facility City of Glendale Police Facility Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 131 N. Isabel Street Fair 1964 Table 4-24: Los Angeles Police Facilities City of Los Angeles Police Facilities Division Station Location Condition Year Built Parker Center Poor-scheduled for Headquarters 150 N. Los Angeles St. replacement in 2009 1955 Metro 911 Dispatch Center 100 N. Los Angeles St. Good 2001 Renovated 2005 - Devonshire Area 10250 Etiwanda Ave. needs replacement 1973 Renovated 2005 - Foothill Area 12760 Osborne St. needs replacement 1962 North Hollywood Area 11640 Burbank Blvd. Fair 1996 Renovation Pending- Northeast Area 3353 San Fernando Rd. needs replacement 1970 Mission 11121 Sepulveda Blvd. New 2005 Training - Academy 1880 N. Academy Dr. Renovation Pending 1932 Training - EVOC/Davis 12001 Blucher Ave. Fair 1998 Van Nuys Area/Valley Under renovation - Traffic 6240 Sylmar Ave. needs replacement 1962 Valley 911 Dispatch Center 23001 Roscoe Blvd. Good 2001 Renovated 2005 - West Los Angeles Area 1663 Butler Ave. needs replacement 1973 121 City of Los Angeles Police Facilities Division Station Location Condition Year Built West Valley 19020 Vanowen St. New 2005 77th St. Area 7600 S. Broadway Renovation underway 1997 Renovated 2004 - Central Area/Central Traffic 251 E. 6th St. needs replacement 1977 Replacement station Harbor Area 2175 John Gibson Blvd. under construction 1962 Replacement station Hollenbeck Area 2111 E. 1st Street under construction 1964 Renovated 2004 - Hollywood Area 1358 N. Wilcox Ave. needs replacement 1979 Newton Area 3400 S. Central Ave Fair 1996 Renovated 2005 - Pacific Area 12312 Culver Blvd. needs replacement 1974 Replacement station Rampart Area 2710 W. Temple St. under construction 1967 South Traffic 4125 S. Crenshaw Blvd. NP NP Renovated 2005 - Southeast Area 145 W. 108th St. needs replacement 1978 Renovated 2004 - Southwest Area 1546 W. M.L.King Blvd. needs replacement 1960 Renovated 2005 - Wilshire Area 4861 Venice Blvd. needs replacement 1974 West Traffic 4849 W. Venice Blvd. NP NP Training ARTC 5651 W. Manchester Ave. Fair 1995 Scientific Invest.Tech. Lab. 555 Ramirez Street. NP NP Table 4-25: San Fernando Police Facility City of San Fernando Police Facility Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 910 First Street Good 1988 Table 4-26: Santa Monica Police Facility City of Santa Monica Police Facility Station Location Condition Year Built Headquarters 333 Olympic Drive New 2003 Table 4-27: West Hollywood Police Facility West Hollywood - Los Angeles County Sheriff Facility Station Location Condition Year Built West Hollywood 720 N. Vicente Blvd. Good 1980 112222 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES Beverly Hills A secondary entrance/exit is needed for the police building sub-garage, which houses the department’s emergency vehicles. Culver City The Culver City Police Department has several computer systems that do not integrate well and are becoming outdated. A system is needed that will integrate dispatch, inmate processing, reporting systems, information tracking systems, and allow wireless communications with field units. The Department is working with the Information Technology Department to modify its Record Management System for enhanced functionality. Los Angeles In 1996, Kosmont & Associates issued a study of City of Los Angeles police facilities, referred to as the “Kosmont Study.” The Kosmont study reported that almost all of the Department’s facilities were in need of replacement. Due to the exorbitant cost of replacing the stations, City Council established a 20 year Master Plan in 1998, to replace those facilities identified in the study and added a number of stations that were experiencing overcrowding. City Council also established a protocol for the addition of a new police station for every staffing increase by 250- 300 employees. The Master Plan calls for proposals of small groups of facilities identified, and new facilities to be put forth to the voters for General Obligation Bond consideration every five years. Proposition Q, is the first bond to be approved. In March 2002, voters in the City of Los Angeles approved Proposition Q, a citywide bond measure to improve, renovate, expand and construct 911-Police-Fire-Paramedic facilities for $600 million. The following facilities have been identified for replacement: the Metro Detention Center, Hollenbeck, Rampart, West Valley, and Harbor Division Stations. Harbor Division Station replacement also includes replacement of the jail. A new station is proposed for the Mid-City area and the Valley area. Two new bomb squad facilities are proposed for the downtown Metro area and the North Valley area. Construction is proposed for a new Emergency Operations Center, including Fire Department operations and dispatch and LAPD Operations Center. On September 22, 2006, $231 million was approved to begin construction on an 11-story police headquarters. All projects are scheduled to be completed by 2010. Table 4-28: LAPD Facility Prop. Q – Proposed New Constriction LAPD PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES PROP. Q IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION FACILITY DIVISION AREA LOCATION Station Mid-City 1130 Vermont Ave. Station Valley 8341 Canoga Ave. Bomb Squad Metro Not Known Bomb Squad Valley Not Known EOC/POC/ Fire Dispatch Center Downtown 500 E. Temple St. Traffic Division & Bureau Headq. Valley 7870 Nolan Place 123 PROP Q. REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES FACILITY DIVISION AREA LOCATION Station Hollenbeck 2111 E. 1st St. Station Rampart 1401 W. 6th St. Station West Valley 19020 Vanowen St. Station & Jail Harbor 2175 S. John S. Gibson Blvd. Detention Center Metro 180 N. Los Angeles St. Table 4-29: Prop Q Replacement Facilities Prop. Q Facilities Status Under Proposition Q funding, one new police station has been built in the West Valley Area. The Van Nuys Air Operations, the Metro Bomb Squad, and Valley Bomb Squad facilities are under construction and scheduled for completion at the end of the year. Valley Division Headquarters and Traffic Division, the Police Operations Center, a new Mid-City and Northwest Valley Station, and the Metro Detention Center are under construction and slated for completion in 2008. The following Division stations: Southwest, Van Nuys, Foothill, Devonshire, West LA, Pacific, Wilshire, Central, Southeast, and Hollywood were renovated in 2004-2005 but still require replacement because they were identified as such in the Kosmont study. Van Nuys is currently being renovated and improvement of Northeast is pending but both stations will also require replacement. Construction of four new stations is being proposed for the 2007 Bond request. SERVICE DEMAND Response times PRIORITY ONE RESPONSE TIMES Table 4-30: Priority One Response Times Beverly Hills 3:00 Min. Although police response times for serious crimes in Burbank 3:16 Min progress are a measure of service adequacy, there are Culver City 3:00 Min. no clear standards or guidelines for response times. Glendale 4:15 Min. Many factors affect response times - geographic Los Angeles 6:42 Min. considerations, high traffic areas, and densely San Fernando 2:00 Min. populated areas. Average response times to serious Santa Monica 4:13 Min. crimes in progress were provided by the local West Hollywood 4:36 Min. agencies for 2005. Los Angeles had the longest response time for serious crimes in progress, which may be due to larger distances traveled from police stations and larger service areas. The fastest response times were reported by Beverly Hills and Culver City Police Departments. 124 Calls for Service Table 4-31: 2005 Police Service Calls 2005 POLICE SERVICE CALLS There were a total of 1,181,766 calls CALLS PER for police service for all the MSR CITY # CALLS 1,000 POP. Cities in 2005. The City of Beverly Beverly Hills 47,286 1,323 Hills, San Fernando, and Santa Burbank 49,667 468 Monica had the largest number of Culver City 7,600 187 service calls per 1,000 people in the Glendale 144,181 701 MSR area. Culver City and Los Los Angeles 817,580 208 Angeles had the lowest number of San Fernando 23,372 942 service calls per capita. Beverly Santa Monica 68,049 750 Hills, Glendale, and Santa Monica West Hollywood 24,031 636 provided detailed information for emergency 9-1-1 calls. Emergency calls comprised 52 percent of the total service calls in the City of Beverly Hills, 55 percent in the City of Glendale, 17 percent in the City of Los Angeles, and 55 percent for the City of Santa Monica. Staffing 2005 SWORN STAFFING Table 4-32: 2005 Sworn Staffing # SWORN OFFICERS PER There are a total of 10,345 sworn CITY OFFICERS 1,000 POP. Beverly Hills 130 3.6 police personnel for all the Cities Burbank 168 1.6 in the MSR area. The Sheriff’s Culver City 119 2.9 West Hollywood Station has the Glendale 264 1.3 highest ratio of police officers to Los Angeles 9,272 2.4 residents, however, the station also San Fernando 35 1.4 serves the unincorporated Santa Monica 216 2.4 Universal City Walk area, which West Hollywood 141 3.7 can double or triple the actual population served. Beverly Hills and Culver City also had a high ratio of police officers per 1,000 people. Glendale, San Fernando, and Burbank had the lowest ratio of police officers per capita. Los Angeles City Council recently approved increasing trash collection rates over a period of four years to fund expansion of the police force. The Mayor’s proposed plan includes increasing the number of police officers to 10,200 by the year 2010. The City of San Fernando anticipates the need for additional officers, four vehicles, and related equipment to accommodate demand needs in the next ten years. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS Burbank The City cited that the Department had future financing constraints that were not identified. Burbank Two consecutive years of budget cuts for the City of Burbank Police Department have caused the department to streamline because of reduced funding and lower staffing levels. 112255 Glendale The City of Glendale cited a need for logistical support staffing to meet future demand needs. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES Law enforcement agencies have implemented a number of strategies to avoid unnecessary costs. Wherever possible, law enforcement agencies are sharing facilities, costs of providing certain services, or expert staff to achieve levels of service they could not otherwise obtain. In the Los Angeles MSR area, the high cost of providing a proficient state-of-the-art dispatching system has prompted several municipalities to form joint powers agreements that share in the cost and maintenance. Mutual and Automatic aid agreements also provide for cost saving measures especially in circumstances where is it is more efficient for an adjoining City to provide service in another jurisdiction. One reason may be the geographic constraint of an area where it is more feasible for an adjoining agency to provide service. No cost avoidance opportunities were identified for any of the cities in the MSR area. REGIONAL COLLABORATION Many law enforcement agencies collaborate with multiple agencies for various services or joint efforts through Mutual Aid, contractual agreements, Joint Power Agreements, and regional task forces. In a mutual aid agreement, two or more neighboring agencies agree to provide mutually beneficial emergency services to each other. It involves a more formal request for assistance. These agreements can provide management efficiency and cost avoidance for services that cannot otherwise be provided. Table 4-33: Regional Collaboration Efforts REGIONAL COLLABORATION EFFORTS City Agreement Mutual Aid Area A: Adjoining cities, ICIS JPA Agreement, LA Interoperability Beverly Hills Task Force Area C Mutual Aid, ICIS JPA Agreement, ASALT Taskforce Agreement, Burbank Eurasian Taskforce Agreement, GAP, Airport Security Agreement Culver City Area A Mutual Aid, ICIS JPA Agreement Mutual Aid: Area C, ICIS JPA Agreement, Interoperability Agreement with Glendale Burbank San Fernando Los Angeles Interoperability Task Force Santa Monica LAX Customs Task Force, Dept. of Homeland Security West Hollywood California Highway Patrol & Beverly Hills Police Dept. The following chart provides partial information on the numerous agreements the City of Los Angeles has with other cities and law enforcement agencies. 112266 Table 4-34: Regional Collaborative Efforts – Los Angeles REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS – CITY OF LOS ANGELES Agency Agreement Alcoholic Beverage Control - State of • Booking Arrestees in LAPD Jail Division California • Operation ABC Los Angeles California State Military Department • Counter Drug Operations • Counter Drug Procurement Program California Highway Patrol • Handling Evidence and booking of property • Assist in Narcotics Investigations originated by CHP • Pursuit Policy California State University • Smart Safety Campus Act • Booking of Property City of Long Beach • Jurisdictional Responsibility of Alameda Terminal Complex • Interdiction of Narcotics Trafficking (multi agency) County of Los Angeles Emergency Emergency Management Agreement Joint City Management and County County of Los Angeles Courts County of Los Angeles Probation Booking Arrests in LAPD Jail Division Department County of Los Angeles Sheriff Department • Gang Reporting Evaluation & Tracking • Multi Jurisdiction Task Force • HUB site for VICAP • Bar Code Wristbands for Prisoners • Acceptance of Bail/Release of Prisoners • Regional Auto Theft Prevention • Transportation & Custody of Prisoners • Frequency Sharing Agreement Mutual aid Radio System • Countywide Transit Security Strategy multi- agency • Emergency Transportation Response & Recovery Task Force (multi agency) • Truancy Enhancement Program Drug Enforcement Agency • Joint Drug Intelligence Group – multi agency • High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area • Mobile Enforcement Team Department of Corrections Booking Arrests in LAPD Jail Division Department of Motor Vehicles Investigation and Audit Division Department of Transportation Transportation Investigators FBI • VICAP Coordination of Information • Gang Task Force • Interstate Theft Task Force (multi agency) • LA Task Force on Violent Crime (multi agency) • LA Task Force on Terrorism • Safe Streets Task Force • Safe Team Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement • Use of Vehicles LA Community College District Jurisdiction, Responsibilities and Authorization Los Angeles Unified School District Booking of Property Metropolitan Transit Authority Transit Police Services 127 REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS – CITY OF LOS ANGELES Agency Agreement University of California – Los Angles • General Guide Investigative Responsibility • Workplace Violence – Arrest & Preliminary Investigation Reports United States Coast Guard Interface in Matters of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction United States Department of State Foreign Mission Responsibility United States Marshall Service Regional Fugitive Task Force University of Southern California Jurisdiction, Responsibilities and Authorization Department of Public Safety OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING Police services are not traditionally funded through rate charges. Rates generally refer to charges for use of revenue-producing enterprise services such as water and sewer treatment, electricity, garbage disposal, supply or collection facilities, airports, or parking lots. Opportunities are available for municipalities to restructure tax rates for significant general fund taxes through voter approval and restructuring of fees such as user fees, regulatory fees and development impact fees. Local agencies may increase utility users’ tax, transient occupancy tax, and business license tax without voter approval. However, there are limits to the increases that may be enacted and the jurisdiction must justify imposing fees or rate hikes. Most law enforcement agencies exact fees for false alarms, and traffic and parking violations. SHARED FACILITIES Burbank and Glendale share a common public safety communication system that is maintained and operated by the City of Glendale. Burbank The Burbank Police facility is a shared with the City’s Fire Department. The City’s heliport facility is shared with the City of Glendale. Culver City The Culver City Police facility is also shared with its Fire Department. Los Angeles LAPD shares several facilities with other City departments. The Erwin C. Piper Technical Facility houses the Department’s Scientific Investigation Division’s Technical Laboratory Section, the Department of General Services’ Maintenance and Construction Services, the City Clerk’s Election Division and Archive Records Division. LAPD also occupies space at City Hall East, City Hall, and numerous other leased locations. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS The determination on government structure options refers to concerns with regards to rate structuring, duplication of services, overlapping infrastructure, and service areas. Consideration is given to an agency’s ability to provide efficient and cost effective services within its existing boundaries, or sphere of influence boundaries. Certain 128 services can be better provided by other agencies as well as being more cost effective. West Hollywood is the only municipality within the Los Angeles MSR region that utilizes the County Sheriff to provide police services as do the majority of cities within Los Angeles County. COMPLAINTS California Penal Code Section 832.5 states that any agency in the State that employs peace officers must establish a procedure to investigate complaints made by the public and must make a written description of that procedure available to the public. All cities in the MSR area within the process complaints in accordance with California Penal Code Section 832.5 2005 - POLICE RELATED COMPLAINTS Table 4-35: Police Related Complaints Beverly Hills 28 Complaints can be initiated by fellow officers Burbank 27 and citizens. Relative to its population size Los Culver City 11 Angeles and the West Hollywood Sheriff’s station reported the highest number of Glendale 64 complaints filed; however, the station also Los Angeles 6,520 provides service to adjacent unincorporated San Fernando 14 areas. In relation to population size, Los Santa Monica 20 Angeles had the second highest number of West Hollywood 120 complaints registered. Santa Monica had the least number of complaints in relation to its population. Arrests and Citations Figure 4-19: Arrests and Citations per 1,000 Citations involve the issuance of tickets for Arrests and Citations per 1,000 moving and parking violations, failure to wear a safety belt, and pedestrian Beverly Hills jaywalking among other Burbank things. Beverly Hills (661) and Culver City (657) Culver City issued the highest number Glendale of citations per 1,000 people. A relatively high Los Angeles number based on San Fernando population. Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles Santa Monica Arrests issued the lowest number West Hollywood Citations of citations. Culver City, 0 200 400 600 800 Glendale, and Los Angeles had the lowest number of arrests per 1,000 people. The highest arrest rates were in the Cities of West Hollywood (95), Burbank (62), and San Fernando (57). 129 Chapter 5 Utilities Electric Power & Gas BEVERLY HILLS Electric power is provided to residents of the City of Beverly Hills by Southern California Edison. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company, private providers. BURBANK Electric power is provided by the City of Burbank Public Service Department. The City’s electric generation facility has two separate power plants, the Magnolia Plant and the Olive Plant, located on the same site. Burbank purchases the majority of its energy needs (84.2 percent) from outside sources and generates approximately 15.8 percent from its own facilities. Other sources of electric energy are received from the Hoover Dam, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. In anticipation of meeting future demand, Burbank has explored joining and pooling resources with other cities such as Los Angeles, Glendale, and Pasadena. The City plans to retire its existing power plants and rely completely on outside sources for energy in the future. Natural Gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. CULVER CITY Electric power is provided to residents of the City of Culver City by Southern California Edison. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. GLENDALE The City of Glendale Water and Power provides electrical service to its residents. The Grayson Power Plant is a City-owned facility that provides 16 percent of the City’s power supply. The remaining power (84 percent) is purchased from the Southern California Public Power Authority and the Intermountain Power Authority. Natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power provides electrical service to residents of the City. As part of an agreement that allows the City to use water from the Owens Valley, the City is obligated to also provide electric power to the residents of the Owens Valley.53 The City has four-municipally owned power plants in the Los Angeles Basin that provide 17 percent of its electrical power needs. The remaining required need comes from outside sources. Natural Gas is provided to residents by the Southern California Gas Company. 53 City of Los Angeles, 1996-1998 Annual Report on Growth and Infrastructure. 130 SAN FERNANDO Southern California Edison provides electric power to the residents of San Fernando. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. SANTA MONICA Electric power is provided to residents of the City of Santa Monica by Southern California Edison. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. WEST HOLLYWOOD Southern California Edison provides electric power to the residents of West Hollywood. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Solid Waste There are 28 solid waste facilities that service the Los Angeles Regional MSR Area. Seventeen facilities are located within the County of Los Angeles and eight are located in the counties of Kern, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside. The majority of solid waste generated in the MSR Area is disposed of within the County of Los Angeles. Eight of the facilities have an average remaining life of 12.5 years while others have a remaining life as high as 63 years and as low as 1 year. Those facilities located within the County of Los Angeles have the shortest remaining life in comparison to the facilities located in the aforementioned counties. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has regulatory authority over all the permitted solid waste facilities in the State of California. In 2004, 4,377,990 tons of solid waste was disposed within the MSR Area. Assembly Bill 939 mandates that cities set a goal of diverting 50 percent less trash to reduce the disposal of solid waste in the existing landfills. All of the cities within the MSR Area have a minimum of eight commercial and residential recycling programs in place, in order to meet that goal. Recyclable goods include glass, plastic, cans, foil, and paper. Green waste is recycled consistently throughout the MSR Area and includes grass, leaves, dry or green weeds, and small tree limbs. Overall, the MSR Area has been proactive and successful in meeting the requirement and has achieved a regional average of 54 percent diversion rate over a five year period from 2000 through 2004. In January 2004, the Los Angeles Regional Agency (LARA) was created and approved by the CIWMB to help its 14 member cities achieve the goals required by AB 939. For the purpose of this report it should be noted that of the cities in the MSR area, only the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles are members of LARA, and as of January 2004, all diversion rates reported for the member cities is an aggregate number; individual diversion rates are no longer available for member cities. The CIWMB has inspection and enforcement responsibility for the permitted solid waste facilities. The facilities are regulated according to the type and amount of waste disposed at the site. Inspections are conducted on a monthly, quarterly, bi-annual or annual basis depending on the age, type and remaining life of the facility. When a facility is cited for a code violation the facility has a finite amount of time to bring the facility into compliance. However, mechanisms are in place to allow facilities to request extensions for compliance under certain circumstances. All the cities within the MSR Area have weekly residential curbside pickups for solid waste, green waste, and recyclable material; however, only the City of San Fernando offers a curbside household hazardous waste (HHW) pickup that includes materials 131 such as cleaning products, paints, oils, batteries and pesticides. The remaining cities have a household hazardous waste drop site or sponsor scheduled drives throughout the year to collect HHW. Overall the MSR Area has made a concerted effort in meeting the requirements of AB 939. With the exception of the City of Glendale, all the cities within the MSR have reduced the amount of materials disposed of in landfills by 5.45 percent, despite a steady increase in population. Sufficient disposal capacity for the future is a concern for the Los Angeles MSR area, and all of Los Angeles County, despite the area’s success at diverting more than 50 percent of its waste from landfill disposal, and existing plans to expand many local facilities. Los Angeles County plans to develop two out-of-county facilities (in Imperial and Riverside Counties) to provide sufficient disposal capacity for the county. A new waste-by-rail system will be developed to transport waste from the MSR area to these new regional facilities. BEVERLY HILLS The City of Beverly Hills has an estimated population of 35,969, and has a resident daily disposal rate of 4 lbs per day, and an employee daily disposal of 4.9 lbs per day. Approximately 37 percent of the waste generated by the City is green waste. The City has an average 56 percent diversion rate over a five year period from 2000 to 2004. The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for all residential solid waste collection and commercial solid waste is coordinated by the City’s Commercial Services Division. Beverly Hills recently entered into a 6-year contract with Crown Disposal to provide actual collection of solid waste. BURBANK According to the CIWMB 2004 data, the City of Burbank, with a population of 106,739, generates an average of 2 lbs per resident per day of household solid waste and 4.3 lbs is disposed daily per employee. All residential solid waste and approximately 10 percent of the commercial solid waste are collected by the Burbank Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division; the remaining 90 percent is collected by private companies. The majority of the solid waste generated in the City of Burbank is disposed of at two sites: the Burbank Landfill and the Puente Hills Landfill #6. The City has disposed an average of 111,000 tons of solid waste during the years 2000 through 2004, with an average diversion rate of 58 percent. The City of Burbank has the third highest diversion rate of all the cities within the MSR Area averaged over a five year period. CULVER CITY The City of Culver City generates approximately 64,000 tons of solid waste per year, with a per capita rate of 3 lbs per day based on a population of 40,586. Businesses generate 7.2 lbs per employee per day. The City has an average diversion rate of 51 percent over a five year period. The Puente Hills Landfill #6 receives the majority of solid waste generated by the City. The Culver City Sanitation Division provides actual collection service to its residents and has an exclusive franchise for all solid and recyclable waste materials handling within the City limits. Culver City is the only city that operates a recycling station exclusively for cell phones in response to the Cell Phone Recycling Act of 2004 passed by the California state legislature. 132 GLENDALE The City of Glendale has a population of 203,700, and generates over 200,000 tons of solid waste per year with a disposal rate of 2 lbs per day per resident, and 6.9 lbs per day per employee of solid waste. The diversion rate for the City has averaged 48 percent during the years 2000 through 2004. However, from 2000 to 2002 the City met the requirement with rates of 52 percent, 53 percent, and 52 percent respectively. In 2003, it dropped significantly to 40 percent. The drop can be attributed in part to a significant increase in the solid waste disposed of - approximately 28,000 tons. As of the last reporting year, 2004, the diversion rate has not improved. The City disposes most of its solid waste at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which is owned and operated by the City of Glendale. In spite of the drop in the diversion rate, the facility’s original 18 year life span could possibly be extended another 12 years because of recycling efforts. The landfill also has the capability to supply Glendale with a third of its electrical power. Through a series of underground pumps and pipes, gas is extracted from the trash site and transported across town to the Grayson Power Plant. It must be noted that the Scholl Canyon landfill has areas of concern regarding drainage and erosion; however, there have been no citations issued by inspection teams. LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles, on average, generates over 4 million tons of solid waste per year. The resident daily disposal for the City is 3 lbs per day and 10.9 lbs per employee per day. The diversion rate reported by LARA was 61 percent for 2004. Overall, the City averaged a diversion rate of 61 percent, over five years including three years that the City was not a part of LARA. The majority of the solid waste generated is disposed of at Sunshine Canyon and the Chiquita Canyon landfills. All other solid waste facilities within the LA MSR region either do not allow, or restrict the amount of solid waste that the City of Los Angeles can dispose.54 The Sunshine Canyon Landfill, located in the north San Fernando Valley, is owned and operated by Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). Sunshine Canyon has a long history of serious concerns ranging from erosion and drainage issues to possible negative environmental impacts on the residents, land, and local groundwater. The facility is inspected on a monthly basis and according to data reported by the CIWMB, BFI has been cited for numerous violations including permit review, dust control, daily cover, and disposal site reporting. In addition to the violations, the facility has been consistently reported for concerns such as explosive gas control, personnel health and safety, traffic control, drainage/erosion, grading of fill surfaces, and litter control. Sunshine Canyon is the recipient of over 1.4 million tons of solid waste from the City of Los Angeles per year and Chiquita Canyon receives 0.78 million tons of solid waste. These two facilities receive the lion’s share of the solid waste disposed of by the City of Los Angeles. While there have been some areas of concern reported for Chiquita Canyon in 2006, the Sunshine Canyon facility has been problematic for the Los Angeles MSR region for quite some time. Recently, the contract with the Sunshine Canyon Landfill was up for renewal and at the urging of constituents and the Los Angeles City Council, alternatives were sought to reduce and/or eliminate utilization of the BFI facility with an eye towards the sooner, rather than later, closing of Sunshine Canyon. In spite of vigorous opposition, the contract was renewed for an additional five years. City officials were unable to provide a cost effective alternative capable of 54 Integrated Resources Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2004071091, Section 3.18.21. 133 handling the volume of solid waste disposed of at Sunshine Canyon. City officials did agree to divert 600 tons to the Avenal Landfill located in the County of Riverside, 200 miles north, in an effort to decrease the City’s dependence on Sunshine Canyon.55 In the City and County portions of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill are currently undergoing consolidation, which will provide an additional 25 years of capacity for the Los Angeles MSR area. In addition to expanding current facilities to meet disposal demand, the City of Los Angeles’ Public Works Department has developed a “70 % diversion strategy” plan, which will allow the city to reach 70 percent diversion by 2020. This strategy is the first in the region to increase diversion beyond 50 percent. SAN FERNANDO The City of San Fernando has a population of approximately 24,958, with a resident daily disposal rate of 1 lb and has one of the largest rates of employee per day disposal of 15.9 lbs per day. However, the City also has the highest diversion rate, 67 percent for 2004, which is directly attributed to a steady four year trend in the reduction of solid waste disposed. This is through a vigorous recycling effort made by both residents and commercial entities. San Fernando contracts with Crown Disposal, Inc. for solid waste collection. SANTA MONICA The City of Santa Monica has an estimated population of 90,861, and has a resident daily disposal rate of 4 lbs per day and an employee daily disposal of 8.0 lbs per day. The City also has an average 60 percent diversion rate over a five year period from 2000 to 2004. The City of Santa Monica Solid Waste Division collects both residential and commercial solid waste. Santa Monica has a dedicated drop station for all household hazardous waste including electronic waste. The City has curbside collection for green waste. Approximately 60 percent of solid waste generated from the City is disposed of at the Puente Hills #6 Landfill. Currently, this landfill has no violations or areas of concern. WEST HOLLYWOOD The City of West Hollywood with a population of 38, 036, has a resident daily disposal rate of 3 lbs per day and 4.6 lbs per employee daily. The City disposes 67 percent of its solid waste at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. West Hollywood has consistently missed meeting the requirement of AB 939, for the period of 2000 through 2004. Its highest diversion rate of 46 percent occurred in 2000, and has averaged only 42 percent overall during the same five year period. The City does provide residential and commercial curbside collection for recyclable materials. Commercial green waste is collected by a variety of private waste haulers. 55 Doan, Lynn and Hymon, Steve. Los Angeles Times March 18, 2006 California Metro Section B. 134 Water There are six cities and seven special districts in the MSR area providing water services within the MSR area. Private water companies and water mutuals may also be providing service in area; however, they are not under LAFCO jurisdiction and not subject to review. CITIES SPECIAL DISTRICTS (cid:131) Beverly Hills (cid:131) Castaic Lake Water Agency (cid:131) Burbank (cid:131) Central Basin Municipal Water District (cid:131) Glendale (cid:131) County Waterworks District #21-Kagel Canyon (cid:131) Los Angeles (cid:131) Crescenta Valley Water District (cid:131) San Fernando (cid:131) Foothill Municipal Water District (cid:131) Santa Monica (cid:131) Kinneloa Irrigation District (cid:131) West Basin Municipal Water District Local groundwater in the MSR area comes from nine basins: Eagle Rock, Hollywood and La Brea Sub-area, Central and West Coast, San Fernando, Santa Monica, Sylmar, and Verdugo. The City of Los Angeles has land holdings and water rights in the Mono Basin and the Owens Valley, which is delivered through the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Los Angeles also has surface water rights to the Los Angeles River and groundwater in the San Fernando Basin. Glendale and Burbank also extract excess water from the Basin. The City of San Fernando also has adjudicated water rights to the San Fernando Basin; however, because of a court judgment agreement with the City of Los Angeles, San Fernando receives water credit from the Sylmar Basin. Los Angeles extracts groundwater from the Sylmar Basin and has adjudicated water rights to the Central Basin and West Coast Basins. Groundwater is extracted from the Santa Monica Basin by the City of Santa Monica and from the Hollywood Basin by the City of Beverly Hills. As a result of MBTE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) contamination Santa Monica lost 80 percent of its groundwater supply. MBTE is a common additive used in gasoline. Contamination of the water supply is attributed to leaking of underground storage tanks. Imported water in the MSR area is provided through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the State Water Project. Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fernando, and Santa Monica are member agencies of MWD. The West Basin Municipal Water District provides water to Culver City and West Hollywood Water is provided to the City of West Hollywood by the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. Beverly Hills also provides water to the City of Los Angeles. Both cities provide emergency water supply by mutual agreement. LAFCO initiated service review studies of all agencies providing water under LAFCO jurisdiction. The studies were prepared according the designated MSR study areas and 135 where the majority of the agency’s service boundary falls. Dudek and Associates has prepared a detailed Municipal Service Review of water service providers in the Los Angeles Basin Region. A short description of the special district service providers is given in Chapter 8 of this report. The Dudek report states that of all agencies providing water in the MSR area, the City of Glendale, Crescenta Valley Water District and the La Cañanda Irrigation District have overlapping boundaries, service areas, and infrastructure. The report recommends that a more detailed feasibility study of these agencies be conducted to clarify service areas, in order to make the appropriate determinations for the Districts’ SOI update. Reorganization of one or more of the agencies is possible. 136 Wastewater This section discusses the provision of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services in the Los Angeles MSR area. The section provides an overview of the service configuration, level and type of service demand, facilities, current and potential regional collaboration between service providers, service delivery challenges, and an analysis of potential policy alternatives relevant to the particular service. SERVICE PROVIDERS Most of the wastewater generated in the Los Angeles MSR area is conveyed through local collection systems to the City of Burbank, City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (CSD) trunk lines, and then to one of six wastewater treatment plants. Regional providers—City of Los Angeles and CSD—provide most of the wastewater treatment in the MSR area. WASTEWATER TREATMENT The City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Treatment System provides wastewater treatment to the majority of the MSR area. Wastewater flows in the San Fernando Valley communities are treated at the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation and Tillman Water Reclamation Plants, which discharge into the Los Angeles River. Sludge produced at the two plants is sent to the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) for further treatment and HTP discharges most treated effluent into Santa Monica Bay through a five-mile ocean outfall. Wastewater flows generated in the Wilmington, San Pedro and Harbor areas are treated at the Terminal Island Treatment Plant and discharged into the Los Angeles Harbor. Other treatment providers include the City of Burbank and or Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (CSD). The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant treats wastewater flows from the Cities of Burbank and Los Angeles and discharges into the Los Angeles River. The sludge produced at the BWRP is discharged into the Los Angeles wastewater system for treatment. Table 5-1: Wastewater Service Wasterwater Service Providers Providers Area Collection Treatment There are seven active Beverly Hills Direct Los Angeles, CSD 4 Burbank Direct Direct, Los Angeles CSDs servicing the MSR Culver City Direct Los Angeles area. The areas served by Glendale Diirect Los Angeles CSDs are listed in the table. Los Angeles Direct Direct, Burbank, CSD 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 The CSDs provide San Fernando Direct Los Angeles wastewater treatment and Santa Monica Direct Los Angeles disposal in unincorporated West Hollywood LAC CSD 4 areas and portions of the Crescenta Valley CVCWD Los Angeles Other Unincop. LAC Los Angeles, CSD 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 34 cities of Beverly Hills and CSD = Los Angeles County Sanitation District Los Angeles. For CVCWD = Crescenta Valley County Water District wastewater flows generated LAC = Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District in the City of West Hollywood, CSD 4 contracts with the City of Los Angeles for treatment and disposal. CSD 9 and portions of CSD 5 are also served by the City of Los Angeles per contract. 137 The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts services span multiple MSR areas and were reviewed in separate MSR prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.56 WASTEWATER COLLECTION Wastewater collection service is provided by the cities, the County and the Crescenta Valley Water District in unincorporated areas. The City of West Hollywood contracts with the County (Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District) for sewer collection system maintenance. The remaining seven cities maintain collection systems directly. The wastewater collection providers are responsible for maintaining local system laterals and pumps. There is minimal septic use in the MSR area. The City of Los Angeles had the largest concentration of septic systems, with only 1.5 percent of residents on septic.57 56 LSA Associates, Inc., Sanitation Districts Municipal Service Review, March 2005. 57 According to the most recent Census data on septic use (1990). 138 SERVICE AREA The wastewater service area for the cities of Los Angeles and Burbank and each CSD that serves the MSR area is listed in the table. The City of Los Angeles serves most of the City as well as portions of Burbank and unincorporated areas. The CSDs primarily serve unincorporated areas. Wastewater Service Area Area CSD 1 CSD 2 CSD 4 CSD 5 CSD 8 CSD 9 CSD 34 Los Angles Burbank Beverly Hills Eastern sliver Most of City Northern Burbank Southern portion portion Culver City All of City Glendale All of City Watts & Southern Southern Los Angeles Eastern sliver slivers Southern sliver sliver Most of City Small portion San Fernando All of City Santa Monica All of City West Hollywood All of City Rosewood, Rancho Southern Universal City, Rosewood & East Los Scattered Dominguez, & sliver (near Northern Marina Del Rey & Other MSR Areas Willowbrook Angeles Southern areas Southern sliver San Pedro) sliver CVCWD Table 5-2: Wastewater Service Area 139 SERVICE DEMAND Table 5-3: Daily Wastewater Flows Wastewater demand is primarily affected by Daily Wastewater Flows population and economic growth, water use Average Flow (MGD)² efficiency, infiltration and inflow, and loading Agency FY 04-05 factors. Please refer to Chapter 3 for the Beverly Hills 6.8 residential population and job base in each Burbank¹ 11 Culver City 5.1 agency, and projected population and job Glendale 17.2 growth rates. The average daily wastewater Los Angeles 387.5 flows in each City and unincorporated areas is San Fernando 2.1 provided in the table. Santa Monica 11.1 Many water demand drivers are also CSD 4 5.4 CSD 5 (LA Only) 0.9 wastewater demand drivers during dry CSD 9 0.3 periods. During dry weather, potable water CVCWD 1.5 consumed exceeds wastewater flows. Water (1) MGD = Million Gallons Per Day used for outdoor purposes, such as landscape, irrigation, firefighting, street cleaning, and residential car washing, does not flow into the wastewater system.58 The increased use of water-efficient plumbing fixtures reduces the amount of wastewater. Ultra-low flush toilets (ULFTs) use only about one-quarter as much water as older models, and the latest versions of these toilets work much better than models made in the early 1990s. Washing machine replacement is also effective in reducing wastewater flows. Conventional top-loading washers discharge about 42 gallons of water per load. New, frontloading washers, although more expensive, discharge only about 26 gallons per load. Wastewater flow includes not only discharges from residences, businesses, institutions, and industrial establishments, but also infiltration and inflow. Infiltration refers to groundwater that seeps into sewer pipes through cracks, pipe joints and other system leaks. Inflow refers to rainwater that enters the sewer system from sources such as yard and patio drains, roof gutter downspouts, uncapped cleanouts, pond or pool overflow drains, footing drains, cross-connections with storm drains, and even holes in manhole covers.59 Infiltration and inflow tend to affect older sewer systems to a greater degree and are highest during or right after heavy rain. They are the primary factors driving peak flows through the wastewater system and a major consideration in capacity planning and costs. In addition to organic pollutants, wastewater entering a treatment plant may contain metals, nutrients, sediment, bacteria, and viruses. Toxic substances used in the home—motor oil, paint, household cleaners, and pesticides—or substances released by industries also make their way into sanitary sewers. Industries and commercial enterprises may produce high-strength wastewater or wastewater containing pollutants that could upset treatment processes. 58 Although some drains in outdoor stairwells and yards connect to the wastewater system, most water used for outdoor purposes flows into the stormwater system. 59 A sewer cleanout is a pipe rising from the underground sewer line to the ground surface with a removable cap; it is used to access the sewer line to clear blockages. 140 Table 5-4: Average Sewage Flows Wastewater Treatment Average Sewage Flows The average daily sewage flows for each Average Flow treatment plant in the Facility (MGD) MSR area are shown Burbank in the table below. Burbank Water Reclamation Plant 8.5 Hyperion Treatment Los Angeles Plant flows include sludge from the Los Hyperion Treatment Plant 358 Angeles-Glendale, and Los Angeles Glendale Water Reclamation Plant 16 Tillman Water Tillman Water Reclamation Plant 57 Reclamation Plants. Terminal Island Treatment Plan 16 85 percent comes Los Angeles County Sanitation District from the within the Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant 322 City of Los Angeles; the remaining 15 percent comes from contract agencies.60 Most of the wastewater treated at the Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant comes from outside the MSR area. Approximately 23 percent of Burbank’s wastewater is treated by Los Angeles and approximately five percent of the wastewater treated at Burbank’s facility comes from Los Angeles.61 FACILITIES The wastewater facilities include collection, treatment and disposal facilities. Wastewater Treatment Plants There are three upstream wastewater treatment plants in the MSR area and three wastewater treatment plants from which the effluent is discharged into the Pacific Ocean. Four are owned by the City of Los Angeles, one by CSD and one by the City of Burbank. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacity First Year of Agency Location (MGD) Operation Burbank Burbank Water Reclamation Plant Burbank 9 1966 Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant South of LAX 450 1923 Los Angeles Glendale Water Reclamation Plant Glendale 20 1976 Tillman Water Reclamation Plant Sepulveda Basin 80 1984 Terminal Island Treatment Plant Harbor 30 1935 Los Angeles County Sanitation District Joint Water Pollution Control Plant City of Carson 385 1928 Table 5-5: Wastewater Treatment Facilities 60 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation…to protect public health and the environment, June 14, 2005. 61 City of Burbank, Comments on Draft Los Angeles Area MSR, November 2006. 141 The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant The facility treats wastewater originating from the City of Burbank and portions of the City of Los Angeles. The plant provides tertiary treatment.62 The facility is located in Burbank on North Lake Street. The plant has a design capacity of 9 million gallons per day (mgd), with peak wet weather flows up to 18 mgd. The sludge is conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Facility for treatment and disposal. The treated wastewater is discharged through a pipeline into the Los Angeles River, and flows into the Pacific Ocean through Long Beach. The Hyperion Treatment Facility The Hyperion facility, in the City of Los Angeles, is the main provider of the MSR area. The plant treats wastewater originating in Los Angeles and from various contracting cities and agencies. The plant also provides tertiary treatment. Hyperion is located on 144 acres between the El Segundo Dunes and the Pacific Ocean, south of the Los Angeles International Airport in Playa del Rey. The plant has a design capacity of 450 mgd, with capacity for peak wet weather flows up to 1,000 mgd for short periods. The Hyperion facility provides treatment of sludge and disposal of wastewater from the Los Angeles-Glendale and Tillman Water Reclamation Plants. The treated wastewater is discharged through a pipeline into Santa Monica Bay. Approximately 50 mgd of effluent is recycled on-site or transported to the West Basin Municipal Water District Recycling Facility in El Segundo for disposal. The Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant The plant treats wastewater originating in Glendale, Los Angeles (eastern San Fernando Valley) and Crescenta Valley. The plant provides tertiary treatment. The plant is located in Glendale across from Griffith Park, is operated by the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale, and is owned by the City of Los Angeles; each City pays 50 percent of the operation and maintenance and receives an equal share of the recycled water. The plant has a design capacity of 20 mgd and is capable of treating a peak flow of 30 mgd. The sludge is conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Facility for treatment and disposal. About one quarter of the effluent is used as recycled water for watering parks and other landscaping; the remainder is disposed in the Los Angeles River, and flows through Long Beach into the Pacific Ocean. The Tillman Water Reclamation Plant The Tillman facility treats wastewater originating in the San Fernando Valley. The plant provides tertiary treatment. The plant is located in the Sepulveda Basin on Woodley Avenue in Van Nuys. The plant has a design capacity of 80 mgd and a peak wet weather capacity of 160 mgd. Sludge is conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Facility for treatment and disposal. Tillman discharges recycled water to maintain water levels in the Japanese Garden Lake, Lake Balboa and Wildlife Lake. The remainder of the treated effluent is disposed in the Los Angeles River, and flows through Long Beach into the Pacific Ocean. 62 Advanced treatment of wastewater that exceeds the secondary or biological stage, removing nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen and most suspended solids. 142 The Terminal Island Treatment Plant The Terminal Island facility treats wastewater originating from Terminal Island as well as the communities of Wilmington, San Pedro and a portion of Harbor City. The plant provides tertiary treatment. The plant is located on Terminal Island in the Harbor. The plant has a design capacity of 30 mgd and can handle a peak wet weather flow of 50 mgd. The plant discharges through an outfall line into Los Angeles Harbor. The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) The JWPCP, located in Carson, receives and disposes wastewater from unincorporated areas and portions of Los Angeles in the MSR area. The facility provides both primary and secondary treatment for approximately 321 million gallons of wastewater per day. The plant has a design capacity of 385 mgd and a peak wet weather capacity of 500 mgd. Treated wastewater is discharged to the Pacific Ocean through a network of outfalls. These outfalls extend two miles off the coast of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to a depth of 200 feet. The CSD is acquiring off-site locations for composting sludge. The CSD is building a second tunnel for the ocean outfall to allow the existing tunnel and outfall to be inspected and maintained. WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES The City of Los Angeles is in need of treatment system upgrades and expansions to address wastewater needs through the year 2020. City strategies for addressing future flows include increasing capacity at current facilities and building new treatment plant facilities to serve the downtown and San Fernando Valley areas.63 The City of Los Angeles is currently undertaking major upgrades and expansion projects of its treatment system, for which the contract agencies are responsible for paying their proportionate share of costs. The City of Burbank funds its share of capital improvements at the Hyperion Treatment Plant, with about $1.5 million annually. The City of Glendale funds capital improvements at the Hyperion and Los Angeles Glendale treatment plants at an average of about $10.2 million annually.64 Santa Monica also funds capital improvements at the Hyperion Treatment Plant at approximately $5 million annually. The Hyperion Treatment Plant is in need of various upgrades to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements, refurbish plant facilities and meet future operating requirements. Currently, the Hyperion Treatment Plant is being upgraded to full secondary treatment level. Some of the various facilities needs include outfall rehabilitation, a new solids handling facility, additional reactors and clarifiers for the secondary treatment system, and. battery rehabilitation. The Los Angeles Glendale Treatment Plant is in need of treatment upgrades due to restrictions placed on the facility by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the amount of heavy metals, chemicals and other toxic pollutants dumped into the river. As a result, the City of Los Angeles is upgrading the plant to 63 CH:CDM, A Joint Venture, City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan, Facilities Plan, July 2004, (Revised November 2005). 64 City of Burbank, Capital Improvement Program, FY 2005-06 and City of Glendale Capital Improvement Program, FY 2003-03. 143 provide nitrogen removal. This treatment upgrade will reduce the plant’s capacity to from 20 to 15 mgd. The plant also needs tertiary filter replacement. The Tillman Water Reclamation Plant is in need of filter upgrades, additional tertiary filtration to allow the plant to process wet weather flows, upgrades to meet the RWQCB’s new effluent nitrogen limits, and additional emergency backup power generating capacity to ensure NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit regulations are not violated.65 The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant is in need of operational improvements that are funded on an ongoing basis with $150,000 annually. Additional treatment plant upgrades may be required due to new effluent limits established by the RWQCB. The needs and deficiencies of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts facilities were addressed in the MSR prepared by LSA Associates Inc. in March 2005. WASTEWATER COLLECTION FACILITIES Seven of the eight cities in the MSR area maintain local sewer collector lines. The City of West Hollywood contracts with the County for wastewater collection system maintenance. The local collector lines connect to larger trunk lines that are part of the sewer system of one of the three wastewater treatment providers. The trunk and interceptor lines transport the sewage to one of the six wastewater treatment plants in the MSR area. Figure 5-1: Miles of Sewer Miles of Sewer per City Square Mile per City Square Mile West Hollywood For the most part, the cities maintain similar San Fernando concentrations of sewer Beverly Hills pipe per square mile. Culver City West Hollywood Santa Monica maintained the most (21 Los Angeles miles) and Burbank and Glendale tied for the Burbank least amount (13 miles). Glendale Development density 0 5 10 15 20 25 and parcel size impact the extent of sewer pipes a City must maintain. For cities with larger parcels, sewer pipe density is lower. The sewer pipe miles shown in the table include only City-owned and maintained sewer pipes. 65 City of Los Angeles, Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2005/06 – 2014/15, July 2005. 144 Table 5-6: Wastewater Collection Deficiencies and Needs Wastewater Collection Deficiencies and Needs Area Deficiencies/Needs Significant sewer system repairs (replacement of deteriorated sewers and relining of existing sewers) are needed Citywide; the project is funded in FY Beverly Hills 06-07 ($2.2 million) and FY 08-09 ($2.8 million). Needed sewer upgrades and repairs are funded on an ongoing basis Burbank ($900,000 annually). Culver City None identified in CIP. The City is in need of reconstruction of damaged sewer mains and has funding of $5.4 million through FY 11-12. The City also needs ongoing replacement of substandard sewer mains with larger pipes, which the City Glendale funds at $350,000 annually. The City is in need of sewer line extensions, sewer replacement, and sewer rehabilitation/repair in several locations throughout. Significant collection system needs include upgrading aging sewer lines, increasing capacity to prevent wet weather spills and address odor and corrosion problems. The Cityestimates collection system capital expenditures to average $265 million Los Angeles annually from FY 05-06 to FY 14-15. The City is in need of ongoing sewer maintenance, which is funded San Fernando $200,000 annually. The City is in need of wastewater main replacements, and has an ongoing Santa Monica funded program to address the problem ($1 million annually). Sewer reconstruction is needed in various locations throughout the City to address infiltration and inflow and capacity deficiencies. The City has West Hollywood funded sewer reconstruction with a total of $1.1 million through FY 08-09. Most of the cities within the MSR area are performing sewer reconstruction and rehabilitation. Agency capital improvement plans, general plans and other wastewater master planning documents were reviewed for both funded and unfunded wastewater infrastructure needs as listed in the table above. In one of the largest sewage cases in U.S. history, the EPA, the Department of Justice, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Monica Baykeeper and a coalition of Los Angeles community groups reached a $2 billion settlement with the City of Los Angeles over years of sewage spills that peaked during the 1998 El Niño storms. Under the terms of the collection system agreement, Los Angeles will rebuild at least 488 miles of sewer lines, clean 2,800 miles of sewers annually, enhance its program to control restaurant grease discharges, increase the sewage system's capacity, and plan for future expansion. The agreement requires a three-year rolling average of 60 miles of sewers per year to be renewed in fiscal years 2008 through 2014 as well as clean 2,800 sewer miles annually and visually inspect 600 sewer miles.66 66 City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Collection Settlement Agreement Annual Report Fiscal Year 2004-05, September 30, 2005. 145 SHARING OPPORTUNITIES There is already extensive sharing of wastewater facilities in the MSR area. The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (CSD) serve as large regional providers of wastewater service. All cities contract with either Los Angeles or CSD for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. SERVICE ADEQUACY Sewage Spills For wastewater service, the most appropriate benchmarks for evaluating service adequacy are the number of spills, regulatory sanctions, and pollution of the receiving water. Sewer overflow rates are measured as the number of reported sewage spills (annualized) per 100 miles of sewer collection lines. The reported spills do not include all incidents. There have been several sewage spills in the Los Angeles MSR area in the last two years, as reported to OES. Most of the reported spills were related to sewage line blockage; other sewage releases were due to root infiltration, broken sewer pipe or system malfunction. Rainwater inflow during storm events caused sewage overflows in Glendale and Los Angeles. Sewage spills reported by the cities (between Jan. 2004 and Mar. 2006) and in the last year in Los Angeles are summarized in the figure and in the subsequent table.67 Figure 5-2: Sewage Spills per 100 Sewer Miles Seven of the eight Sewage Spills per 100 Sewer Miles cities disclosed sewer overflow information Beverly Hills for purposes of Burbank stormwater reporting Culver City to the RWQCB. The Glendale median sewer Los Angeles overflow rate in FY San Fernando 03-04 among the Santa Monica seven cities was eight West Hollywood based on these 0 5 10 15 20 25 reports. Overflow rates in the City of OES, Jan. 2004 - Mar. 2006 RWQCB, FY 2003-04 Santa Monica were relatively high (22 spills) in FY 03-04. The cities of Burbank and Culver City were the next highest at 11 spills. In the last two years, there were no sewage spills reported by the Cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City and San Fernando, according to OES (Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) data. In FY 2003-04, there were no sewage spills reported by the City of West Hollywood to the RWQCB. Due to the small size of the West Hollywood sewer system, its two spills equate to a relatively high sewer overflow rate. The City of Los Angeles has a lower overflow rate. 67 The OES sewage spill rate is (number of spills/time period)/(pipe miles/100). 146 Table 5-7: OES – Reported Sewage Spills OES-Reported Sewage Spills Date Jurisdiction Location Cause Gallons Contained 6/24/04 Burbank BWRP Effluent released from trunk line due to lack of capacity. 22,000 Yes 2/20/05 Glendale Road Infiltration of stormwater due to heavy rain. 1,000 No Limited capacity of sewer system exacerbated by groundwater 2/19/05 Glendale Road infiltration. Unknown Yes 2/7/05 Glendale Road Sewage spilled due to mainline stoppage. 1,000 Yes 1/11/05 Glendale Road Unknown Unknown No 4/30/04 Glendale Road Sewage blockage in manhole. 1,000 Yes 2/21/04 Glendale Road Roots infiltrated the sewer main. 1,000 Yes 2/10/04 Glendale Road Roots in sewer main caused an overflow in a manhole. Unknown Yes 2/10/04 Glendale Residence Sewer main overflowed into catch basin. 2,000 Yes 2/3/04 Glendale Residence Manhole overflowed due to roots in the main. Unknown Yes 1/28/04 Glendale Residence Sewage released due to roots in the main. 500 Yes 1/7/04 Glendale Business Sewage released in business lateral due to backup in main. 500 Yes 3/28/06 Los Angeles Residence Grease in line caused release of sewage. 3,757 Yes 3/20/06 Los Angeles Road A broken sewer pipe. 20,000 Yes 2/20/06 Los Angeles Other Roots and grease in sewer caused backup and overflow. 5,250 Yes 2/19/06 Los Angeles Road Grease in line caused release of sewage. 11,968 Yes 2/18/06 Los Angeles Residence Grease blockage caused sewage spill into several residences. 3,366 Yes 2/15/06 Los Angeles Residence Roots in sewer line caused release of sewage. 1,184 Yes 2/15/06 Los Angeles Road Debris blockage in an eight inch sewer line. 2500 Yes 1/23/06 Los Angeles Residence Sewage released into basement due to blockage. 1,636 Yes 12/5/05 Los Angeles Waterway A broken water line caused sewer main to break. 11,340 Yes 11/25/05 Los Angeles Road Rags accumulated in the sewer line and caused blockage. 861 Yes Commercial A blockage in the main line caused sewage release into 11/3/05 Los Angeles Building basement. 2,260 Yes 10/27/05 Los Angeles Residence Sewage released into East Channel due to blockage. 14,625 Yes 10/15/05 Los Angeles Hillside Section of pipe washed away from hillside. 29,225 Yes 8/25/05 Los Angeles Business A blockage in the 15" main line caused sewage release. 15,708 Yes 147 OES-Reported Sewage Spills Date Jurisdiction Location Cause Gallons Contained 8/24/05 Los Angeles Road Blockage from root infiltration in sewer line. 20-30/min. No 8/24/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage overflow due to lack of capacity. 500 No 8/17/05 Los Angeles Residence Sewage is draining from a clean out. 529 Yes 8/5/05 Los Angeles Pump Station A pump station malfunction. 1,800 Yes 8/4/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage released due to debris blockage. 3,647 Yes 7/24/05 Los Angeles Residence A blockage in the sewer line. 7,400 Yes 7/11/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage spill from manhole due to grease blockage. 8,66 Yes 7/11/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage spill due to grease blockage. 9,66 Yes 6/30/05 Los Angeles Residence A broken sewer pipe. 1,569 Yes 6/14/05 Los Angeles Road Sewer blockage in a 10-inch line. 5,200 Yes 6/5/05 Los Angeles Road A broken sewer pipe. 42,240 Yes 5/29/05 Los Angeles Residence Sewage released due to roots in the main. 2,043 Yes 5/17/05 Los Angeles Other A grease blockage caused sewer line backup. 1,256 Yes 5/11/05 Los Angeles Waterway A blockage in sewer line. 1,752 Yes 5/5/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage spill from manhole due to blockage. 740 Yes 4/3/05 Los Angeles Road A blockage in sewer line. 8,413 Yes 3/17/05 Los Angeles Other Sewage spill due to back-up in main line. 300 Yes 3/15/05 Los Angeles Road A blockage in sewer line. 5,025 Yes 3/9/05 Los Angeles Residence A blockage in sewer line. 671 Yes 3/9/05 Los Angeles Residence Too much rain caused an overflow. 690 Yes 3/9/05 Los Angeles Other Debris blockage in an eight-inch sewer line. 606 Yes 2/28/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage released from manhole due to rain. 4,950 Yes 2/23/05 Los Angeles Other Sewage released from blockage and to much rain. 1,000 Yes 2/20/05 Los Angeles Road Heavy rain caused sewer overflow. 3,000 Yes 2/20/05 Los Angeles Road Released due to sink hole caused by rain. 189,000 Yes 2/19/05 Los Angeles Other Sewage overflow due to heavy rain. 19,150 No 2/19/05 Los Angeles Road Sewage overflow due to heavy rain. 72,000 No 1/28/05 Los Angeles Garage A blockage caused a sewage overflow. 8,130 Yes 148 OES-Reported Sewage Spills Date Jurisdiction Location Cause Gallons Contained 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 2,928 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 11,713 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 5,857 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 2,928 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 5,857 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 2,928 Yes 1/12/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 5,857 Yes Sewer overflows in multiple manhole locations due to 1/11/05 Los Angeles Road excessive rain. 260,675 No 1/11/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 26,206 Yes 1/10/05 Los Angeles Road Equipment failure cause release of sewage. 10,250 Yes 1/10/05 Los Angeles Residence Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 1,654 No 1/10/05 Los Angeles Business Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 5,984 No 1/10/05 Los Angeles Road Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 439,690 No 1/9/05 Los Angeles Residence Excessive rain caused sewer overflow. 2,451,562 No 3/22/06 Santa Monica Industrial Site Sewage released due to a line break caused by blockage. 400 Yes 2/8/06 Santa Monica Road A blockage in line caused release of sewage. 1,000 Yes 1/30/06 Santa Monica Residence Heavy build-up in line caused release of sewage. 50 Yes 1/13/06 Santa Monica Business Blockage in a restaurant sewer line. 20 Yes 12/2/05 Santa Monica Road Overflow through a manhole. 50 Yes 12/2/05 Santa Monica Road Unknown 50-100 Yes 11/3/05 Santa Monica Road A blockage from manhole caused release of sewage. 100 Yes 11/17/05 Santa Monica Other Sewage was released due to a blockage. 300 Yes 11/16/05 Santa Monica Other Sewage was released from clean out due to a blockage. 100 Yes 10/31/05 Santa Monica Road A blockage in manhole caused a sewage back-up. 400-500 Yes 10/25/05 Santa Monica Road Sewage was released due to blockage in line. 200 Yes 10/19/05 Santa Monica Residence Unknown 100 Yes 10/14/05 Santa Monica Road Sewage released due to grease blockage in main. 300 Yes 149 OES-Reported Sewage Spills Date Jurisdiction Location Cause Gallons Contained 9/9/05 Santa Monica Residence Sewage released due to back up at apartment building. 100 Yes 9/9/05 Santa Monica Residence Sewage released due to back up at apartment building. 10 Yes 8/26/05 Santa Monica Residence A sewage back up in apartment complex line. 50 Yes 7/20/05 Santa Monica Business Overflow due to grease blockage. 200 Yes 6/20/05 Santa Monica Road Sewage was released due to blockage in line. 250 Yes 6/20/05 Santa Monica Road Sewage was released due to blockage in line. 200 Yes 5/27/05 Santa Monica Road A blockage in manhole caused sewage release. 50 Yes 5/3/05 Santa Monica Residence A back up at residence into storm drain. 50 No 3/17/05 Santa Monica Other The spill was due to back up in main line. 300 Yes 3/10/05 Santa Monica Business A grease blockage caused sewer line backup. 250 Yes 2/28/05 Santa Monica Residence Sewage was released from clean out. 200 Yes 2/7/05 Santa Monica Road Sewage was released due to grease blockage in line. 300 Yes 1/21/05 Santa Monica Road Root infiltration caused sewage release. 100 Yes 4/5/04 Santa Monica Road Sewage was released due to blockage in line. 500 Yes 3/22/04 Santa Monica Road Debris in line caused sewage release. 75 Yes 9/3/05 West Hollywood Business Sewage release due to heavy grease blockage. 2,000 Yes 6/6/05 West Hollywood Residence Sewage release due to blockage. 800 Yes 150 REGULATORY STATUS Requirements In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Water Control Pollution Act. Referred to as the Clean Water Act, the law established water quality standards to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The law included the mandate for a permit system known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into surface waters. The Clean Water Act authorized the EPA to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The standards specify maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for treated wastewater prior to discharge. That same year, the California Legislature amended the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 to allow the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to assume the responsibilities prescribed in the Clean Water Act. This signified that SWRCB and its nine regional control boards would regulate federal and state water quality standards, as well as operate the federal permit process for discharging pollutants into open waters. NPDES permits establish specific discharge limits, and monitoring and reporting requirements, and may also require facilities to undertake special measures to protect the environment from harmful pollutants. Direct pollution is caused and potentially traceable to a specific pollution source; it is known as “point source” pollution. Indirect pollution if often conveyed into waterways by urban runoff and is known as “non-point source pollution.” The Clean Water Act requires that all point source wastewater dischargers obtain and comply with an NPDES permit. NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities, other wastewater treatment facilities, industrial facilities, concentrated animal feeding operations, aquiculture, and other point source dischargers. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE STATUS The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) enforces the Clean Water Act; NPDES permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers in the MSR area. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The Board also monitors sewage and other hazards spills that contaminate waterways. LAFCO requested from the RWQCB recent enforcement actions against the agencies that provide service in the MSR area. RWQCB has taken various types of enforcement actions against the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, the County and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for unpermitted discharge of raw sewage during the months of January and February in 2005.68 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has taken various types of enforcement actions against the Water Reclamation Plants in the MSR area region due to discharge of effluent into the Los Angeles River that exceeds TMDL standards for ammonia, nitrogen and metals. Both the County Sanitation Districts and the City of Los Angeles are current investing in additional treatment processes and updating treatment 68 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, California Water Code 13267 letter, dated March 18, 2005. 151 facilities to address these water quality concerns, see discussion on treatment infrastructure needs.69 The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant received a notice of violation for exceeding effluent limitations on various hazardous materials for a number of constituents during the period of January 2000 through December 2002.70 Certain of these violations were later rescinded by the RWQCB, although some violations were not.71 Due to a 1998 Lawsuit filed by the Santa Monica Baykeeper, the EPA, LARWQCB, and certain community groups, the City of Los Angeles requires an estimated $300 million to enhance the existing sewer program, in addition to the Bureau of Sanitation’s existing 10- year, $2 million plan to maintain and enhance the City’s sewer system. The additional costs are mainly due to increases in the number of sewers to be repaired under the settlement agreement. SERVICE CHALLENGES In the MSR area, service challenges include facility upgrades needed for implementing new treatment requirements set by the RWQCB as well as dealing with replacing aging and deteriorating sewer systems. For both the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, the City of Burbank and the City of Los Angeles, service challenges include complying with requirements for further treatment of effluent discharged into the Los Angeles River. The Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles have experienced sewer overflows due to rainwater inflow during heavy rainfall. These incidents may be attributed to poor sewer system conditions in these areas. 69 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Financing Authority, Capital Projects Revenue Bonds, 2003 Series A, June 5, 2003. 70 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Enforcement Order dated February 25, 2004. 71 Discussion with RWQCB Enforcement Section Chief Hugh Marley, December 4, 2006. 152 Chapter 6 Public Works Stormwater Urban runoff, including stormwater, has been identified as a significant pollutant contributing to the overall contamination of water bodies. Stormwater refers to pure rainwater plus anything the rain carries with it. Unlike sewage, stormwater is usually not treated. Although it may be filtered through catch basins, stormwater flows directly from streets and gutters into creeks and the ocean. SERVICE CONFIGURATION Flood control services refer to the operation and maintenance of regional runoff collection, conveyance and discharge systems. Municipal stormwater service refers to the operation and maintenance of local runoff collection, conveyance and discharge systems, and the regulation of certain private dischargers. Flood control and stormwater services are similar in that they are runoff drainage services and the respective infrastructure is in many cases connected. However, they differ both in scope and in provider type; cities provide stormwater services and flood control services are provided primarily by the flood control district. Drainage Areas There are three watersheds in the MSR area: the Los Angeles River, Ballona Creek and Dominguez Channel watersheds. The Los Angeles River Watershed, which covers over 830 square miles, includes the western portion of the San Gabriel Mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains, the Verdugo Hills, and the northern slope of the Santa Monica Mountains. The cities of Burbank, Glendale, and San Fernando, and the northern and eastern portions of the City of Los Angeles lie within the Los Angeles River watershed. The river flows from the headwaters in the western San Fernando Valley and outlets in San Pedro Bay near Long Beach. The river crosses the San Fernando Valley and the central portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The major tributaries of the Los Angeles River include Burbank Western Channel, Pacoima Wash, Tujunga Wash, and Verdugo Wash in the San Fernando Valley; and the Arroyo Seco, Compton Creek, and Rio Hondo in the Los Angeles Basin. Much of this tributary network has also been lined with concrete to meet flood control needs. Numerous flood control facilities in this watershed—concrete sections of the Los Angeles River, channel improvements and three major dams—were constructed in the early 20th century. Pacoima, Big Tujunga and Devil’s Gate dams were built to reduce downstream flow rates and conserve water for groundwater recharge purposes.72 Ballona Creek is a flood control channel that drains the western Los Angeles basin. The Cities of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, and western portions of the City of Los Angeles lie within the Ballona Creek Watershed. The watershed area is 72 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division, 2006. 153 bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains on the north and the Baldwin Hills on the south. It extends east nearly to downtown Los Angeles. The total watershed area is roughly 130 square miles. The area is primarily developed but includes undeveloped areas on the south slope of the Santa Monica Mountains. The watershed drains into Santa Monica Bay at Marina del Rey. The Dominguez Channel Watershed extends from near the Los Angeles International Airport to the Los Angeles Harbor. The southern portion of the City of Los Angeles lies within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. The watershed drains through man-made storm drains and the flood control channel network, as opposed to natural drainage features. Flood Control Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) manages major flood control facilities. LACFCD owns mainline storm drain pipelines, and the cities own lateral lines and catch basins connecting with the LACFCD main lines. Stormwater Table 6-1: LACFCD Service Configuration Service Configuration Stormwater Street Cities are responsible for performing Provider Maintenance Sweeping routine maintenance and clean-up of Beverly Hills Direct Direct debris in City-owned laterals. Six cities Burbank Direct Direct provide stormwater maintenance service Culver City Direct Contract directly, and two cities contract with other Glendale Direct Direct agencies. Los Angeles Direct Direct San Fernando County Contract San Fernando contracts with the Los Santa Monica Direct Direct Angeles County Department of Public West Hollywood Contract Contract Works for stormwater facility maintenance. Although the County cleans inlets once a year, the City hires a vacuum truck to clean inlets as well. The City relies on an environmental consultant for site inspections, public outreach and illicit discharge investigations. Five cities provide street sweeping directly, and three of the cities contract with other agencies. The agencies provide street sweeping at least twice monthly. Preventative services provided by the agencies include open-space litter control, street sweeping and inspection of inlets. Regulatory activities involve public outreach and education, industrial and commercial discharger permitting and inspections, development of source controls and site design for development projects and inspection for illicit wastewater discharge. SERVICE DEMAND Precipitation Rainfall in the MSR area is seasonal and varies substantially by year. There has been an average of 16 inches of rain on average in the MSR area since 1940. The MSR area as a whole, experiences most of its rainfall during the winter months. Over 87 percent of annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and March. The following figure shows average rainfall in inches at National Weather Service monitoring stations in the three locations. 154 While precipitation amounts cannot be controlled, proper planning can determine service need based upon annual rainfall amounts and seasonal heavy rainfalls. Average Annual Rainfall in MSR Area 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 155 0491 5491 0591 5591 0691 5691 0791 5791 0891 5891 0991 5991 0002 5002 Figure 6-1: Average Annual Rainfall Regulation Stormwater service needs are affected by pollutant loads in stormwater runoff and emerging regulatory requirements, including total maximum daily load requirements, for reducing pollutants. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements set numerical targets for pollution reduction in impaired waterways in the MSR area. Impervious Surfaces Rainwater is typically dispersed by percolation into retention within the soil, proper onsite drainage/design systems, or runoff into local creeks, feeding rivers and so on into the ocean. The amount of rainwater retained by the soil is decreased dramatically by the expansion of impermeable surfaces such as concrete or buildings. As development proceeds, the prevalence of impervious surfaces—paved streets, sidewalks, driveways, building footprints and parking lots—tends to increase. Stormwater runoff can be reduced by the introduction of proper watershed management and planning techniques, and materials such as permeable asphalt, open-space preserves, infiltration basins, soil erosion control, monitoring of development plans and projects, and public education. Areas with densely developed land face increased risk of flooding hazards and effects on water quality due to higher rates and volumes of surface runoff. Stormwater service providers may reduce runoff caused by new development by implementing development standards that minimize impervious surfaces and by requiring site measures (e.g., swales and bioretention basins) that direct runoff to pervious surfaces. Permit Monitoring Table 6-2: Active Stormwater Discharge Permits Stormwater permits require cities and Active Stormwater Discharge Permits other permittees to implement programs Industrial Construction that minimize the negative impacts of Agency Permits Permits construction, industrial and commercial Beverly Hills 0 11 Burbank 12 23 activities on municipal stormwater quality. Culver City 2 4 This is a parallel and separate effort from Glendale 4 15 the statewide construction and industrial Los Angeles 80 252 permits issued by the State Water San Fernando 4 1 Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Santa Monica 4 8 Industrial permits are issued to industrial West Hollywood 2 2 and commercial sites, which by their nature can contribute to stormwater pollution. Industries subject to NPDES permits include manufacturing, mining, service stations, laundromats, trailer parks and other potential industrial and commercial sources of runoff. Stormwater service providers are responsible for inspecting all potential non-residential dischargers. The table shows the active industrial and construction discharge permits in each jurisdiction as of February 2006. INFRASTRUCTURE The infrastructure used to provide stormwater services includes storm drains, catch basins, channels and natural waterways, pump stations, pipes and ditches. Each of the cities and the County maintains their own system of storm drains, underground pipes and local channels, which eventually flow to the County flood control system or directly into the Pacific Ocean. Throughout the MSR area, the storm drain system is separate from the sanitary sewer system. The cities are responsible for maintenance of their own facilities. All of the cities regularly inspect and clean their stormwater infrastructure, but some cities are more active in this than others due to financial constraints. LACFCD is responsible for its flood control facilities within each City. Table 6-3: Agency-Owned Infrastructure Agency-Owned Infrastructure Total Marked Closed Storm Open Agency Inlets Inlets Drain Channel Beverly Hills 1,415 1,397 33 miles¹ NP Burbank 349 349 16 miles 2.3 miles Culver City 130 130 5 miles 0 miles Glendale 1,364 1,364 43 miles 2 miles Los Angeles 34,558 34,558 1,200 miles 9.4 miles San Fernando 112 112 0.8 miles 0.6 miles Santa Monica 630 630 6.4 miles 0.8 miles West Hollywood 15 500 0 miles 0 miles Note: (1) Total improved drains in Beverly Hills, per 2006 General Plan Update 156 In Beverly Hills, the City owns and maintains approximately 33 of the 47 miles of improved storm drains, and LACFCD maintains the remainder. LACFCD is responsible for maintaining the Benedict Canyon flood control facilities (built in the early 1960s). Roughly one-third of the system was built before 1940, with the oldest segments built in the early 1920s. There are flood prone areas along portions of the City’s eastern boundary. In addition, hillside areas are subject to slope failure resulting from heavy rains.73 Burbank maintains 16 miles of enclosed storm drains, 2.3 miles of open channel and 349 inlets. The latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map for the City of Burbank indicates that 100-year flood plains exist within the City. The largest area is along the Burbank Western Flood Control Channel from the westerly boundary of the City to approximately Chandler Street. Other smaller areas of flood plain are located near the southern boundary of the City along Griffith Park Drive to Main Street, near the Los Angeles River Flood Control Channel, and along the extension of Olive Avenue in the Verdugo Hills.74 Culver City maintains five miles of enclosed storm drains and 13 inlets. Ballona Creek flows through the City in a concrete channel. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains the eastern portion of the channel, and LACFCD maintains the western portion. There is one area where there is shallow flooding potential south of the Creek near La Cienega Blvd. Glendale maintains 43 miles of enclosed storm drains, 2 miles of open channels, and 1,364 inlets. Stormwater is drained primarily by Verdugo Wash and its tributaries. Several of the canyons in the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains have debris basins that were built by LACFCD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood protection purposes. There are no areas within the City limits that lie within the 100-year flood plain; however, there are small areas (Woodland Ave. and part of the Adams Hills area) which may be subject to minor flooding in heavy storms. Future development projects in the hillsides of Glendale may require drainage-related mitigation.75 In the City of Los Angeles, the City-owned portion of the system consists of 1,200 miles of enclosed storm drains, nine channel miles, 34,558 inlets, spreading grounds and pumping facilities. Spreading grounds in the San Fernando Valley impound stormwater and allow it to percolate into the ground. The City’s facilities are designed to mitigate 50- year storms. Regional LACFCD facilities are designed to mitigate 100- and 500-year storms. Many of the major flood control facilities were built between 1935 and 1970 by ACE and LACFCD. Flood hazard areas comprise 30 square miles of the City, about half of which are deemed buildable by FEMA.76 San Fernando owns less than one mile of enclosed storm drains, less than one mile of open channel and 112 inlets. The County controls all access points to open channels. Santa Monica maintains 6.4 miles of enclosed storm drains and 630 inlets. The Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF)—which was constructed by the City 73 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Update Technical Background Report, October 2005, Sections 3.3 and 6.3. 74 City of Burbank, Land Use and Mobility Elements Update Draft Program EIR, April 2006, Section 5.12.5. 75 City of Glendale, Technical Background to the 2003 Safety Element, pages 3-1 through 3-16. 76 City of Los Angeles, Safety Element Of The Los Angeles City General Plan, 1996, pages II-11 to II-18. 157 of Santa Monica and the City of Los Angles in 2001—treats dry-weather runoff (from excessive irrigation, spills, construction sites, pool draining, car washing, the washing down of paved areas, etc.) and some wet weather runoff. An average of 500,000 gallons per day (gpd) of urban runoff generated in the City of Santa Monica and areas of Los Angeles are treated by conventional and advanced treatment systems at the SMURRF.77 West Hollywood owns only 15 inlets. Most of the inlets in West Hollywood are County owned and maintained. The City does not own any closed storm drains. Table 6-4: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies AGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES Rehabilitation of deteriorated or undersized storm drains is needed Citywide. There is an ongoing funded program to Beverly Hills address the problem gradually ($50,000 annually). Burbank None identified Capital improvements for stormwater discharge are needed. The project is funded ($2.3 million) and scheduled for completion by Culver City FY 08-09. Arch Place is in need of additional storm drains. There are deficient drainage facilities in need of repair throughout the City and has an ongoing funded program to address the problems Glendale ($125,000 annually). Several stormwater infrastructure upgrades and facilities are needed for the City to address the wet weather bacteria TMDL. The implementation is expected to take 18 years at a cost of $1.56 billion. The project will include construction of a large runoff treatment facility capable of handling 2.3 billion gallons of runoff, the diversion of wet weather flow to Hyperion and an Integrated Resources Plan. The project will funded mostly by the City's current stormwater fee on property taxes and the rest by general obligation bonds, approved by voters in 2004, for up to $500 million for stormwater projects and other projects related to Los Angeles the Federal Clean Act requirements. San Fernando None identified Capital improvements for stormwater discharge are needed Santa Monica throughout the City. Projects are funded at $150,000 annually. Retrofitting of storm drain catch basins is needed at various locations Citywide to prevent trash and debris from entering West Hollywood storm drains. The project is fully funded. 77 City of Santa Monica. Opportunities and Challenges, July 2005, page 3-126. 158 SERVICE STANDARDS AND ADEQUACY TMDLs in the MSR Area Table 6-5: TMDLs in the MSR Area Completed Stormwater run-off not only Watershed TMDLs Scheduled TMDLs raises concerns about flooding, Los Angeles Nitrogen Historic Pesticides but also about water quality. River Metals Coliform Pollutants in the Los Angeles Metals River, Ballona Creek and Santa Ballona Creek Toxic Coliform Monica Bay have been Pollutants attributed, in large part, to stormwater runoff.78 Additional sources of stormwater contaminants include historic use of pesticides, industrial discharges, industrial spills, illicit dumping, and cross- contamination between surface and groundwater. Portions of watersheds in the MSR area are located downstream from contamination sources outside of the area, resulting in greater levels of stormwater contamination. The MSR area is also heavily urbanized with a significant concentration of the region’s industrial and commercial activities, which further increases the risk of stormwater contamination. These factors have resulted in impairments to water bodies within the MSR area. WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS To reduce pollution in watersheds, the Clean Water Act directed the states to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutants. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has established TMDLs for a number of pollutants in the MSR area. The TMDLs require local agencies to monitor pollutant levels and develop remedial actions that will prevent contaminants from exceeding maximum allowable levels. Trash TMDLs for the watersheds require the local agencies in the watersheds to eliminate trash from stormwater run-off by installing and maintaining catch basins and developing other stormwater controls necessary to prevent trash from flowing downstream. The nitrogen, bacteria and metals TMDLs require the local agencies to identify and monitor potential point sources of these stormwater contaminants and develop stormwater controls and treatment methods effective in reducing contaminant levels. SERVICE ADEQUACY The stormwater service providers report their stormwater programs, performance and workload indicators annually to the Los Angeles County RWQCB. According to the most recent (FY 03-04) Municipal Stormwater Permit Annual Report, most of the providers in the MSR area have labeled all inlets with “No Dumping.” Each of the cities rated its stormwater efforts on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being completely compliant with regulatory requirements on time. Beverly Hills, Burbank, Los Angeles, Glendale and San Fernando each rated themselves 10 in FY 2003-04. Culver City rated itself 9, and indicated that it needs to enhance staff training and amend ordinances to increase enforcement authority. Santa Monica and West Hollywood rated themselves 8. West Hollywood indicated its primary challenges in stormwater service relate to the rapid rate of mixed use development and to public education in light of rapid business turnover. 78 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Watershed Management Initiative, October 2004. 159 Illicit Discharge Response Time Table 6-6: Illicit Discharge Response Times Agency Response Time The response times for each agency to investigate Beverly Hills 15 minutes and illicit discharge varies. Beverly Hills and Burbank 15 minutes Burbank investigate illicit discharge information in Culver City 24 hours 15 minutes. Culver City, Glendale and San Glendale 24 hours Fernando investigate illicit discharges within 24 Los Angeles 4 hours San Fernando < 24 hours hours. West Hollywood does not investigate illicit Santa Monica 15-30 minutes discharges and relies on the County for West Hollywood NA investigation services. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES The new TMDL requirements impose new costs on the local agencies. Certain agencies in Los Angeles County—Santa Monica and Santa Clarita—had already imposed special stormwater assessments prior to the passage of Proposition 18, and have a dedicated funding source for implementing the TMDLs. A few agencies, such as San Clemente, have succeeded in getting two-thirds voter approval for stormwater assessments. Bond financing is an option being used by the City of Los Angeles, Proposition O. Some communities, such as West Hollywood, have transferred the local storm drains and catch basins into the County, and have also transferred the maintenance responsibility to the County. However, cities may only transfer storm drains that meet all County requirements, so this approach is unlikely to be viable for most of the established cities. Many local agencies under the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) have not yet identified a funding stream to finance their new responsibilities. Many of these agencies have litigated the matter on the grounds that the TMDLs are unfunded mandates and reach beyond the Clean Water Act requirements, although a March 2005 State Superior Court decision upheld the stormwater permit requirements. In 2006, 21 cities sued the LARWQCB arguing that trash TDMLs for Los Angeles River exceeded the available resources of cities for stormwater programs and do not provide any source of financing. The Los Angeles Supreme Court rejected the claim. 160 Street Maintenance and Lighting Services This section focuses on street service—the construction, design, operation and maintenance of roads, traffic signals and street lights. SERVICE CONFIGURATION 161 ecnanetniaM gnithgiL gnipeewS langiS ciffarT Table 6-7: Street Maintenance Service Matrix Service Matrix California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of the state highway system (and the Interstate Highway System in Beverly Hills ● ● ● ● California), and is the state’s overall Burbank ● ● ● ● manager of interregional transportation Culver City ● ● ○ ● services. Glendale ● ● ● ● Each of the cities is responsible for Los Angeles ● ● ● ● maintenance of public roads (other than San Fernando ● ● ○ ● freeways and state highways) within the Santa Monica ● ● ● ● respective jurisdiction. Each City West Hollywood ● ● ● provides street lighting, street sweeping, Key: and traffic signal maintenance, although ●indicates service provided currently by some of the cities contract with other agency staff providers—mostly private companies— ○indicates service provided directly by for some or all of these services. contract with another service provider All cities in the MSR area provide public works engineering and administration directly with their own staff, although Glendale and West Hollywood rely to some degree on private contractors. For other street-related services, the cities provide service in varying degrees with a combination of their own staff and with contract service providers.79 Only the City of Los Angeles provides its own street construction and reconstruction directly. The City’s Department of Public Works, in 2003, performed a condition assessment of the City’s streets and highway system, based on the condition of pavement and traffic congestion. The assessment evaluated over 1.25 billion square feet of City street pavement. Pavements were graded on an A to F system, taking into account the age of last rehabilitation work performed. Streets categorized as “A” were in very good condition and those scoring an “F” were in poor condition with an age greater than 30 years. The majority, over 40 percent, received an F grade; over 20 percent of 79 Reliance on staff versus contract service providers for engineering, street (re)construction, and street maintenance is based on FY 2003-04 information reports by the agencies-to the State Controller. For sweeping, lighting and signal maintenance, the information is based on City budgets and responses to LAFCo questions. pavement was listed as A, 19 percent was B, over 10 percent was C, and 8 percent was D.80 The other cities in the MSR area rely on contract service providers for street maintenance. However, Glendale City staff constructs bike paths and trails. For street maintenance, all of the cities provide direct service. Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles and San Fernando rely mostly on City staff. Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica and West Hollywood rely on contract service providers for a significant portion of street maintenance. Most cities in the MSR area provide street lighting maintenance. West Hollywood relies on Southern California Edison. Burbank and San Fernando also rely on contract service providers to some extent. Culver City and San Fernando contract with private companies to provide street sweeping services. INFRASTRUCTURE The cities vary in the types of streets located in their respective jurisdictions.81 Arterials—high-capacity roads carrying traffic between urban centers—make up on average 26 percent of street (centerline) miles in the MSR area. In Santa Monica, Burbank and Culver City, arterials make up a relatively higher share of streets. In Beverly Hills and San Fernando, arterials make up a relatively lower portion. Street System Overview Provider Street Miles % Arterials % Collector % Local % Rural Beverly Hills 99 11% 5% 84% 0% Burbank 227 32% 11% 57% 0% Culver City 84 32% 7% 61% 0% Glendale 359 31% 13% 56% 0% Los Angeles 6935 25% 16% 57% 1% San Fernando 49 15% 9% 75% 0% Santa Monica 148 35% 9% 56% 0% West Hollywood 48 29% 7% 64% 0% Table 6-8: Street System Overview 80 City of Los Angeles, 2003 Infrastructure Report Card for the City of Los Angeles. 81 The source for street miles by street type is the Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System’s 2004 California Public Road Data, and reflects street data reported by each jurisdiction for that year. 162 Collectors constitute 16 percent of roads in the MSR area—moderate-capacity roads carrying traffic from local roads to arterials. Collectors are most concentrated in Los Angeles, Glendale and Burbank. Local roads make up 58 percent of streets, and are most concentrated in Beverly Hills, San Fernando and West Hollywood. Rural roads constitute only one percent of public roads. In the MSR area, Los Angeles is the only City with rural roads. Local agencies are responsible only for those roads constructed and designed to their standards and accepted into the public road system. Figure 6-2: Signalized Intersections per Street Mile The average number of signalized intersections Signalized Intersections per Street Mile per street mile is 0.6 in the MSR area. Culver City, Santa Monica and Culver City West Hollywood had the Santa Monica highest number of signalized intersections West Hollywood per street mile. Beverly Beverly Hills Hills and Burbank have Burbank an above-average San Fernando concentration of signalized intersections Glendale on their streets. Los Los Angeles Angeles, Glendale and San Fernando have an 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 average concentration of signalized intersections. Figure 6-3: Street Lights per Mile The average number Street Lights per Mile of street lights per street mile is 33 in the MSR area. Beverly Beverly Hills Hills has the highest Santa Monica number of street West Hollywood lights per street mile of all of the cities in Culver City the LA MSR area. Burbank Santa Monica, West Los Angeles Hollywood, Culver City, and Burbank Glendale also have an above- San Fernando average concentration of street lights. Los 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Angeles and Glendale have an average concentration of street lights. San Fernando has a relatively low concentration of street lights in comparison with the rest of the MSR area. 163 Infrastructure Needs BEVERLY HILLS The City needs street resurfacing and reconstruction, as well as asphalt, gutter, curb, sidewalk, and catch basin repair Citywide and has an ongoing funded program to address these needs ($2 million annually). A similar program addresses the installation of traffic signals, which averages about $500,000 annually. Santa Monica Boulevard is in need of rehabilitation, for which the City will contribute $1.4 million in FY 2006-07. BURBANK The City is in need of resurfacing of streets and alleys, concrete repair and sidewalk improvements Citywide; the City funds these needs on an ongoing basis ($1.7 million annually). Burbank estimates that its street maintenance backlog is $81.8 million in addition to a $13 million backlog in sidewalk, pedestrian ramp and traffic signal needs. CULVER CITY The Fox Hills area needs a new traffic signal. Sections of Globe and Tuller Avenues are in need of resurfacing and Bentley Avenue is in need of reconstruction. The Higuera Street Bridge needs to be widened. Culver Boulevard is in need of improvements, including realignment east of Sepulveda Boulevard to Elenda Street. Funding sources include the general fund, sewer fund, gas tax and development impact fees. GLENDALE Curb ramps are needed throughout the City for ADA compliance. All street rehabilitation and reconstruction and curb, gutter and sidewalk repair are needed throughout the City; the program is funded at $1.5 million annually. LOS ANGELES Alameda Street from 25th Street to Slauson Avenue is in need of major reconstruction, estimated cost is $8.8 million; there is currently no funding for the project. Aviation Boulevard needs to be widened from Imperial Highway to Arbor Vitae Street to reduce traffic congestion caused by the opening of I-105; estimated at $61.7 million, the project is expected to be funded partially by gas taxes and by the LA airport, but most of the funds are not yet identified. A grade separation and the extension of Saticoy Street are needed to complete a link between Woodman Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard; the estimated cost is $42.3 million and the project is currently on hold until a funding source is determined. SAN FERNANDO A few areas throughout the City are in need of street rehabilitation. Only 17 percent of these projects are funded. SANTA MONICA Street and park parking lot repair and resurfacing are needed throughout the City and an ongoing program funds the work ($4.7 million) annually. 164 WEST HOLLYWOOD Sunset Boulevard is in need of $4.7 million in pavement repairs. The City is in need of concrete and sidewalk repairs as well as street paving, and funds this ongoing problem with approximately $1 million annually. Several City streets and sidewalks need to be brought into ADA compliance. SERVICE DEMAND Street service demand is affected by population and job concentrations, the availability and desirability of public transit, gas prices, parking availability and costs, and other factors such as the locations of child care, schools, stores and other common stops. Pavement depreciation rates also affect service needs, and are primarily influenced by the volume of traffic, particularly truck traffic, preventative maintenance and weather. The median daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) for the MSR region is 6,362 per centerline mile. DVMT is a measure of daily vehicle miles traveled on the streets maintained by each City in the MSR area. By far, the greatest volume of demand is placed on the freeways and state highways in the MSR area. On City-maintained roads, West Hollywood faces the greatest volume of traffic per street mile on its local road system. Culver City and Santa Monica also have higher demands on the local road system than the median City in the MSR region. San Fernando, Glendale and Burbank face relatively lower traffic volume on their streets. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled per Street Mile, 2004 Median San Fernando Glendale Burbank Beverly Hills Los Angeles Santa Monica Culver City West Hollywood 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Figure 6-4: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Demand management strategies include carpool lanes and incentives, promotion of mass transit through increased efficiency, access and convenience of mass transit options, promotion of alternative means of travel through pedestrian and bicycle improvements, transit oriented development, and smart growth. 165 SERVICE CHALLENGES The greatest service challenge faced by all cities in the LA MSR region is continued growth in traffic. There are very few opportunities to increase the extent and width of the existing street system, and increased population will decrease the service levels of the streets unless more mass transit options are developed. Table 6-9: Service Challenges Provider Service Challenges A large volume of traffic uses the east-west arterials. Through traffic between the City and San Fernando Valley uses local roads not designed to handle the capacity. Up to 14 of 35 key intersections Beverly Hills operate at level of service E or F at some point during the day. Development in the Los Angeles area between La Tuna Canyon and the City of Burbank will increase traffic in the residential areas Burbank around Walnut Avenue. Congestion within the City occurs mostly due to intersection constraints rather than lack of roadway capacity between Culver City intersections. Glendale population and employment has grown; however, Glendale has not had a commensurate increase in the capacity of its street system. Streets have not been substantially widened because of narrow public rights-of-way which were created as part of Glendale's Glendale original subdivisions. City and regional growth will result in increased vehicle travel and reduce average travel speeds. Several street infrastructure needs within the City are unfunded. There is a lack of capacity on several streets throughout the City that causes traffic congestion and deterioration Los Angeles of street surfaces. Traffic blockages due to railroad switching movements can impede through traffic circulation along major arterials and can restrict the San Fernando movement of emergency vehicles. Growth in the Downtown, Special Office District, Oceanfront, and Santa Monica Wilshire Boulevard areas has increased existing circulation problems. The level of service on West Hollywood's major arterials is generally at or above capacity levels. Sunset Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard are operating at level of service F and are the primary east- West Hollywood west arterial servicing the City. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Financing constraints and opportunities impacting delivery of services are discussed in this section. The revenue sources currently available to the service providers are identified. The section discusses innovations for contending with financing constraints, cost-avoidance opportunities and opportunities for rate restructuring. 166 Financing Sources The most significant sources for financing of street maintenance services are gas taxes, general fund revenues, and federal and State funds. Gas Tax MSR area residents pay both federal and state excise taxes, in addition to sales taxes on gasoline. State gas tax accounts for 15 percent of revenues used by LA MSR area cities for street purposes.82 The state tax is 18 cents for each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel (generally referred to as the "gas tax”). The State also collects weight fees on commercial vehicles (trucks) based on the unladen weight of the vehicle. The State retains about 65 percent of revenue from the state gas tax, with the remainder distributed to counties and cities for local streets and roads. The California State Constitution (Article XIX) restricts the use of state gasoline tax revenues for certain purposes. These monies may only be used to plan, construct, maintain, and operate public streets and highways; and to plan, construct, and maintain mass transit tracks and related fixed facilities (such as stations). The gasoline tax revenues cannot be used to operate or maintain mass transit systems or to purchase or maintain rolling stock (trains, buses, or ferries). The primary formulas used to distribute state gas tax funds to California cities are: • §2105 of the California Streets and Highways Code allocates 11.5 percent of revenues in excess of 9 cents per gallon based on population. Funding under this section accounts for 34 percent of gas tax revenues received by MSR area cities. • §2106 allocates revenues equal to 1.04 cents per gallon to cities primarily based on population. Funding under this section accounts for 20 percent of gas tax revenues received by MSR area cities. • §2107 allocates revenues equal to 1.315 cents per gallon primarily based on population, with additional funds allocated to cities with snow removal costs. Funding under this section accounts for 46 percent of gas tax revenues received by MSR area cities. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel. Federal gas tax revenues have been earmarked for roadway spending since 1956 when the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund and stipulated that 100 percent of the gas tax be deposited into the fund. From 1956 to 1982, the Highway Trust Fund was used solely to finance expenditures from the federal highway program. Today, the tax on gasoline is still the principal source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, and the HTF is the principal source of funding for Federal-Aid surface transportation programs.83 The Highway Trust Fund provides money for roads and 82 Street funding calculations are based on the data source: California State Controller, Streets and Roads Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2002-03, February 2005. 83 Robert Puentes and Ryan Prince (Brookings Institution), Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax, 2003, page 3. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gastax.pdf. 167 transit to the states. On August 10, 2005, Congress reauthorized the federal transportation program through 2009 by enacting the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The new act directs federal funding for highways and transit. The new law increased funding by 42 percent, although a greater portion of funding is for earmarked projects. SAFETEA-LU provides the state with considerable flexibility in the use of formula funds, which account for 80 percent of total funds authorized in the act. Specifically, state and regional agencies can move up to 50 percent of funds from one formula category to another subject to various restrictions. For example, a state may transfer up to half of its CMAQ apportionment to projects eligible for Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program (STP), Bridges, or Recreational Trails grants. Furthermore, funds provided under STP and Equity Bonus—two of the largest funding categories, making up 30 percent of the $241 billion distributed through 2009—can be used for a wide variety of projects including transit, highway, local road, bridge, safety, and transportation enhancement projects at states’ discretion. City General Funds General fund revenues, including vehicle license fees, constitute an average of 53 percent of revenues used for street and road purposes in the LA MSR region.84 General fund revenues are local agencies’ discretionary funds, most often used to pay for public safety services and discretionary programs. Beverly Hills, Culver City and Santa Monica are most reliant on general fund revenues. San Fernando and Burbank are the least reliant on general fund revenues which accounted for less than 50 percent of street revenues. Assessments Assessments constitute eight percent of revenues used for street and road purposes by the cities in the MSR area. The Cities of Los Angeles and San Fernando levy assessments for street lighting through assessment districts. These assessments are levied through Landscaping and Lighting Districts under the 1972 Act. The Landscaping and Lighting District Act of 1972 is a flexible tool used by local government agencies to pay for landscaping, lighting and other improvements and services in public areas. As a form of benefit assessment, it is based on the concept of assessing only those properties that benefit from improvements financed, either directly or indirectly through increased property values. Because it is considered a benefit assessment, a 1972 Act assessment is not subject to Proposition 13 limitations. By law (Prop. 13), benefit assessments cannot be based on the value of property. Instead, each district establishes a benefit formula and each parcel in the service area are assessed according to the benefit it receives from the services and improvements. Assessment rates may be increased with majority property owner approval or with two-thirds voter approval. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS A number of financing constraints affect street service provision. 84 Street funding calculations are based on the data source: California State Controller, Streets and Roads Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2003-04, December 2005. 168 State gas tax revenues are limited by the tax rate charged. The rate has remained unchanged since the late 1990s, with the inflation-adjusted revenues declining over the time period despite modest growth in the volume of gasoline purchases. State and federal budget considerations limit the amount of funding available. California gasoline sales tax (Prop. 42) funds for local streets are similarly limited by State budget needs, and have been suspended in recent years due to a lack of available funding. Federal transportation funding programs and policies are set forth in reauthorization legislation that is developed every six or seven years. The reauthorization bills set targets for federal highway and public transit spending for a multi-year period. Each subsequent year, Congress passes a Transportation Appropriation bill that specifies annual funding levels. Proposition 218, which California voters approved in 1996, requires voter or property owner approval of increased local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. Majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general municipal taxes, such as business license or utility taxes. Proposition 218 reiterated the Proposition 13 requirement for two-thirds voter approval of special taxes for which revenues are designated for specific purposes, such as stormwater services. In addition, Proposition 218 added new substantive and procedural steps that must be followed to impose a property-related fee or charge. The requirement does not apply to water and sewer service charges, user fees or development impact fees. Proposition 13, which California voters approved in 1978, limits the ad valorem property tax rate, limits growth of the assessed value of property, and requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value; except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (A.B. 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. Generally, A.B. 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area (TRA) based on the proportion each agency received relative to other agencies in the TRA during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies that had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. Proposition 98, which California voters approved in 1988, requires the State to maintain a minimum level of school funding. In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes to schools in response to state budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund. Local agencies throughout the State lost significant property tax revenue as a result of this shift. The jurisdictions do have opportunities to restructure user fees and development impact fees. However, there are limits to the increases that may be enacted. In order to raise user fees, the jurisdiction must document that the fee recoups only the cost of providing the fee-related service. For development impact fees, the jurisdiction must justify the fees as an offset to the future impact that development will have on infrastructure. There are opportunities for jurisdictions to increase these fees, and many jurisdictions do increase user fees on an annual basis. Preparation of a development impact fee 169 study is required for updating such fees; due to the cost of such a study, development impact fees are typically increased on an occasional basis rather than annually. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES Cost avoidance opportunities refer to the elimination of unnecessary costs. Unnecessary costs may involve duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administrative costs, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, under-utilized equipment, buildings or facilities, overlapping or inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale. Deferred maintenance may reduce costs in the short-term, but increases costs in the long-term. Local agencies can reduce street repair costs through preventative maintenance. Cost-benefit analysis on pavement indicates preventative maintenance extends the useful life of pavement, decreasing the frequency of costly rehabilitation and reconstruction. However, local agencies’ ability to conduct preventative maintenance may be limited by financing constraints. Table 6-10: Street Related Street-Related Expenditures per Street Mile FY Expenditures per Mile 03-04 The average street maintenance Street Lights & expenditure for the MSR region is Provider Maintenance Signals Beverly Hills $80,312 $39,080 $53,328 per street mile.85 Santa Burbank $47,096 $26,443 Monica spent the greatest amount Culver City $60,668 $17,995 per street mile among the MSR Glendale $18,593 $3,711 area cities, followed by Beverly Los Angeles $52,702 $17,518 Hills and West Hollywood. San Fernando $18,042 $14,362 Glendale and San Fernando Santa Monica $115,633 $20,495 reported relatively low West Hollywood $72,642 $27,411 expenditures on street MSR Area $53,328 $17,910 maintenance in FY 2003-04. The average street light and traffic signal expenditure for the MSR region is $17,910. Beverly Hills spent more than double the average amount in the MSR area. West Hollywood and Burbank also spent a large amount for street light and traffic signal maintenance per street mile. Glendale spent relatively little on street lighting and traffic signals compared with the other cities. Cities with relatively high street-related expenditures may wish to conduct benchmarking and competitive bidding to identify potential cost avoidance opportunities. No specific cost avoidance opportunities were identified. 85 Street maintenance expenses include those categorized as street reconstruction, overlaying, sealing and other street purpose maintenance, as well as a pro rata share of undistributed engineering and administration costs. Street funding calculations are based on the data source: California State Controller, Streets and Roads Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2003-04, December 2005. 170 Chapter 7 Community Services Housing Population growth creates housing demands. Adequate and affordable housing is a great concern facing Los Angeles County. SCAG projects that the County will have two million more residents by 2020. Most cities throughout Los Angeles County have a shortage of vacant or developable land in which to create additional housing. Growth, as with all the cities in the Los Angeles MSR area, can be accommodated through infill development and zoning. Table 7-1: Housing Ratio per Capita Housing Unit Ratio per Capita According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Beverly Hills 0.47 Census, the City with the highest housing unit per Burbank 0.43 capita ratio was West Hollywood. Santa Monica Culver City 0.44 had the second highest ratio. Beverly Hills had a Glendale 0.38 relatively high number of housing units, given its Los Angeles 0.36 size of population. San Fernando and San Fernando 0.25 Glendale had the least units per capita. Santa Monica 0.57 West Hollywood 0.68 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY As of December 2005, the California Association of Realtors reported that only 12 percent of households in the Los Angeles area were able to afford a median priced home of $552,760. HOUSING ELEMENT The State Housing Element Law requires that local agencies plan and address residential needs and housing affordability through the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. The Housing Element is required to be updated every five years, and that progress reports are submitted annually. The goal is to increase housing supply and affordability. While local governments are not required to provide housing, state law does require that they address land use controls, developer fees and exactions, and building codes and permit processing procedures. Municipalities must analyze infrastructure and zoning available for potential development sites, and assesses compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). From December 31, 2000 to June 30, 2006, 140 jurisdictions out of 192 (72.9 percent) were in compliance in adopting a Housing Element. As of September 2006, the Housing Elements of all cities within Los Angeles MSR area were in compliance, with the exception of Beverly Hills.86 Glendale’s Housing Element is currently under review. 86 State of California Dept. of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element Compliance Report November 1, 2006. 171 HOUSING NEEDS The RHNA is a tool utilized by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to determine projected housing needs for a particular City and whether the housing market currently meets those needs. These figures are based on the most current census data, forecasted employment and projected growth for the region. The Fair Share Adjustment is utilized to project the needs and housing impact on lower income households in comparison to each community within a regional area. The RHNA is not a mandatory requirement but rather a benchmark for cities to meet housing needs through zoning enforcement, funding various housing programs, and housing rehabilitation. AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS CREATED WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECTS CITY TOTAL UNITS LOW INCOME UNITS TOTAL UNITS Burbank 141 43 184 Glendale 78 74 152 Los Angeles 12,213 10,065 22,278 San Fernando 56 55 111 Santa Monica 122 119 241 West Hollywood 44 42 86 Table 7-2: Affordable Housing Created with Income Housing Tax Credit Projects The largest resource for creating affordable rental housing is through state and federal tax credit incentive programs. The chart compares the number of units created with Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Projects awarded in each City, from January 1998 to August 2004, and building permits issued for market rate multiple-family housing units.87 Data for Beverly Hills and Culver City was not provided. Figure 7-1: % Low Income Units % Low Income Units of Total RHNA of Total RHNA In the City of San Fernando, 30 27 the number of low-income 25 units created since 1998 20 17 represents 27 percent of the City’s RHNA goal. San 15 10 Fernando, Los Angeles, and 10 West Hollywood had the 2 highest percentage of low- 5 2 1 income units created towards 0 meeting their RHNA goals. BurbankGlendale Los San Santa West Glendale and Santa Monica AngelesFernandoMonicaHollywood had the lowest. 87 SCAG, Housing Element Compliance and Building Permit Issuance in the SCAG Region. September 2004. 172 BEVERLY HILLS The median price of a home in Beverly Hills was $1,562,500 in September 2005, the highest in the MSR area.88 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $70,945, 41 percent higher than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. Beverly Hills also had the highest median household income in the MSR area. The projected SCAG RHNA for the City of Beverly Hills, from 1998 to 2005, was for 256 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 35 Very Low Income units, 42 Low Income units, 40 Moderate Income units, and 139 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.89 Beverly Hills’ Housing Element was adopted in July 2001. The City has not been in compliance with Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the General Plan Housing Element. Based on the City’s 2000 General Plan survey90, there were five vacant lots zoned for single-family residential development 12 vacant lots identified as being zoned for multiple- family residential development. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 515 new housing units constructed in Beverly Hills from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of housing constructed in the City was for single-family homes. Although the City has exceeded its requirement for new construction, it has not yet met its RHNA goals with regards to affordable housing units. The chart below provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. BEVERLY HILLS BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 19 34 4 19 27 34 34 38 209 Two Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three-Four Family Units 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 4 14 Five or More Family Units 66 79 0 22 10 0 102 13 292 Total 89 116 4 41 37 37 136 55 515 Table 7-3: U.S. Census Building Permits - Beverly Hills 88 Dzta Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 89 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 90 City of Beverly Hills General Plan Technical Report. 173 BURBANK The median price of a home in Burbank was $595,000 in September 2005.91 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $47,467, 11 percent higher than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The projected SCAG RHNA for the City of Burbank from 1998 to 2005 was for 2,242 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 496 Very Low Income units, 397 Low Income units, 496 Moderate Income units, and 853 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.92 Burbank’s Housing Element was adopted in June 2001. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. Over 90 percent of all new construction in the past 30 years has been of multiple-family dwelling units. The majority of housing stock in Burbank is multiple family dwellings. Little opportunity exists for development of land for single-family use in the City where 80 percent of the residential land is dedicated to single family use. Opportunities may exist in multiple-family residential areas that are underutilized and the City is proposing a Compact Single Family Zone.93 According to the 2000 U.S Census Bureau, there were 1,596 new housing units constructed in Burbank from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of new construction has been for multiple-unit dwellings (73 percent) over the past few years. The City has not yet met its RHNA goals. The chart below provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. BURBANK BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 34 44 64 19 55 62 73 73 424 Two Family Units 2 4 0 0 2 6 0 0 14 Three-Four Family Units 8 0 0 4 4 8 3 0 27 Five or More Family Units 16 0 9 244 64 229 290 279 1131 Total 60 48 73 267 125 305 366 352 1,596 Table 7-4: U.S. Census Building Permits - Burbank 91 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 92 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 93 Burbank CDD, Report to City Council March 8, 2005, Land Use Element Follow-up–Low Density Residential 174 CULVER CITY The median price of a home in Culver City was $490,000 in September 2005.94 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $51,792, 19 percent higher than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The projected SCAG RHNA for Culver City, from 1998 to 2005, was for 650 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 71 Very Low Income units, 136 Low Income units, 134 Moderate Income units and 309 Above Moderate Income units constructed by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.95 Culver City’s Housing Element was adopted in July 2001. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 139 housing units constructed in Culver City from January 1998 to December 2005. All new housing constructed in the City was for single-family dwelling units. The City has not yet met its RHNA goals and there is a growing concern that affordable housing is becoming scarcer. The chart below provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. CULVER CITY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 9 51 35 6 9 8 11 8 137 Two Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Three-Four Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Five or More Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 9 51 35 6 9 8 13 8 139 Table 7-5: U.S. Census Building Permits - Culver City 94 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 95 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 175 GLENDALE The median price of a home in Glendale was $654,500 in September 2005.96 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $41,805, one percent lower than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The SCAG RHNA projected for the City of Glendale, from 1998 to 2005, was for 6,099 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 1,579 Very Low Income units, 1,004 Low Income units, 1,231 Moderate Income units, and 2,285 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.97 According to the September 12, 2006 Housing Element Compliance Report, Glendale’s Draft Housing Element is under review. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. The City’s Housing Element identifies 8,600 acres of vacant and underdeveloped land available for potential residential development for approximately 6,760 – 8,200 dwelling units.98 According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 1,146 housing units constructed in Glendale from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of housing constructed was multiple-family dwelling units (79 percent) and single-family homes (21 percent). The City has not met its RHNA goals for construction of new housing. The chart below provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. GLENDALE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 17 19 42 76 23 15 26 28 246 Two Family Units 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 12 Three-Four Family Units 0 0 0 4 3 0 12 8 27 Five or More Family Units 96 13 29 65 283 122 92 161 861 Total 113 32 71 145 313 137 134 201 1146 Table 7-6: U.S. Census Building Permits - Glendale 96 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 97 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 98 City of Glendake Housing Element 176 LOS ANGELES The median price of a home in Los Angeles was $495,000 in September 2005.99 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $36,687, 13 percent lower than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The City of Los Angeles had the lowest median household income in the MSR area. The SCAG RHNA projected for the City of Los Angeles, from 1998 to 2005, was for 60,280 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 17,990 Very Low Income units, 10,416 Low Income units, 11,314 Moderate Income units, and 20,560 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.100 Remaining areas in the City for residential development are in the Santa Monica and Santa Susanna Mountains, where it would be costly to build. New construction is more likely to occur through infill development.101 Los Angeles’ Housing Element was adopted in December 2002. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 55,536 housing units constructed in Los Angeles from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of housing constructed in the City was for multiple-family dwelling units (76 percent), and single-family homes (24 percent). The City has not yet met its RHNA goals. The following chart provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. LOS ANGELES BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 1,309 1,344 1,687 1,596 1,215 1,432 2,501 2,153 13,237 Two Family Units 178 180 256 156 140 346 340 362 1,958 Three-Four Family Units 35 41 112 62 16 99 0 111 476 Five or More Family Units 1,137 2,468 4,512 5,381 4,302 5,484 8,541 8,040 39,865 Total 2,659 4,033 6,567 7,195 5,673 7,361 11,382 10,666 55,536 Table 7-7: U.S. Census Building Permits – Los Angeles 99 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 100 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment<http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 101 City of Los Angeles General Plan Housing Element, Chapter 3. 177 SAN FERNANDO The median price of a home in San Fernando was $468,000 in September 2005, the lowest in the MSR area.102 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $39,909, five percent lower than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The SCAG RHNA projected for the City of San Fernando, from 1998 to 2005, was for 201 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 52 Very Low Income units, 34 Low Income units, 43 Moderate Income units, and 72 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.103 San Fernando’s Housing Element was adopted in November 2000. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 79 housing units constructed in San Fernando from January 1998 to August 2005. The majority of housing constructed in the City was for single-family dwelling units (85 percent). The City has not yet met its RHNA goals. The following chart provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. SAN FERNANDO BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 5 11 4 6 12 8 7 14 67 Two Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 6 Three-Four Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 Five or More Family Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 11 4 6 12 13 14 14 79 Table 7-8: U.S. Census Building Permits – San Fernando 102 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 103 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 178 SANTA MONICA The median price of a home in Santa Monica was $715,000 in September 2005.104 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $50,714, 17 percent higher than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The SCAG RHNA projected for the City of Santa Monica, from 1998 to 2005, was for 2,208 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 513 Very Low Income units, 335 Low Income units, 431 Moderate Income units, and 929 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.105 Santa Monica’s Housing Element was adopted in December 2001. The City has met and complied with the HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 2,953 housing units constructed in Santa Monica from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of housing constructed in the City was for multiple residential dwelling units (87 percent). The City has exceeded its RHNA goals. The following chart provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. SANTA MONICA BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 50 42 52 43 46 50 49 62 394 Two Family Units 2 2 2 4 0 4 2 4 20 Three-Four Family Units 0 4 35 15 10 0 4 11 79 Five or More Family Units 705 234 357 177 105 218 341 323 2,460 Total 757 282 446 239 161 272 396 400 2,953 Table 7-9: U.S. Census Building Permits – Santa Monica 104 Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 105 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment<http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 179 WEST HOLLYWOOD The median price of a home in West Hollywood was $625,000 in September 2005.106 As of the 2000 U.S Census, the median household income reported in 1999 was $38,914, eight percent lower than the median household income ($42,189) for Los Angeles County. The SCAG RHNA projected for the City of West Hollywood, from 1998 to 2005, was for 410 additional new housing units. Of that total, the City needed 75 Very Low Income units, 107 Low Income units, 81 Moderate Income units, and 147 Above Moderate Income units created by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.107 West Hollywood’s Housing Element adopted in May 2005. The City has met and complied with HCD regarding the General Plan Housing Element. According to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 380 housing units constructed in West Hollywood from January 1998 to December 2005. The majority of housing constructed in the City was for multiple family residential units (69 percent). The City has not yet met its RHNA goals. The following chart provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City since 1998. WEST HOLLYWOOD BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Single Family Units 4 7 2 1 1 44 48 13 120 Two Family Units 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Three-Four Family Units 3 8 0 0 0 3 3 0 17 Five or More Family Units 0 10 127 6 6 66 19 5 239 Total 7 25 133 7 7 113 70 18 380 Table 7-10: U.S. Census Building Permits – West Hollywood 106 Dzta Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPCAR.shtm 107 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 180 Parks and Recreational Facilities Providing adequate open space, parks, and recreational facilities adds to the quality of life for residents. Natural and agricultural lands increasingly give way to new housing needed to shelter an ever increasing population. Large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles can have a significant impact on surrounding climatic patterns. Scientists have proven that urban areas have temperatures that are warmer than surrounding rural areas. Studies conducted have shown that areas near parks are cooler than the surrounding urban areas. The State Legislature enacted the Quimby Act of 1975 to give local agencies a means for providing parks and adequate open space. The Quimby Act standard for open space acreage for recreational purposes is between 3-5 acres per 1,000 residents. Revenues are received through in-lieu fees paid by developers or parkland dedication. Quimby funds are used for the acquisition of new parks, rehabilitation of existing parks, and parks/recreation capital improvement projects. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) standard for open space is 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Parkland ratio for FY 04-05 was calculated for each City based on total park acres (total of local, school, and county parks), as provided by the City, and California Department of Finance population data. Burbank has the greatest amount of park space per capita. Los Angeles meets the recommended Quimby Act standard. The remaining cities in the MSR area fall below the recommended NRPA and Quimby Act standards for providing park space. Most of the cities within the MSR area are built-out, with limited opportunity for acquisition of parkland. Inadequate park space is mainly due to the lack of available land. Residents in some communities also have adjacent National, State, and County Parks available. Table 7-11: Park Acres per 1,000 Residents PARK ACRES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS The most parkland within the MSR area is available Beverly Hills 2 acres to residents of Burbank and Culver City; each Burbank 3 acres provides 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, Culver City 3 acres thereby meeting the Quimby standard. All other Glendale 1.4 acres cities in the MSR area were below the Quimby Los Angeles 2 acres standard. None of the cities meet the NRPA San Fernando 1.4 acres recommended parkland acreage. San Fernando, Santa Monica 1.4 acres Santa Monica and West Hollywood provided the West Hollywood 0.4 acres least amount of parkland for residents. Land availability was scarcest in San Fernando and West Hollywood. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is the world’s largest urban national park, and spans 153,075 acres. The recreation area extends 46 miles from the Hollywood Bowl to Point Mugu in Ventura County, along the coast from the Santa Monica Pier, beyond the City of Malibu. Sections of the recreation area are adjacent to the Cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills. 181 STATE PARK SERVICE Will Rogers State Beach Will Rogers State Beach, operated by Los Angeles County, is located at 17700 Pacific Coast Highway and Temescal Canyon Road, in Pacific Palisades. The beach extends one and three-quarters mile along the shoreline. Will Rogers State Beach features swimming, surfing, bicycling, and volleyball courts. Topanga State Park Topanga State Park, located in the Santa Monica Mountains, comprises approximately 11,000 acres. The park is bounded by the communities of Pacific Palisades and Brentwood. The park features 36 miles of trails for hikers and equestrians. Bikes are restricted to fire roads only. Topanga State Park includes camping and picnic areas. Santa Susana Pass Historic State Park Santa Susana Pass State Park comprises 670 acres located between the Simi Hills and Santa Susana Mountains in the community of Chatsworth. The park is a day-use area that includes hiking and equestrian trails. Los Encinos State Historic Park Los Encinos State Historic Park is located at 16756 Moorpark Street in Encino. On the property stands an early California rancho style home and natural springs. The park is currently open to the public but structures located on park grounds are closed for repairs following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Los Angeles State Historic Park The Los Angeles State Historic Park, formally called the Cornfield property, encompasses 32 acres. The park, rich in cultural history is a place of significance associated with early California. The park is currently not available for public use. Issues are pending regarding planning and facility development. The park is located in the surrounding areas of Lincoln Heights, Elysian Park, Solano Canyon, Chinatown, Chavez Ravine, and the William Mead Homes. The park is bounded by industrial land use. The Los Angeles State Historic Park will provide valuable parkland within the City’s core by promoting green open-space and recreational land use. Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area, operated by Los Angeles County, is a day-use park located at 4100 South La Cienega Boulevard in Baldwin Hills. Recreation activities include playgrounds, a fishing lake, and a community center. Also included are a baseball diamond, basketball and volleyball courts, and a multi-purpose field. Dockweiler State Beach Dockweiler State Beach, operated by the County of Los Angeles, is located at 12000 Vista del Mar in the community of Playa del Rey. The beach features a three mile long shoreline beneath the takeoff pathway of the Los Angeles International Airport. The beach includes a picnic area and concession stand. 182 Verdugo Mountains State Park The Verdugo Mountains State Park is an urban open-space wilderness that encompasses approximately 251 acres surrounded by the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale. Recreational activities include hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails. Santa Monica State Beach Santa Monica State Beach, operated by the City of Santa Monica, is located along Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica. The two mile long beach has picnic areas, shops, and a pier. Recreation activities include basketball and volleyball courts. BEVERLY HILLS Beverly Hills has 76.7 acres of parkland. The City has 12 local parks and 3 recreational facilities and is in the process of constructing a new community center located on Foothill Road. Beverly Hills has a total parkland ratio of 2.1 acres per 1,000 residents, below the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City is built-out with no additional parkland available. The City’s park buildings are in need of renovation due to age and deterioration, and are funded for improvements by FY 09-10. A new community center is under construction on Foothill Road, between Alden Drive and Third Street. The new facility will span 2.5 acres and includes indoor and outdoor recreational activities, a dance studio, pool, and fitness center. The City is providing maintenance and renovation of park athletic fields through grant funding. Table 7-12: Beverly Hills Park and Recreational Facilities Beverly Hills Park Facilities Name Location Arnaz Mini Park 151 North Arnaz Dr. Beverly Gardens Park Santa Monica & Wilshire Blvd. Coldwater Canyon Park 1100 North Beverly Dr. Crescent Dr. Mini Park 154 North Crescent Dr. Greystone Park 905 Loma Vista Dr. Hamel Mini Park 214 South Hamel Dr. Maltz Park 9800 Sunset Blvd. Oakhurst Mini Park 120 South Oakhurst Dr. Reeves Mini Park 125 South Reeves Dr. Rexford Mini Park 362 North Rexford Dr. Roxbury Park 471 S. Roxbury Dr. Will Rogers Memorial Park 9650 Sunset Blvd. Beverly Hills Recreational Facilities Greystone Mansion 905 Loma Vista Dr. La Cienega Community Ctr., Park & Tennis Ctr, 8400 Gregory Way Roxbury Park Community Ctr., Park & Clubhouse 471 S. Roxbury Dr. 183 BURBANK Burbank has 2,578 acres of parkland, with 19 local parks and 10 recreational facilities. The City provides 24.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, well above the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City contains a large portion of undeveloped land located on mountainous terrain, therefore additional parkland is available. The Verdugo Mountains is a 9,000-acre reserve, of which 2,257 acres are located within the City, thereby providing additional parkland. DeBell Golf Course is in need of a new clubhouse, expansion and renovation of the driving range, and additional parking. The project is fully funded. There are plans for a new community services building to house the Park and Recreation Department and a new one acre park and recreation center in the South San Fernando Project Area. The park project is fully funded. Funding has been identified for the new community services building estimated to cost $38.1 million, although the project is currently not fully funded. Table 7-13: Burbank Park and Recreational Facilities Burbank Park Facilities Name Location Abraham Lincoln Park 300 N. Buena Vista Bel Aire Park 1750 N. Bel Aire Dr. Brace Canyon Park 2901 Haven Way Compass Tree Park 601 S. Lake St. Earthwalk Park 1922 Grismer Ave. George Izay Park 1111 W. Olive Ave. Johnny Carson Park 400 Bob Hope Dr. McCambridge Park 1515 N. Glenoaks Blvd. Miller Park 720 E. Providencia Ave. Mountain View Park 751 S. Griffith Park Dr. Pacific Park 3715 W. Pacific Ave. Palm Park 1125 E. Orange Grove Ave. Ralph Foy Park 3211 W. Victory Blvd. Robert E. Gross Park 2800 E. Empire Ave. Rober E. Lundigan Park 2701 Thorton Ave. Strough Canyon Park 1335 Lockheed View Dr. Verdugo Park 3201 W. Verdugo Ave. Vickroy Park 2300 W. Monterey Pl. Whitnall Highway Park North 1302 N. Whitnall Hwy. Whitnall Highway Park South 610 N. Whitnall Hwy. Wildwood Canyon Park 1701 Wildwood Cyn. Rd. Recreational Facilities Burbank Center Stage 555 N. 3rd. St. Burbank Tennis Center 1515 W. Glenoaks Blvd. Creative Arts Center 1100 W. Olive Ave. Debell Golf Course 1500 E. Walnut Ave. Maple Street Playground 3820 W. Jeffries Ave. McCambridge Recreation Center 1515 N. Glenoaks Blvd. Olive Recreation Center 1111 W. Olive Ave. Santa Anita Playlot 250 W. Santa Anita Ave. Strough Canyon Nature Center Walnut Ave. Starlight Bowl 1249 Lockheed View Dr. Tuttle Senior Adult Center 1731 N. Ontario St. Verdugo Recreation Center 3201 W. Verdugo Ave. Valley Park Skate Park 1625 N. Valley St. 184 CULVER CITY Culver City has 100.7 acres of parkland, with 10 local parks and three recreational facilities. The City’s parkland ratio is 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, below the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City has a number of improvement and rehabilitation projects currently scheduled or completed: Blair Hills Playground, Carlson Park, El Marino Playground, Tellefson Park, Culver City Skate Park, and Culver City Teen Center. Culver City Park Little League fields are in need of rehabilitation. A new recreation facility and sports facility is needed. The latter is fully funded by grants. Recreation facilities at Lindberg Park require rehabilitation. Culver City is built-out with no additional parkland available. Table 7-14: Culver City Park and Recreational Facilities Culver City Park& Recreational Facilities Name Location Blair Hills Park 5950 Wrightcrest Dr. Blanco Park 5801 Sawtelle Carlson Park Braddock Dr. & Motor Ave. Culver City Skateboard Park Duquesne & Jefferson Culver West Park 4162 Wade Ave. Don Rogers' Senior Center 4095 Overland Ave. El Marino Park 5301 Berryman Ave Fox Hills Park Green Valley Circle & Buckingham Pkwy. Lingberg Park 5041 Rhoda Way Paddle Tennis Park Coombs Ave. Syd Kronenthal Park 3459 McManus Ave. Tellefson Park Washington Place & Tilden Ave. Veteran's Park 4117 Overland Ave. 185 GLENDALE Glendale has 284 acres of parkland, with 26 local parks and 10 recreational facilities. The City provides 1.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The parkland ratio is below the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City of Glendale has a deficit of approximately 800 acres of developed local parkland108. The City is essentially built-out. To meet current recreation needs, the city has a joint use agreement for shared public school sites with the Glendale Unified School District. The City of Glendale 2005-2006 Park, Recreation & Community Services goals include restroom facility replacement and renovation for the following parks: Carr, Pelanconi, Glorietta, New York, Nibley, Verdugo, and Brand. The City sited improvements and renovation of play enclosures, picnic areas, restrooms, security, and lighting of school park grounds at Cerritos, Fremont, and Franklin schools. A site study is currently being conducted for a new aquatics center. Park upgrades and maintenance are funded annually. Table 7-15: Glendale Park and Recreational Facilities Glendale Park Facilities Name Location Carr Park 1615 E. Colorado Blvd. Elk Mini Park 800 E. Elk Ave. Maple Park 820 E. Maple Ave. Nibley Park 1103 E. Mountain Palmer Park 610 E. Palmer Ave. Piedmont Park 1145 E. Lexington Dr. Wilson Ave. Mini Park 1101 E. Wilson Ave. Windsor Mini Park 1300 E. Windsor Catalina Verdugo Adobe 2211 Bonita Dr. Glorietta Park 2801 N. Verdugo Rd. Deukmejian Wilderness Park/Le Mesnager Barn 3429 Markridge Rd., La Crescenta Mayor's Bicentennial Park 1987 Loma Vista Montrose Community Park 3529 Clifton Pl. Oakmont View Park 2940 Oakmont View Dr. Emerald Isle Park 2310 Lenore Dr. Glenoaks Park 2531 E. Glenoaks Blvd. Lower Scholl Canyon Park 2849 E. Glenoaks Blvd. Brand Park 1601 West Mountain St. Casa Adobe De San Rafael & Park 1330 Dorothy Dr. Fremont Park 600 Hahn Griffith Manor Park 1551 Flower St. Harvard Mini Park 425 W. Harvard Milford Mini Park 601 W. Milford Pelanconi Park 1000 Grandview Ave. Dunsmore Park 4700 Dunsmore Ave. 108 City of Glendale, Recreation Element 1996. 186 Glendale Park Facilities Name Location New York Park 4525 New York Ave., La Crescenta Glendale Recreational Facilities Chess Park 227 North Brand Blvd. Verdugo Skate Park 1621 Canada Blvd. Adult Recreation Center 201 East Colorado Pacific Community Center 501 S. Pacific Ave. Sports Complex 2200 Fern Lane Stengel Ballfield 1601 Canada Blvd. Sparr Heights Community Center 1613 Glencoe Way Maple Park Community Center 820 E. Maple Ave. Civic Auditorium 1401 N. Verdugo Rd. Babe Herman Little League Field 1726 Canada Blvd. 187 LOS ANGELES Los Angeles has 15,712 acres of parkland, with 247 local parks and 225 recreational facilities. The City’s parkland ratio is 4 acres per 1,000 residents, which meets the recommended Quimby standard but is below the NRPA standard. Griffith Park, the largest municipal park in the United States, encompasses over 4,210 acres of natural terrain, landscaped parkland, and picnic areas. Situated within the park grounds is an observatory and amphitheater. As a requirement of the Quimby Act, developers are required to pay in-lieu funds or set aside land for park and recreational facilities within, or in the immediate vicinity of, new subdivisions. However, given the fact that development of new subdivisions occur mostly in outlying areas of the city, the older developed core areas receive less Quimby funds. Voters in Los Angeles approved Proposition K in 1996, a park assessment to fund needed parks and recreational facilities for a period of 30 years. The University of Southern California, Sustainable Cities Program, conducted a study of Los Angeles city parks, entitled “Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: an Equity Mapping Analysis.” It found that the distribution of park space was lower in low income and poverty concentrated areas and that Prop K funds were not allocated to areas that had the most need. Areas receiving the least funding were the San Fernando Valley, South Central, East Los Angeles, and Harbor Gateway/San Pedro Districts. The study also states that the majority of funding was allocated for existing parks. The Sepulveda Basin is in need of park space development, which will be funded through the parks and recreation assessment district. The Ardmore Recreation Center requires expansion of the gym and other modifications. As of November 16, 2005, the city’s Recreational and Cultural Facilities Program (RCFP) awarded five new park construction projects, representing $13.4 million in construction contracts. The City is mostly built-out. An option of acquiring future parkland is through infill development. Table 7-16: Los Angeles Park and Recreational Facilities Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location 6th and Gladys Park 6th and Gladys St. 48th St. and 8th Ave. Park 2929 W. 48th St. 48th St. Park 4800 S. Hoover 113th St. Park 1607 E. 113th St. East of Reseda between Sesnon & Rinaldi, Aliso Canyon Park Northridge Alizondo Park Mulholland & Alizondo, Woodland Hills Alma Park 21st and Meyler, San Pedro Alvarez (Henry) Memorial Park 2830 Lancaster Angels Gate Park 3601 Gaffey St., San Pedro Ardmore Recreation Ctr. 3250 San Marino St. Armand Hammer 601 Clubview Dr. Arroyo Seco Park 5568 Via Marisol 188 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Averill Park 1300 Dodson Ave., San Pedro Balboa Park 6300 Balboa Blvd., Van Nuys Bandini Canyon Park O'farrell and Bandini, San Pedro Barnsdall Art Park 4800 Hollywood Blvd. Bee Canyon Park 13150 Sesnon Blvd., Granada Hills North of West Hills Recreation Ctr., Canoga Bell Canyon Park Park Beverly Glen Park Angelo Dr. & Baywood St., Bel Aire Beverwil Mini Park 2599 Beverwil Dr. Bird Sanctuary 2900 N. Vermont Ave. Bishop Canyon 929 Academy Rd. Blythe St. Park 14740 Blythe St., Panorama City Bond Area Los Feliz Blvd. 15174 San Fernando Mission Rd., Mission Brand Park Hills Branford Park 13310 Branford St., Pacoima Briarwood Park 461 Almaden Court, Bel Aire Bronson Canyon 3200 Canyon Dr., Hollywood Browns Creek Park Browns Canyon Rd., Chatsworth Budd Wiener/Monterey Hills Park Via Marisol and Arbolada Buena Vista Meadow Picnic Area Meadow Rd (East Side of Dodger Stadium) Burns (Robert L.) Park 4900 Beverly Blvd. Canal Park Linnie Canal and Venice, Venice Laurel Canyon Blvd. & Aztec St., Mission Carey Ranch Hills Carthay Circle Park McCarthy Vista & Wilshire Blvd. Castle Peak Park 24220 1/2 Clarington Cedar Grove Vista Del Valle Central Ave. Pocket Park Central Ave. & 42nd Ave. Ceta Forest 5201 Zoo Dr. Chase Park 22525 Chase St., Canoga Park Chatsworth Oaks Park 9301 Valley Circle Blvd., Chatsworth Chatsworth Park North 22300 Chatsworth St., Chatsworth Chatsworth Park South 22360 Devonshire St., Chatsworth Chavez Ravine Arboretum West Side of Stadium Way Chesterfield Square Park 1950 W. 54th St. Cheviot Hills Park 2251 Motor Ave. Chevy Chase Park 4165 Chevy Chase Dr. Circle Park 76th St. at 5th Ave. Circle Park 76th St. at Gramercy City Hall Park Ctr. 200 N. Main St. 189 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Cleland Ave. Bicentennial Park 4800 Cleland Ave. Cohasset-Melba Park Cohasset St and Melba Ave., West Hills Coldwater Canyon Park 12601 Mulholland Dr. Crestwood Hills Park 1000 Hanley Ave. Crystal Springs 4730 Crystal Springs Dr. Culver/Slauson Park 5070 Slauson Ave. Curtis Roland Park 1287 W. 38th Place Cypress Park 2630 Pepper Ave. De Garmo Park Arminta St. & Golden State Fwy. De Longpre Park 1350 N. Cherokee Ave. De Neve Square Park 314 Beverly Glen Dearborn Park 17141 Nordhoff St., Northridge Debs (Ernest E.) Regional Park Griffin Ave. at Ave. 43 Del Rey Lagoon 6660 Esplanade Place, Playa Del Rey Delano Park 15100 Erwin St., Van Nuys Devonshire/Arleta Park Arleta Ave. & Devonshire St., Pacoima Devonwood Park 10230 Woodman Ave. North of Ventura Fwy; Ely Valle Vista, Eagle Rock Hillside Park Eagle Rock East L.A. Park 2500 N. Eastlake Ave. East Wilmington Greenbelt Park M St. to Sanford along Drumm, Wilmington East Wilmington Vest Pocket Park 1300 "O" St., Wilmington Echo Park 1632 Bellevue Ave. Eddleston Park 11820 Reseda Blvd., Reseda El Paseo Cahuenga Park 3300 Cahuenga Blvd. El Sereno North Park 4410 Garden Homes Ave. Elysian Park 835 Academy Rd. Encino Park 16953 Ventura Blvd., Encino Erwin Park Everett St. and Ethel Ave., Van Nuys Everett St., one block North of Sunset, Everett Park Echo Park Father Serra Park 125 Paseo De La Plaza Fehlhaber-Houk Park 9521 Tujunga Canyon Blvd., Tujunga Field of Dreams Gaffey and Westmont, San Pedro Finn (Howard) Park 7747 Foothill Blvd., Sunland Four Oaks Park Foothill Blvd. & Machrea St., Tujunga Garvanza Park Ave. 63 & Meridian St. Genesee Ave. Park 2330 S. Genesse Gibson (John S., Jr.) Park Harbor Blvd. between 5th./6th. Genesta Park 16953 Ventura Blvd., Encino 190 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Glassell Park 3650 Verdugo Rd. Glen-Alla Park 4601 Alla Rd. Glenhurst Park 2932 Glenhurst Grape St. Pocket Park 10726 S. Grape St. Greayers Oak Mini Park Figueroa & Marmion Way Griffith Park 4730 Crystal Springs Dr. South Terminus Haines Canyon Ave., Haines Canyon Park Tujunga Harbor City Park 24901 Frampton Ave., Harbor City Harbor Highlands Park 825 Capitol Dr., San Pedro Harold A. Henry Park 890 Lucerne Ave. Hart (William S.) Park 8341 De Longpre Ave. Hartland Mini Park Hartland/Woodman, Van Nuys Hazard Park 2230 Norfolk St. South of Ave. 60 & East of Arroyo Seco Hermon Park Wash Hillhurst Pkwy. Hillhurst Ave. between Los Feliz & Franklin Hollenbeck Park 415 S. St. Louis St. Holmby Park 601 Clubview Dr. Hoover-Gage Park Hoover-Gage Park Hope and Peace Pocket Park 843 S. Bonnie Brae St. Houston (Norman O.) Park 4800 S. La Brea Howard Finn Park 7747 Foothill Blvd., Sunland Humphrey (Hubert H.) Memorial Park 12560 Fillmore St. Irving Schachter 2599 Beverwil Dr. Jessie Owens Mini Park 7100 White Oak, Reseda Jessup (Roger) Park 12467 W. Osborne, Pacoima Joan Milke Flores Park 3601 S. Gaffey St., San Pedro Juntos Park 3135 Drew St. Kagel Canyon Park 11435 Kagel Canyon St. Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park 25820 S. Vermont Ave., Harbor City King (Martin Luther, Jr.) Mini Park 416 E. Martin Luther King Blvd. King (Martin Luther, Jr.) Park Lanark St. & Shelby Pl. Kittridge Mini Park Kittridge & Greenbush, Van Nuys Knapp Ranch Park 25000 Kittridge, West Hills Wooded Vista & Twisted Oak Dr., Canoga Knapp Ranch Park West Park L.A. High Memorial Park 3934 Western Ave. Lacy St. Neighborhood Park Ave. 26 & Lacey St. Lake Hollywood Park 3160 Canyon Dr. Lake St. Park 227 N. Lake St. 191 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Lanark/Shelby Mini Park Lanark St. & Shelby Pl. Lani Vest Pocket Park 1st St. and Chicago St. Latham Park Latham & 53rd St. Laurel Canyon Park 8260 Mulholland Dr. Lazy J. Ranch Park Ingomar Valley Circle Leimert Park 4395 Leimert Blvd. Leland Park 863 S. Herbert Ave., San Pedro Lexington Pocket Park 5523 Lexington Ave., Hollywood Libbit Park 5101 Libbit Ave., Encino Lilac Terrance Park 835 Academy Rd. Limeklin Park 10300 Limeklin Canyon Rd., Northridge Lincoln Park 3501 Valley Blvd. Little Green Acres Park 104th Place & Vermont Little Landers Park 10116 Commerce Ave., Tujunga Lookout Point Park Gaffey St. and 36th St., San Pedro Los Angeles Plaza Park 125 Paseo De La Plaza Louise Park 7140 Louise Ave., Van Nuys Mae Boyer Park 23936 Highlander Rd., Canoga Park Macarthur Park 2230 W. 6th St. Mandeville Canyon Park End of Westridge Rd. Macott Park Macott St & Pickford St. Mason Park 10500 Mason Ave., Chatsworth McGroarty Park 7570 McGroarty Terrance, Tujunga Media Park Culver Blvd. & Venice Blvd. 15174 San Fernando Mission Rd., Mission Mission Park Hills On Stadium between Scott Rd. & Academy Montecillo De Leo Politi Park Rd. West of Tampa Ave. & South of Sesnon, Moonshine Canyon Park Northridge Moorpark Park 12061 Moorpark St. Mount Carmel Park 830 W. 70th St. North Atwater Park 3900 W. Chevy Chase Dr. North Hills Comm. Park 8756 Parthenia Place, North Hills O'Melveny Park 17300 Sesnon Blvd., Granada Hills Occidental St. between 6th St. and Beverly Occidental Pkwy. Blvd. Palisades Park 851 Alma Real Dr., Pacific Palisades Palms Park 2950 Overland Ave. Pan Pacific Park 7600 Beverly Blvd. Park Ctr. 4730 Crystal Springs Dr. Parthenia Park 21444 Parthenia St., Canoga Park 192 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Pasko Park McGroarty Ter., Tujunga Paxton Park 10731 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Pacoima 560 N. Western Ave., Rancho Palos Peck Park Verdes Pershing Square Park 532 S. Olive St. Pico Union Vest Pocket Park 1827 S. Hoover St. Point Fermin Park 807 Paseo Del Mar, San Pedro Porter Ridge Park Reseda Blvd. & Sesnon Blvd., Northridge Potrero Canyon Park PCH opposite of Will Rogers State Beach Prospect Park Echandia & Judson St. Quimby (John) Park 7008 Desoto Ave., Canoga Park Ramona Gardens Park 2800 Fowler St. Rena Park 510 Leland Ave., San Pedro Reseda Park 18411 Victory Blvd., Reseda Reynier Park 2803 Reynier Ave. Richard Alatorre Park Figueroa & 134 Fwy. Richardson Family Park 2700 Budlong Ave. Ritchie Valens Park 10731 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Pacoima Easterly Terminus of Oracle Pl., Pacific Rivas Canyon Park Palisades Roscoe/Valley Circle Park Valley Circle Roscoe Blvd. Rose Hill Park 3606 N. Boundary Runnymede Park 20200 Runnymede St., Winnetka Runyon Canyon Park 2000 N. Fuller Ave. Rustic Canyon Park Rustic Canyon Rd., Pacific Palisades San Pascual Park 5668 Via Marisol San Pedro Plaza Park 700 S. Beacon St., San Pedro San Vicente Mountain Park 17500 Mulholland Dr. Palisades Dr. & De Santa Ynez, Pacific Santa Ynez Canyon Park Palisades Second Ave Park 2413 Second Ave. Seoul International Park 3250 San Marino St. Sepulveda Basin Dog Park 17550 Victory Blvd., Encino Sepulveda Park West 8756 Parthenia Place, North Hills Serrania Ave. Park 20864 Wells Dr., Woodland Hills Shadow Ranch Park 22633 Vanowen St., West Hills Shaw (Leslie N.) Park 2250 W. Jefferson Silverlake Dog Park 1850 W. Silver Lake St. On Whitsett Ave., south of Strathern St., Slavin (Jaime Beth) Park Sun Valley Smith (Dorothy & Benjamin) Park 7020 Franklin Ave. 193 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location South Park 345 E. 51st St. St. James Park Adams Blvd. & Severance St. Stetson Ranch Park 13877 Glenoaks Blvd., Sylmar Topanga Canyon Blvd., between Stoney Point Park Chatsworth St. & 118 Fwy., Chatsworth Strathern Park North Strathern & Whitsett, North Hollywood Strathern Park West 12541 Saticoy, North Hollywood Studio City Mini Park 12505 Moorpark St. & Whitsett Ave. Sullivan Canyon Park Sullivan Canyon Sun Valley Park 8133 Vineland Ave., Sun Valley Sycamore Grove Park 4702 N. Figueroa Sylmar Park 13109 Borden Ave. Taxco Trails Park 23367 Ingomar St., West Hills Temescal Canyon Park 15900 PCH Hwy. Terrace Park Malvern Ave. & Alvarado Terrace The Augustus F. Hawkins Natural Park 5790 Compton Ave. 415 Culver Blvd. & Nicholson St./Pershing Titmouse Park Dr., Playa Del Rey Triangle Park Oxford Ave. & Marr St., Venice Valley Circle/Hillhurst Dr. Park 24220 1/2 Clarington Valley Glen Comm. Park Erwin St. & Ethel Ave., Van Nuys Valley Plaza Parks 12240 Archwood St., North Hollywood 170 Fwy. & Burbank/Chandler, North Valley Village Park Hollywood Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park 14201 Huston St., Van Nuys Vanalden Park 8956 Vanalden, Northridge East of Sunland, south of La Tuna Canyon Verdugo Mountain Park Rd. Victory/Vineland Park 11100 Victory Blvd. Viking Park Viking and Nau, Northridge Villa Cabrini Park 9401 Villa Cabrini Dr. West Century & Vista Del Mar Blvd., Playa Del Vista Del Mar Park Rey Warner Ctr. Park 21820 Califa Ave., Woodland Hills 5800 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Woodland Warner Ranch Park Hills Washington Irving Pocket Park 4103 W. Washington Blvd. Wattles Garden Park 1850 N. Curson Ave. Weddington Park (North) 10844 Acama Dr. Weddington Park (South) 10800 Valley Heart Dr. West Valley Park 6731 Wilbur Ave., Reseda Westside Neighborhood Park 3085 Clyde Ave. White Point Park Paseo Del Mar & Western Ave., San Pedro 194 Los Angeles Park Facilities Name Location Whitsett Fields Park Whitsett & Vanowen, North Hollywood Wilacre Park 12601 Mulholland Dr., Studio City Wilbur-Tampa Park 12001 Wilbur Ave., Northridge Wilder's Addition 607 Paseo Del Mar, San Pedro Woodbine Park 3409 Vinton Ave. Woodbridge Park 11240 Moorpark St. Woodley Ave. Park Woodley Ave. & Victory Blvd., Van Nuys Yucca Park 6671 Yucca St. Zelzah Park 11690 Zelzah Ave., Granada Hills Los Angeles Recreational Facilities 109th St. Recreation Ctr. 1464 E. 109th St. Algin Sutton Recreation Ctr. 8800 S. Hoover St. Aliso Pico Recreation Ctr. 370 S. Clarence St. Alpine Recreation Ctr. 817 Yale St. Angels Gate Recreation Ctr. 3701 S. Gaffey St., San Pedro Ardmore Recreation Ctr. 3250 San Marino St. Balboa Sports Complex 17015 Burbank Blvd., Encino Baldwin Hills Recreation Ctr. 5401 Highlight Place Banning Recreation Ctr. 1331 Eubank St., Wilmington Barnsdall Art Park Recreation Ctr. 4800 Hollywood Blvd. Barrington Recreation Ctr. 333 S. Barrington Ave. Barry White 345 E. 51st St. Beeman Park 12621 Rye St., Studio City Bellevue Recreation Ctr. 826 Lucile Ave. Bernardi Ctr. 6514 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys Bogdanovich (Martin J.) Recreation Ctr. 1920 Cumbre Dr., San Pedro Boyle Heights Sports Ctr. 933 S. Mott St. Branford Recreation Ctr. 13310 Branford St., Arleta Carlin G. Smith Recreation Ctr. 511 W. Ave 46 Central Park Recreation Ctr. 1357 E. 22nd St. Chatsworth Recreation Ctr. 22360 Devonshire St., Chatsworth Cheviot Hills Recreation Ctr. 2551 Motor Ave. Chevy Chase Recreation Ctr. 4165 Chevy Chase Dr. Costello Recreation Ctr. 3141 E. Olympic Blvd. Crestwood Hills Recreation Ctr. 1000 Hanley Ave. Culver-Slauson Recreation Ctr. 5070 Slauson Ave., Culver City Cypress Recreation Ctr. 2630 Pepper Ave. Daniels Field 845 West 12th St., San Pedro Dave Potell Memorial Sports Facility 11455 Magnolia Blvd., North Hollywood 195 Los Angeles Recreational Facilities Name Location Delano Recreation Ctr. 15100 Erwin St., Van Nuys Denker Recreation Ctr. 1550 W. 35th Pl. Devonshire House 18300 Lemarsh St., Northridge Downey Recreation Ctr. 1772 N. Spring St. Eagle Rock Recreation Ctr. 1100 Eagle Vista Dr. Echo Park Recreation Ctr. 1632 Bellevue Ave. El Sereno Recreation Ctr. 4721 Klamath St. Elysian Park Therapeutic Recreation Ctr. 929 Academy Rd. Elysian Valley Recreation Ctr. 1811 Ripple St. Encino Comm. Ctr. 4935 Balboa Blvd., Encino Evergreen Recreation Ctr. 2844 E. 2nd St. Exposition Park Intergenerational Comm. Ctr. 3980 S. Menlo Ave. Felicia Mahood Multipurpose Ctr. 11338 Santa Monica Blvd. Fernangeles Recreation Ctr. 8851 Laurel Canyon, Sun Valley Fred Roberts Recreation Ctr. 4700 Honduras Frenso Park Recreation Ctr. 1016 S. Fresno St. Garcia (Msgr. Ramon) Recreation Ctr. 1016 S. Fresno St. Gilbert Lindsay Comm. Ctr. 429 E. 42nd Place Glasell Park Recreation Ctr. 3650 Verdugo Rd. Gonzales (David M.) Recreation Ctr. 10943 Herrick Ave., Pacoima Granada Hills Recreation Ctr. 16730 Chatsworth St., Granada Hills Green Meadows Recreation Ctr. 431 E. 89th St. Griffith Park Recreation Ctr. 3401 Riverside Dr. Hansen Dam Recreation Ctr. 11770 Foothill Blvd., Lake View Terrace Harbor City Recreation Ctr. 24901 Frampton Ave., Harbor City Harbor Sports Ctr. 1221 N. Figueroa Place, Wilmington Harvard Recreation Ctr. 1535 W. 62nd St. Hazard Recreation Ctr. 2230 Norfolk St. Highland Park Recreation Ctr. 6150 Piedmont Ave. Hjelte Sports Ctr. 16200 Burbank Blvd., Encino Hollenbeck Recreation Ctr. 415 S. St. Louis St. Hollywood Recreation Ctr. 1122 Cole Ave. Hoover Recreation Ctr. 1010 W. 25th St. Hubert H. Humphrey Recreation Ctr. 12560 Filmore St., Pacoima Imperial Courts Recreation Ctr. 2250 E. 114th St. Jim Gillam Recreation Ctr. 4000 S. La Brea Ave. Jordan Downs Recreation Ctr. 9900 Grape St. LACES 5931 West 18th St. 196 Los Angeles Recreational Facilities Name Location Lafayette Multipurpose Comm. Ctr. 625 S. Lafayette Park Pl. Lake Street Comm. Ctr. 227 N. Lake St. Lakeview Terrance Recreation Ctr. 11075 Foothill Blvd., Lake View Terrace Lanark Recreation Ctr. 21816 Lanark St., Canoga Park Leland Recreation Ctr. 863 S. Herbert Ave., San Pedro Lemon Grove Recreation Ctr. 4959 Lemon Grove Lincoln Heights Recreation Ctr. 2303 Workman St. Lincoln Park Recreation Ctr. 3501 Valley Blvd. Loren Miller Recreation Ctr. 2717 Halldale Ave. Los Angeles Youth Athletic Club 401 N. Ave 19 Lou Costello Recreation Ctr. 3141 E. Olympic Blvd. MacArthur Gen. Douglas Park Rec. Ctr. 2230 W. 6th St. Mar Vista Gardens Recreation Ctr. 4901 Marionwood Dr., Culver City Mar Vista Recreation Ctr. 11430 Woodbine Ave. Mark Taper Intergenerational Ctr. 17400 Victory Blvd., Van Nuys Martin Luther King Jr. Therapeutic Rec. Ctr. 3916 S. Western Ave., Chatsworth Mason Recreation Ctr. 10500 Mason Ave., Chatsworth Montecito Heights Recreation Ctr. 4545 Homer St. Mount Carmel Recreation Ctr. 830 W. 70th St. Normandale Recreation Ctr. 22400 S. Halldale, Torrance Normandie Recreation Ctr. 1550 S. Normandie Ave. North East Valley Multipurpose Ctr. Glenoaks & Van Nuys Blvd., Chatsworth North Hills Comm. Park 8756 Parthenia Place, North Hills North Hollywood Recreation Ctr. 5301 Tujunga Ave., North Hollywood North Weddington Recreation Ctr. 10844 Acama St., North Hollywood Northridge Recreation Ctr. 18300 Lemarsh St., Northridge Oakwood Recreation Ctr. 767 California Ave., Venice Orcutt Ranch 23600 Roscoe Blvd., West Hills Pacoima Recreation Ctr. 10943 Herrick Ave., Pacoima Palisades Recreation Ctr. 851 Alma Real Dr., Pacific Palisades Palms Recreation Ctr. 2950 Overland Ave. Pan Pacific Recreation Ctr. 7600 Beverly Blvd. Panorama Recreation Ctr. 8600 Hazeltine Ave., Panorama City Pecan Recreation Ctr. 127 S. Pecan St. Peck Park Comm. Ctr. 560 N. Western Ave., San Pedro Penmar Recreation Ctr. 1341 Lake St., Venice Petit Park 16730 Chatsworth St., Granada Hills Poinsettia Recreation Ctr. 7341 Willoughby Ave. 197 Los Angeles Recreational Facilities Name Location Pueblo Del Rio Recreation Ctr. 5350 Alba St. Queen Anne Recreation Ctr. 1240 West Blvd. Ramona Gardens Recreation Ctr. 2830 Lancaster Ave. Ramona Hall Comm. Ctr. 4580 N. Figueroa St. Rancho Cienga Sport Complex Ctr. 5001 Rodeo Rd. Rancho San Pedro Multipurpose Ctr. 224 Palos Verdes St., San Pedro Rancho San Pedro Recreation Ctr. 275 W. 1st St., San Pedro Reseda Recreation Ctr. 18411Victory Blvd., Reseda Ritchie Valens Recreation Ctr. 10731 Laurel Canyon Rd., Pacoima Robertson Recreation Ctr. 1641 Preuss Rd. Roger Jessup Recreation Ctr. 12467 Osborne St., Pacoima Rose Hill Recreation Ctr. 4530 Mercury Ave. Rosecrans Recreation Ctr. 840 W. 149th St., Gardena Ross Snyder Recreation Ctr. 1501 E. 41st St. Rustic Canyon Recreation Ctr. 601 Latimer Rd., Pacific Palisades San Pedro Park 1920 Cumbre Dr., San Pedro Seoul International Park 3250 San Marino St. Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area 17017 Burbank Blvd., Encino Sepulveda Park West 8756 Parthenia Place, North Hills Sepulveda Recreation Ctr. 8801 Kester Ave., Panorama City Shadow Rancho Recreation Ctr. 22633 Vanowen St., Canoga Park Shatto Recreation Ctr. 3191 W. 4th St. Shoup Park 5858 Shoup Ave., Woodland Hills Silverlake Recreation Ctr. 1850 W. Silverlake Dr. Slauson Multipurpose Ctr. 5306 S. Compton South Park Recreation Ctr. 345 E. 51st St. St. Andrews Recreation Ctr. 8701 St. Andrews Place State Street Recreation Ctr. 716 N. State St. Stonehurst Recreation Ctr. 9901 Dronfield St., Sun Valley Stoner Recreation Ctr. 1835 Stoner Ave. Studio City Recreation Ctr. 12621 Rye St., Studio City Sun Valley Recreation Ctr. 8133 Vineland Ave., Sun Valley Sunland Recreation Ctr. 8651 Foothill Blvd., Sunland Sylmar Recreation Ctr. 13109 Borden, Sylmar Tarzana Recreation Ctr. 5655 Vanalden Ave., Tarzana Toberman Recreation Ctr. 1725 Toberman St. Trinity Recreation Ctr. 2415 Trinity St. Valley Plaza Recreation Ctr. 12240 Archwood St., North Hollywood 198 Los Angeles Recreational Facilities Name Location Valley Therapeutic Recreation Ctr. 11430 Chandler Blvd., North Hollywood Van Ness Recreation Ctr. 5720 2nd Ave. Van Nuys Multipurpose Ctr. 6514 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys Van Nuys Recreation Ctr. 14301 Vanowen St., Van Nuys Van Nuys-Sherman Oaks Recreation Ctr. 14201 Huston St., Van Nuys Venice Recreation Ctr. 1531 Ocean Front Walk, Venice Victory-Vineland Recreation Ctr. 11117 Victory Ave., North Hollywood Vineyard Recreation Ctr. 2942 Vineyard Ave. Wabash Recreation Ctr. 2765 Wabash Ave. Westchester Recreation Ctr. 7000 W. Manchester Ave. Westwood Recreation Ctr. 1350 Sepulveda William Nickerson Recreation Ctr. 11251 Compton Ave. Wilmington Recreation Ctr. 325 Neptune Ave., Wilmington Winnetka Recreation Ctr. 8401 Winnetka Ave., Winnetka Woodland Hills Recreation Ctr. 5858 Shoup Ave., Woodland Hills Yosemite Recreation Ctr. 1840 Yosemite Dr. Yucca Comm. Ctr. 6671 Yucca St. 199 SAN FERNANDO San Fernando has 23 acres of parkland, with five local parks and 19 recreational facilities. The City provides 0.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The parkland ratio is below the recommended Quimby or NRPA standard. The City is in need of developed park space and a youth center. It is in the process of constructing an aquatic center with two swimming pools, a two-story facility with classrooms and multipurpose rooms. The City is built-out with no additional parkland available. Table 7-17: San Fernando Park and Recreational Facilities San Fernando Park and Recreational Facilities Name Location Las Palmas Park 505 South Huntington St. Layne Park 1320 San Fernando Rd. Pioneer Park 828 North Harding St. Recreation Park 208 Park Ave. Skate Park 1320 San Fernando Rd. 200 SANTA MONICA Santa Monica has 108.4 acres of parkland, with 23 local parks and 13 recreational facilities. Additional parkland located in the within the city is the Santa Monica State Beach, a 245- acre park. The City’s parkland ratio is 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents, below the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City of Santa Monica is the process of completing a 15,000 square-foot park located at the 1500 block of Euclid Street. The new park is scheduled to open in spring of 2007. The City is mostly built-out with little opportunity for additional parkland. The lifeguard headquarters is in need of refurbishment. Reed Park requires facility improvements, as does the beach parking and restroom facilities. Memorial Park is in need of expansion. Table 7-18: Santa Monica Park and Recreational Facilities Park and Recreational Facilities Name Location Ashland Park Ashland, between 16th & 17th Barnard Way, between Bicknell Ave. & Barnard Way Linear Park Ocean Park Blvd. Beach Park #1 Ocean Park Blvd. & Barnard Ave. Chess Park Ocean Front Walk at Seaside Terrace Clover Park 2600 Ocean Park Blvd. Crescent Bay Park 2000 Ocean Ave. Douglas Park 2439 Wilshire Blvd. Goose Egg Park Palisades Ave., West of 7th Street Hotchkiss Park 4th & Strand Joslyn Park 633 Kensington Rd. Los Amigos Park 5th & Hollister Reed Park 1133 7th Street Marine Park 1406 Marine Street Memorial Park & Gymnasium 1401 Olympic Blvd. Ocean View Park 2701 Barnard Way Ozone Park Ozone & 7th Street Pacific Street Park 145 Pacific Street Palisades Park 1450 Ocean Ave. Park Drive Park 2415 Broadway Santa Monica Senior Recreation Center Palisades Ave.& Ocean Ave. Santa Monica Swim Center 1700 Pico Blvd. Schrader Park 1425 Cloverfield Blvd. South Beach Park Barnard Way Stewart Street Park Steward Street, South of Exposition Blvd. Santa Monica Swim Center 16th St. & Pico Blvd. The Cove-SM Skate Park 1401 Olympic Blvd. Virginia Avenue Park 2200 Virginia Ave. 201 WEST HOLLYWOOD West Hollywood has 15.92 acres of parkland, four local parks and three recreational facilities. The City provides 0.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This parkland ratio is below the recommended Quimby and NRPA standard. The City is planning renovation and development of a Plummer Park and West Hollywood Park. West Hollywood Park expansion includes a library and recreational facilities. The City is built-out with no additional parkland available. Table 7-19: West Hollywood Park and Recreational Facilities West Hollywood Park and Recreational Facilities Name Location Kings Road Park 1000 Kings Rd Plummer Park 7377 Santa Monica Blvd. Plummer Park Tennis and Paddle Courts 1200 North Vista St. West Hollywood Park 647 N. San Vicente Blvd. West Hollywood Park and Tennis Courts/Pool 647 N. San Vicente Blvd. William S. Hart Park 8341 De Longpre Ave. Community Gardens 417 Norwich Ave. 202 Libraries BEVERLY HILLS Beverly Hills has two public libraries located within the city; Beverly Hills Library and the Roxbury Park Senior Adult Library. Both facilities are owned and operated by the City of Beverly Hills. The City is planning to upgrade the Beverly Hills Library. The City is also in process conducting a facility needs analysis for the Roxbury Park Senior Adult Library. Table 7-20: Beverly Hills Library Facilities Beverly Hills Library Facilities Name Location Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Roxbury Park Senior Adult Library 401 S. Roxbury Drive BURBANK Burbank has three public libraries located within the city; Burbank Library, Buena Vista and Northwest. All three facilities are owned and operated by the City of Burbank. The City plans to expand the Northwest Branch to include a community room with adult/young adult reading. Table 7-21: Burbank Library Facilities Burbank Library Facilities Name Location Burbank Public Library 110 N. Glenoaks Blvd. Buena Vista Branch 300 N. Buena Vista Street Northwest Branch 3323 W. Victory Blvd. CULVER CITY Culver City has one library located within the city. Residents utilize the Julian Dixon Library, owned by the County and operated by the County Public Library System. Table 7-22: Culver City Library Facility Culver City Library Facility Name Location Julian Dixon Library 4975 Overland Ave. GLENDALE Glendale has six public libraries within the city; Glendale Library, Casa Verdugo, Pacific, Chevy Chase, Brand, and Grandview. The Montrose Branch Library is located in the community of Montrose serving the residents of North Glendale. All libraries are owned and operated by the City of Glendale. The City will be conducting infrastructure upgrades and enhance space utilization at the Brand Library. 203 Table 7-23: Glendale Library Facilities Glendale Library Facilities Name Location Glendale Public Library 222 E. Harvard Street Casa Verdugo Branch 1151 N. Brand Blvd. Pacific Park Branch 501 South Pacific Ave. Chevy Chase Branch 3301 E. Chevy Chase Dr. Brand Library 1601 W. Mountain Street Grandview Branch 1535 Fifth Street LOS ANGELES Los Angeles has 72 public libraries located within the city. In 1998, voters in the city approved a $210.5 to 225.9 million library bond measure for the improvement, rehabilitation, and construction of 32 branch libraries.109 City Council subsequently approved the addition of four more libraries to the program. The total funding for the library improvements is $210.5 million. As of November 2006, thirty-four of the library projects have been completed, and three others are expected to be completed by the end of 2008. Table 7-24: Los Angeles Library Facilities Los Angeles Library Facilities Name Location Central Library 630 West Fifth Street Alma Reaves Woods - Watts Branch 10205 Compton Ave. Angeles Mesa Branch 2700 W. 52nd Street Arroyo Seco Regional Branch 6145 N. Figueroa Street Ascot Branch 120 W. Florence Ave. Atwater Village Branch 3379 Glendale Blvd Baldwin Hills Branch 2906 S. La Brea Benjamin Franklin Branch 2200 E. First Street Cahuenga Branch 4591 Santa Monica Blvd. Canoga Park 7260 Owensmouth Ave. Chatsworth Express 10044 Old Depot Plaza Rd. Chinatown Branch 639 N. Hill Street Cypress Park Branch 1150 Cypress Ave. Donald Bruce Kaufman - Brentwood Branch 11820 San Vicente Blvd. Eagle Rock Branch 5027 Caspar Ave. Echo Park Library 1410 W. Temple Street El Sereno Branch 4990 Huntington Drive South Encino-Tarzana Library 18231 Ventura Blvd. Exposition Park Regional Branch 3665 S. Vermont Ave. Fairfax Express 161 S. Gardner Street Felipe de Neve Branch 2820 W. Sixth Street Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Branch 1623 Ivar Ave. Granada Hills Branch 10640 Petit Ave. Harbor Gateway-Harbor City Branch 1555 W. Sepulveda Blvd. Hyde Park Branch 6527 Crenshaw Blvd. 109 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, 1998 Library Bond Program Annual Report 2005 http://www.lapl.org/about/BondAnnRept2005.pdf 204 Los Angeles Library Facilities Name Location Jefferson Branch 2211 W. Jefferson Blvd. John C. Fremont Branch 6121 Melrose Ave. John Muir Branch 1005 W. 64th Street Junipero Serra Branch 4607 S. Main Street Lakeview Terrace 12002 Osborne Street Lincoln Heights Branch 2530 Workman Street Little Tokyo Branch 244 S. Alameda Street Los Feliz Branch 1874 Hillhurst Ave. Malabar Branch 2801 Wabash Ave. Mar Vista Branch 12006 Venice Blvd. Mark Twain Branch 9621 S. Figueroa Street Memorial Branch 4625 W. Olympic Blvd. Mid-Valley Regional Branch 16244 Nordhoff Street North Hollywood Regional Branch 5211 Tujunga Ave. Northridge Branch 9051 Darby Ave. Pacoima Branch 13605 Van Nuys Blvd. Palisades Branch 861 Alma Real Drive Palms-Rancho Park Brach 2920 Overland Ave. Panorama City Branch 14345 Roscoe Blvd. Pico Union Branch 1030 S. Alvarado Street Pio Pico-Koreatown Branch 694 S. Oxford Platt Branch 23600 Victory Blvd. Playa Vista Branch 6400 Playa Vista Drive Porter Ranch Branch 11371 Tampa Ave. R.L. Stevenson Branch 803 Spence Street Robertson Branch 1719 Robertson Blvd. San Pedro Regional Branch 931 S. Gaffey Street Sherman Oaks Branch 14245 Moorpark Street Studio City Branch 12511 Moorpark Street Sun Valley Branch 7935 Vineland Ave. Sunland-Tujunga Branch 7771 Foothill Blvd. Sylmar Branch 14430 Polk Street Valley Plaza Branch 12311 Vanowen Street Van Nuys Branch 6250 Sylmar Ave. Mall Venice Branch 501 S. Venice Blvd. Vermont Square Branch 1201 W. 48th Street Vernon Branch 4504 S. Central Ave. Washington Irving Branch 4117 W. Washington Blvd. West Los Angeles Regional Branch 11360 Santa Monica Blvd. West Valley Regional Branch 19036 Vanowen Street Westchester-Loyola Village Branch 7114 W. Manchester Ave. Will and Ariel Durant Branch 7140 W. Sunset Blvd. Wilmington Branch 1300 North Avalon Blvd. Wilshire Branch 149 N. St. Andrews Place Woodland Hills Branch 22200 Ventura Blvd. 205 SAN FERNANDO San Fernando has one library located within the city. Residents utilize the San Fernando Library, owned by the County and operated by County Public Library System. Table 7-25: Fernando Library Facility San Fernando Library Facility Name Location San Fernando Library 217 N. Maclay Ave. SANTA MONICA Santa Monica has four public libraries located within the city; Santa Monica Library, Fairview, Montana Avenue, and Ocean Park. All libraries are owned and operated by the City of Santa Monica. In January 2006, the city opened a new two-story library located at 601 Santa Monica Boulevard. Sited on the old Main Library property, the new facility has an auditorium, book store, café, and activity center. Table 7-26: Santa Monica Library Facilities Santa Monica Library Facilities Name Location Santa Monica Main Library 601 Santa Monica Blvd. Fairview Branch 2101 Ocean Park Blvd. Montana Avenue Branch 1704 Montana Ave Ocean Park Branch 2601 Main Street WEST HOLLYWOOD West Hollywood has one library located within the city. The West Hollywood Library is currently part of the County Public Library System. Located at the West Hollywood Park, the city has plans to replace the old library with a new facility. When completed, the library will be city owned and operated by the County Public Library System. Currently, a proposal is in the State legislature to float a $600 million bond. The West Hollywood Library Project will be funded through State funds and the city’s General Fund. The proposed project will include a three-story building consisting of 42,000 square feet of space. The library will also function as a community center. Table 7-27: West Hollywood Library Facility West Hollywood Library Facility Name Location West Hollywood Library 715 North Vicente Blvd. 206 Land Use This section provides a summary of the General Plan land use distribution for each city within the MSR area. Information for the City of San Fernando was not available. BEVERLY HILLS Land Use in the City of Beverly Hills is predominately low density residential, with 76.9 percent of land in the city being utilized for single-family residential uses, eight percent is multiple-family residential, and nine percent is dedicated to commercial use. Figure 7-2: Beverly Hills Land Use Distribution Beverly Hills Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Mixed Use Commercial Parks/Open Space Public Schools Public Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% BURBANK Land use in the City of Burbank is primarily dedicated for low density residential uses. The majority of land use, 28 percent, is utilized for single-family residential, 24.5 percent is for parks and open space, 23 percent is dedicated for circulation uses (streets and rights of way) and approximately 11 percent is for industrial use. Figure 7-3: Burbank Land Use Distribution Burbank Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Commercial Industrial *Parks/Open Space Educational Circulation Miscellaneous 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% *Includes Mountain Reserve, which includes public and privately owned property. 207 CULVER CITY The predominant land use in Culver City is low-density residential. The majority of the city’s land use distribution consists primarily of 30.5 percent single-family residential, 23 percent multiple-family residential, and 17 percent of commercial. Figure 7-4: Culver City Land Use Distribution Culver City Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Commercial Industrial Open Space Public/Institutional Freeways/Primary Arteries 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% GLENDALE Over 40 percent of land use in Glendale is categorized as vacant land. The remaining majority of land use consists of 29 percent single-family residential, 16 percent public-semi public, and eight percent multiple-family. Figure 7-5: Glendale Land Use Distribution Glendale Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Commercial Industrial Public-Semi Public Miscellaneous Vacant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 208 LOS ANGELES The predominant land use within the City of Los Angeles is dedicated for low density residential uses. The majority of land use consists of 37 percent single-family residential, 21 percent open-space, 17 percent infrastructure, and 11 percent multiple-family residential. Figure 7-6: Los Angeles Land Use Distribution Los Angeles Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Open Space/Public Infrastructure 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% SAN FERNANDO Land use in the City of San Fernando is predominately residential. A breakdown of land use distribution for the city was not available. SANTA MONICA Land use is predominantly residential. Over 44 percent of the city’s land use is utilized for residential uses, 28 percent is for streets and rights of way, eight percent is for other public facilities, and seven percent is for commercial uses. Figure 7-7: Santa Monica Land Use Distribution Santa Monica Land Use Distribution Residential Commercial Industrial Public Recreation Other Public Vacant Streets/Rights of Way 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 209 WEST HOLLYWOOD Land use in West Hollywood is predominantly medium-high density residential. The majority of land use in the city consists of 39 percent multiple-family residential, 20 percent single-family residential, 22 percent commercial, and 16 percent open-space. Figure 7-8: West Hollywood Land Use Distribution West Hollywood Land Use Distribution Single-Family Multiple Family Commercial Institutional Open Space 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 210 Chapter 8 Transportation and Transit Services Airport Services This section focuses on airport service in the MSR area. Service Overview LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) owns and operates Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport, Van Nuys Airport, and Palmdale Regional Airport. LAWA is an independent and financially self-sufficient department of the City of Los Angeles. LAWA is governed by a seven-member Board of Airport Commissioners. The Board is composed of business and civic leaders who are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. Los Angeles International Airport Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the major commercial airport in the LAWA airport system, accounting for approximately 89 percent of the total passenger traffic in 2005. The LAX area consists of 3,900 acres located next to the communities of Westchester, El Segundo, Lennox, and Inglewood. LAX has cargo flights each day linking Los Angeles with the world. Its handling facilities are the 98-acre Century Cargo Complex, the 57.4-acre Imperial Complex, the Imperial Cargo Center and a number of terminals on the south side of the airport. Ontario International Airport Ontario International Airport (ONT) is a full-service airport with commercial jet service to major cities in the United States and connecting service to many international destinations. ONT is located approximately 35 miles east of downtown Los Angeles and occupies approximately 1,463 acres. Ontario serves about 6.9 million annual passengers, accounting for about 11 percent of the total air passenger traffic of LAWA for 2005. A new master plan is currently underway to establish future development needs. Van Nuys Airport Van Nuys Airport is a general aviation airport located approximately 20 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, in the San Fernando Valley and occupies approximately 730 acres. In 2005, Van Nuys Airport had approximately 415,961 aircraft operations. More than one hundred businesses are located on the airport. These businesses cater to a variety of private, government and corporate aviation needs. There are approximately 723 211 aircraft based at Van Nuys Airport including 52 helicopters, 170 jets, and 428 propeller aircraft. Palmdale Regional Airport Palmdale Regional Airport located in the Antelope Valley is approximately 50 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. The airport is located on U.S. Air Force Plant 42 property and operated through a Joint Use Agreement with the Air Force. The joint use agreement allows civilian operations on Air Force Plant 42. The Air Force has determined that at least 50 civilian commercial operations a day can be accommodated without any disruption to the mission of Air Force Plant 42. LAWA owns approximately 17,750 acres of land east of Plant 42 for the future development of a new airport. Palmdale Airport is designed to expand from the existing facility as air travel demands increase. The airport currently does not have scheduled airline service. OTHER MSR AREA AIRPORTS Bob Hope Airport Bob Hope Airport is a commercial airport located north of downtown Los Angeles and east of Hollywood. The airport is governed by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. The Airport Authority is a separate government agency that was created under a joint powers agreement between the three cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena in 1977, for the sole purpose of owning and operating the Bob Hope Airport. The Authority consists of nine commissioners, three from each city. The commissioners from each city are appointed by their city council. Santa Monica Airport The Santa Monica Airport is a general aviation airport located in the southeast corner of the City of Santa Monica. A variety of services and attractions are offered at the airport for both aviators and aviation enthusiasts alike, including several flight schools, a pilot supply shop and tie down hangar facilities. The airport site also has several restaurants, public viewing decks, a picnic area, the Museum of Flying and the Barker Hangar. The Santa Monica Airport is governed by five members serving four year terms on the Airport Commission. The Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters relating to the airport. The Commission approves the appointment of the Municipal Airport Director by the City Manager. OTHER REGIONAL AIRPORTS Long Beach The Long Beach Airport operates as a commercial and general aviation airport. The airport is located in the City of Long Beach midway between Los Angeles and Orange County. The Airport covers 1,166 acres and has five runways, the longest being 10,000 feet. The Long Beach Airport has a nine-member Airport Advisory Commission which acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council regarding the development of the airport. Each commission member is appointed by the Mayor of Long Beach. 212 John Wayne Airport John Wayne Airport operates as a commercial and general aviation airport. It is located approximately 35 miles south of Los Angeles, between the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach and Santa Ana. The Airport covers 501 acres and has two runways. John Wayne Airport is owned and operated by the County of Orange. The airport employs an Airport Director to develop airport policy and administer all airport activities. The 5,000 foot runway can accommodate a wide variety of general aviation aircraft and is open 365 days per year. INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 8-1: Number of Terminals and Runways Number of Terminals & Los Angeles International Airport Runways has the most runways and terminals of all of the airports. 1 Santa Monica Airport as a general Santa Monica 1 aviation airport is the smallest with 2 Burbank 2 only one runway. All other 2 airports have two runways. Van Nuys 1 2 LAX has nine terminals in Palmdale 1 operation. Six terminals handle 2 Ontario 3 international arrivals, and all terminals can accommodate LAX 4 9 international departures. Ontario has three terminals in operation, 0 2 4 6 8 10 two domestic terminals and one international arrivals terminal. All Terminals Runways other airports’ terminals are for domestic flights only. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Table 8-1: Airport Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies To accommodate new larger aircraft, LAX will realign runways and separate taxiways and develop on-airport roadway capacity, curbside loading and unloading LAX areas, parking, security enhancements and a consolidated rental car facility. Airfield upgrades to accommodate large aircraft and increased volume are currently under construction with completion scheduled fro 2007. The existing terminals will need expansion to accommodate passenger demand beyond two million annual Ontario passengers. Palmdale A 100,000 square-foot terminal will be needed, as well as a cargo terminal. Van Nuys Group run-up enclosures should be built to mitigate noise. Expansion is limited by land use restrictions imposed by the City of Burbank on Burbank parcels adjacent to the airport. Santa Monica Both the runway and taxiway need slurry sealing and restriping. 213 New large aircraft (NLA) are being manufactured that require additional runway and taxiway space to maneuver. The first of the new large aircraft is Airbus Industry’s A380.110 These planes accommodate more passengers and can fly longer distances than existing aircraft. The planes have a larger wingspan, are longer than the current largest aircraft the Boeing 747-400, and have a double-decker design. The new Airbus aircraft is in the test phase. As of now, 11 commercial carriers have orders for the A380 and two cargo carriers. FAA forecasts project LAX will receive 30 daily NLAs in 2015. Los Angeles and Ontario airports need to upgrade the existing airfields to accommodate the increased infrastructure demands these large aircraft impose. LAX is looking to upgrade terminals and runways to accommodate NLAs. Ontario does not have aircraft terminal gates capable of accommodating large aircraft, and is looking at options of relocating the runways to achieve greater separation in anticipation of the presence of NLAs. Palmdale is expected to require an increased terminal and cargo processing building by 2030. The ground transportation system at Ontario Airport may not be able to handle the expected increase in passengers and cargo. SERVICE DEMAND Figure 8-2: Annual Passengers LAX is the primary Annual Passengers, 2005 international gateway in the (1,000s) continental United States for 0 passengers arriving from the Long Beach 3,034 Far East, Central America and 0 John Wayne Mexico, and Australia and 9,627 Oceania. In 2000, LAX Burbank 0 5,513 received approximately 77 0 Van Nuys percent of the Australia and 1 Oceania arrivals to the U.S., 24 Palmdale 0 5 percent of the Far East arrivals, 120 and 20 percent of the Central Ontario 7,093 America and Mexico arrivals. 17,486 LAX 44,003 LAX sees the most domestic travel demand.111 In 2005, 0 25,000 50,000 LAX domestic demand was 64 Domestic International percent of the total in the region. Ontario sees 10 percent and Burbank sees eight percent of the domestic travelers in the region. Of the international passengers, LAX sees 99 percent of the passengers in the region while Ontario sees one percent. The Van Nuys and Palmdale airports handle a very limited number of travelers through charter flights. 110 Burns and McDonnell, 2001 111 Passenger counts include both passengers that deplane and enplane at each airport including passenger transfers. 214 Figure 8-3: Cargo Volume LAX handled the greatest volume Cargo Volume, 2005 of air cargo in 2005, with 75 percent of the market share for the (1,000s of tons) region.112 Ontario handled 20 percent of air cargo for the region. Long Beach 54 Ontario Airport is the west coast John Wayne 24 hub for all UPS air cargo Burbank 53 operations. Van Nuys 0 Burbank handled two percent of Palmdale 0 the air cargo for the region. While Burbank handles an almost equal Ontario 575 volume of domestic passengers as 2,137 LAX Ontario airport, it handles far less 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 air cargo. SERVICE ADEQUACY Flight Delays Figure 8-4: Percent of Flights on Time Percent of Flights On Time, 2005 The Bureau of Transportation Statistics tracks airline on-time statistics and delay causes for 82% Long Beach the airports serving the region, - 81% Los Angeles International John Wayne Airport, Ontario International 78% Burbank Airport, Bob Hope Airport, John Wayne Airport, and Long Ontario 78% Beach Airport. 80% LAX The National Aviation System delay refers to a broad set of 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% conditions. Some of the conditions are non-extreme weather conditions, airport operations, heavy traffic volume, and air traffic control. A flight is considered delayed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics when it arrives 15 minutes or more behind schedule. At these airports, four-fifths of flights arrive on time, and one-fifth are delayed, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The airports varied little in 2005 in terms of percentage of flights on time. Long Beach and John Wayne airports slightly outperformed the airports in the MSR area. 112 Cargo counts are both inbound and outbound cargo. 215 The reasons for most of the delays were an air carrier delay causing the aircraft to arrive late. There were very few delays due to cancelled or diverted flights. Approximately one percent of all flights were cancelled. Noise All LAWA aircraft operators must comply with FAA regulations and procedures for noise management and noise emission standards, and with all rules, policies, procedures, resolutions, and ordinances established by the City of Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) and LAWA, relative to noise management. Air Traffic Control personnel must employ the noise management preferential runway and taxiway use procedures, recognizing that under certain conditions it may be necessary to deviate due to aircraft emergencies, adverse weather, or field or equipment maintenance. The noise management policy does not limit the discretion of either Air Traffic Control or the pilot with respect to full utilization of the airport's facilities in an unusual situation. LAX, Ontario and Bob Hope airports operate 24 hours a day. Other airports do not maintain a 24 hour schedule. For Bob Hope Airport, the City of Burbank has recommended operating hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Commercial operations are under this voluntary curfew. Santa Monica Airport starts operations at 8:00 AM on the weekends. Van Nuys Airport operates from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM on the weekends. Van Nuys Airport is open 24 hours with limited restrictions. Weekday Operating Hours The Van Nuys Airport is regulated by a Beginning Ending Noise Abatement and Curfew Burbank 24 Hour 24 Hour Ordinance. The Ordinance is the only LAX 24 Hour 24 Hour mandatory noise restriction at the airport and includes a partial curfew on Ontario 24 Hour 24 Hour departures only. Medical emergency Palmdale 5:45 AM 10:45 PM flights, military aircraft and government Santa Monica 7:00 AM 11:00 PM owned or operated aircraft are exempt Van Nuys 24 Hour 24 Hour from the curfew.113 Table 8-2: Weekday Operating Hours SERVICE CHALLENGES After 9/11, the security environment at airports has been enhanced. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now sets minimum standards for all airport security, but only directly handles security for passenger and baggage screening and enforces federal security rules. The airport handles all access control security (e.g., fencing, employee badging for access to controlled areas). The TSA requires increased security control and baggage screening, with associated challenges for airports in efficiently handling increased security needs. Airport managers at all airports also have implemented enhanced security measures which include fencing and access control devices for vehicle and pedestrian 113 Helicopters and, during certain hours, Stage 3 aircraft and other aircraft with take-off noise levels less than 74 decibels are also exempt from the curfew. 216 gates, daily airfield inspections, landside and airfield signage, and public awareness programs. FINANCING Financing constraints and opportunities impacting delivery of services are discussed in this section. The revenue sources currently available to Santa Monica Airport, Bob Hope Airport and LAWA are identified. The section discusses innovations for contending with financing constraints, cost-avoidance opportunities and opportunities for rate restructuring Financing Sources Airports in the United States have a financing system unlike any other in the world. The system includes a combination of: charges assessed by individual airports directly on air carriers (landing fees) and on the passengers using the airport (Passenger Facility Charges, or “PFCs”), funds generated internally by each airport from rents and concessions, nationally pooled taxes on passenger tickets (Airport Improvement Program funds, or “AIP” administered by the Federal Aviation Administration), and bonds whose interest is exempt from federal taxes. Figure 8-5: Airport Revenue Airport Revenue Sources, FY 03-04 Sources The three agencies providing airport service Santa Monica are LAWA, Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Burbank Authority and City of Santa Monica.114 LAWA receives the most revenue LAWA through concession sales, receiving 37 percent of all 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% revenues in FY 2003-04. Large portions of revenue Landing Fees Building Rentals Concessions also are from landing fees Parking Other Revenue and building rentals. Santa Monica Airport receives the most revenue from other revenue sources, 41 percent. Santa Monica Airport also receives a large portion of its revenue through building rentals, both office and shop rentals and hangar rentals. Santa Monica Airport receives 39 percent of its revenue from building rentals. Santa Monica Airport does not receive any money for concessions. Bob Hope Airport receives the most revenue from airport parking, 44 percent of all revenues. The airport also receives a significant amount of revenues from rentals and concessions FINANCING CONSTRAINTS None of the airport financing sources requires voter approval. Airports are constrained financially by FAA oversight and, in most cases, some oversight by the air carriers. 114 Data from LAWA and Santa Monica financial documents and Victor Gill of the Bob Hope Airport. 217 FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES Since there are no voter approval constraints on airport financing, there is a multitude of financing opportunities available for airports. Airports can restructure landing fees, increase the PFCs, increase rents, and float bonds. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES LAWA expenses are mostly from salaries and benefits, constituting 48 percent of all expenses. The other large expense for LAWA is contract services, 31 percent. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority primarily contracts with other companies for employees. The Authority only directly pays for airport police salaries. Contract services comprise 39 percent of the airport’s expenses. Other expenses including financial, rescue and professional services comprises 45 percent of airport expenses in FY 2004-05. The other expenses include financial, rescue and professional services as well as insurance and repairs. Santa Monica Airport’s largest expense is other expenses, 41 percent. Other expenses include depreciation, liability costs, repairs and maintenance, and other expenses. Santa Monica also expends a relatively large amount in salaries, 29 percent, and benefits and administrative costs, 15 percent. RATE RESTRUCTURING OPPORTUNITIES Figure 8-6: Airport Landing Fees The landing fees shown for Los Angeles International Airport Airport Landing Fees, 2006 represent landing fees for planes (per 1,000 pounds) that weigh more than 25,000 pounds and are permitted carriers. LAWA has a fee schedule for different classifications of planes. Santa Monica $2.07 The permitted carrier remits to $1.29 Burbank $0.80 LAWA a security deposit of $2.86 $10,000 in the form of a bond to Ontario $2.29 ensure payment of all fees and $2.98 LAX $2.38 charges associated with the permit. $0 $1 $2 $3 Bob Hope Airport charges the least Bond Securer Basic in landing fees, however signatory airlines at Bob Hope Airport agree to guarantee any debt the airport may incur. Non-signatory airlines pay a higher landing fee of $1.29. Ontario International Airport fees also represent landing fees charged to signatory airlines. Non-signatory airlines pay $2.86 per 1,000 pounds. On January 4, 2005, the FAA issued a Director's Determination concluding that the landing fees at the Santa Monica Airport are unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory.115 The landing fee program exempted aircraft weighing less than 10,000 pounds, which are responsible for the majority of operations at the Airport. The FAA alleged that the exemption was unreasonable and discriminatory because aircraft weighing less than 10,000 115 FAA Docket No. 16-03-11, January 03, 2004 218 pounds cause damage to the airfield pavement; 10,000 pounds is an arbitrary cut-off; and all aircraft should be responsible for pavement damage caused by natural forces. In addition, the FAA found that the landing fees charged were in excess of fees charged at other airports and that the methodology used to calculate the fees was flawed. There are opportunities for airports to adjust landing fees. Other opportunities exist for the airports to change passenger facility charges as well as rents and concessions charged on the airport premises. 219 Port Services This section focuses on port service—the construction, design, operation and maintenance of port facilities in the MSR area. The section addresses questions relating to current and future service needs, infrastructure needs, and financing constraints and opportunities. SERVICE CONFIGURATION The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (San Pedro Bay Ports) serve as the country’s primary gateway for international trade. Forty-two percent of all waterborne container freight imported to the U.S. flows through San Pedro Bay Ports. In addition to supplying goods locally in the Southern California region, approximately half of the imported cargo is transported by truck and rail to destinations east of the Rocky Mountains. Port of Los Angeles Located in San Pedro Bay, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) lies within the shelter of a nine-mile long breakwater. It currently serves over 80 shipping companies and agents with facilities that include approximately 200 berthing facilities along 43 miles of waterfront. Within its boundaries lie approximately 4,200 acres of land and 3,300 acres of water. The Port was established in 1907 on state-owned tidelands leased to the city for maritime commerce, fisheries, navigation and (more recently) for recreation uses. POLA is an independent, self-supporting department of the City of Los Angeles. The Port is administered for the City by the Los Angeles Harbor Department, which acts as a landlord and leases its property to various customers, who in turn operate their own facilities. The five-member Board of Harbor Commissioners appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council and is administered by an executive director. Ensuring a safe flow of ship traffic to and from Los Angeles Harbor, the Los Angeles Port employs pilots to provide round-the-clock service. Based at Berth 68, pilots board arriving vessels in the vicinity of the Los Angeles Sea Buoy to guide incoming ships to dock. They also provide assistance to outbound ships. The pilot service employs 34 pilots, dispatchers and boat crew. The Los Angeles Port Police is dedicated exclusively to around-the-clock port activities. Their primary goals are to maintain the safety and security of the Port, to maintain the free flow of commerce, and to produce a safe environment. Los Angeles Port Police officers are responsible for enforcing maritime, federal, state, and local laws and ordinances within the jurisdiction of the Port of Los Angeles, including its commercial operations, docks and marinas, recreational, residential and neighboring areas. Services include bicycle patrol, K- 9, dive operations, sea marshal operations, detectives, or involvement in narcotics, cargo theft, or anti-terrorism task forces. The dive team serves as the underwater unit to police the area from the docks to the breakwater, and often assist the U.S. Coast Guard in investigating spills, accidents and suspicious incidents. The K-9 Unit sniffs and locates narcotics throughout the 2,700 cargo and passenger ships that move through the Port. The drug-sniffing dogs, which are certified by the California Narcotics Canine Association, are specifically trained to sniff out explosive materials with a primary assignment of patrolling cruise ships and the World Cruise Center Terminal. 220 Port of Long Beach The 3,200-acre Port of Long Beach is one of the busiest seaports in the U.S., with more than 80 million metric tons of cargo handled annually. The Port includes 10 piers and 80 berths. The Port of Long Beach is outside the MSR area. The Port of Long Beach is a public agency managed and operated by the City of Long Beach Harbor Department. The Port is governed by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, which includes five members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. INFRASTRUCTURE The Port operates primarily as a landlord, leasing docks, wharves, transit sheds, and terminals to shipping or terminal companies, agents and other private firms. Although the Port owns the facilities, its only role in managing the daily movement of cargo is piloting. The Port also leases space to fish markets, boat repair yards, railroads, restaurants, and shipyards, among others. Figure 8-7: Cargo Terminals There are a total of 27 major terminals located at Cargo Terminals the Port of Los Angeles. Passenger Most terminals were built to handle liquid bulk, dry Omni bulk and containers. Automobile Containers come in various Container sizes, i.e., 20 feet, 40 feet, Break Bulk and 45 feet in length. Omni cargo involves a Liquid Bulk terminal designed to Dry Bulk accommodate a multitude 0 2 4 6 8 10 of commodities in addition to standard ocean-going containers. Break bulk contains cargo that is individually boxed, crated, or strapped on pallets. In addition to handling cargo, the Port has a terminal to handle cruise passengers. The passenger terminal handles U.S. Customs clearance in one building and baggage and passengers in a second building. The passenger terminal also has a parking lot with secured parking spaces. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Channel Depth Existing design depth in the Main Channel is currently 53 feet. Vessel size has increased substantially and continues to grow due to economies of scale in vessel size and shipping costs. Ever-larger container vessels continue to be placed in service. These new-generation container vessels require channel depths of more than 50 feet for safe navigation. Accommodating these larger vessels not only improves access to larger ships but also has environmental benefits as the shift to new, larger vessels decreases the number of vessel calls and related emissions. In addition to greater navigability, deepening the Main Channel improves safety and security, shipping efficiencies and 221 provides beneficial use of dredged material to create new land for future terminal development. Consequently, the Port is near completion of deepening its federal channels by an additional eight feet to a depth of 53 feet, plus two feet over depth for tidal variability. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is dredging eight million cubic yards from the Main Channel Turning Basin, East Basin, West Basin, East Basin Channel, and Cerritos Channel. The dredging program is funded and underway, and is scheduled for completion in 2007. Terminal Improvements The Port has a number of ongoing capital projects for new and upgraded terminals. There are a multitude of terminal improvement projects in progress at POLA. One example is the China Shipping Terminal. This terminal needs development of approximately 140 acres of backland terminal, construction of 2,500 feet of wharf, a new gate complex, and two new access bridges between China Shipping and Yang Ming terminals. The backland and wharf construction projects are underway . Cruise-related needs include a new cruise terminal in the outer harbor, upgrade of the existing cruise terminal facilities at two berths, alternative marine power, relocation of Catalina Express/Island Express, and new multilevel/shared use parking structure. The projects will undergo environmental review. Other container terminal improvements are taking place at four terminals (APL, TRAPAC, Evergreen and Yusen). Other terminal projects include the Pacific Energy Project. Security-Related Needs Several new facilities are needed and in the process of being developed to enhance security at the Port. The Port Security Program consists of five projects: a waterside security surveillance system, facility security enhancements, passenger complex vehicle screening, passenger complex perimeter security, and a waterborne perimeter security barrier. For these projects, the Port is responsible for the design and installation of integrated surveillance systems including cameras, motion detectors, non-intrusive inspection for vehicles, and waterborne perimeter security barriers. Estimated project completion is April 2008. To provide support for the inspection of special and high-risk maritime shipping containers passing through the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach, a Joint Agency Container Inspection Facility project is proposed to serve the needs of various enforcement agencies. The project will include 85,000 square feet of buildings, security access gates, and parking and queuing areas for vehicles and containers on an approximately 14-acre secure site. Project completion depends on federal funding. A new headquarters building for the Port Police is needed. POLA is designing and constructing a new 50,000-square-foot Port Police Station at 320 S. Center Street, which is scheduled for completion in January 2009. Transportation System Capacity The cargo growth forecast for San Pedro Bay presents a challenge to the rail/truck transportation system that delivers cargo from the Port to its destinations. The significant 222 increase in container throughput that must be accommodated by the transportation system requires additional capacity. Through the master planning process, POLA is pursuing expanded rail yards, improvements to the rail network infrastructure, roadway infrastructure improvements and operational improvements. Efficient railyard operations represent another important requirement. In addition to the on-dock intermodal rail at Pier 400 and other existing on-dock/near-dock facilities that serve our customers, the Port is developing a new, general-use railyard. Berth 100 is the first Alternate Marine Power (AMP) container ship wharf and the first AMP-powered container ship docked at Berth 100 on May 17, 2004. Phase II of China Shipping is underway. Project completion is contingent on completion of environmental assessment. SERVICE DEMAND Port service demand is affected by a variety of factors: the location of trading partners and destination markets, the costs of shipping through alternate routes (i.e., Suez and Panama Canals), and the cost and efficiency of operations at competitor ports. The greater Los Angeles area represents not only a large destination market for waterborne goods, but is also the most attractive point of origin for trans-shipments to Midwest and East Coast destinations. The top trading partners for POLA are all from East Asia. China ranks first, with double the cargo as Japan, the second largest trading partner. The transpacific trade to the Port of Los Angeles allows the East Asian trading partners to avoid longer trips and going through the Panama Canal. The Port of Los Angeles had the largest share (38 percent) of the container market among the ports on the West Coast of the U.S, as of FY 04-05.116 Long Beach has 33 percent of the market share. Combined, the San Pedro Bay Ports see 71 percent of the West Coast container market. The next two largest ports on the West Coast are Oakland and Seattle. Vancouver in British Columbia handled a similar volume as Seattle and Tacoma.117 West Coast Container Volume, FY 04-05 Table 8-3: West Coast Container Volume, FY 04-05 (1000s of TEUs) From 1997 to 2005, the Port Containers Market Share volume of container traffic Los Angeles 4,685 38% handled by POLA has Long Beach 4,061 33% doubled. Both the Ports of Oakland 1,300 10% Los Angeles and Long Beach Seattle 1,223 10% have experienced remarkable Tacoma 1,004 8% growth in container volume. The growth of these ports Portland 1 45 1% has been part of a worldwide All Others 7 1 1% increase in container trade. Container volumes carried on the principal East-West routes, namely the Transpacific (Asia-North America), Asia-Europe, and Transatlantic (Europe-North America) routes, 116 Data source is Port Import Export Reporting Service, as reported in the POLA FY 2004-05 CAFR. 117 American Association of Port Authorities, Port Industry Statistics: North American Port Container Traffic, 2004. 223 has tripled since 1990. In addition, the ports have captured an increased share of transpacific eastbound trade. 224 POLA traffic has grown on average 12 percent annually over the last ten years. Growth is projected to continue, but at a slightly lower rate of seven percent annually through 2020.118 SERVICE CHALLENGES This dramatic growth presents challenges. The port industry is capital intensive and requires long lead times to plan and develop new facilities and infrastructure. Resources are typically allocated and facilities developed upon the commitment of customers to long- term leases of 25 to 30 years. Occupancy remains high and West Coast ports have limited capacity for expansion. Air Quality The Port of Los Angeles is bounded by two communities, San Pedro and Wilmington, both of which are in close proximity to port operations. Providing an efficient goods movement system that minimizes environmental impacts is a challenge.119 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach contribute 12 percent of total diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, nine percent of oxides of nitrogen gas emissions and 45 percent of sulfur oxide emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.120 Ships, followed by trucks calling at the Port, are the largest sources of port-related emissions. Growing port operations are expected to contribute increasing air emissions, particularly diesel exhaust and oxides of nitrogen gases, unless significant steps are taken to control these emissions.121 A number of emissions control measures have already been implemented, including vessel speed reduction, alternative maritime power and truck reduction.122 POLA is implementing channel deepening to accommodate larger ships and, thereby, decrease the number of vessel calls. The Ports jointly adopted a Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) in November 2006. The five- year action plan establishes emissions standards and goals, emission control measures, implementation strategies, incentives for technology advancement, and a monitoring program. CAAP implementation costs exceed $2 billion, over 85 percent of which is devoted to cleaning up diesel trucks calling at the Ports. The Ports and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have committed funds totaling $365 million, and bonds and impact fees will fund $1.6 billion. By 2011, CAAP’s fifth year, emissions are projected to decline by over 45 percent due to implementation of control measures. Specifically, projected emissions reductions are 47 percent for DPM emissions, 45 percent for oxides of nitrogen gas and 52 percent for 118 Mercator Transportation Group, Forecast of Container Vessel Specifications and Port Calls within San Pedro Bay, 2005. 119 Port of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles Port-wide Transportation Master Plan, 2005, page 2. 120 Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach, San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, November 2006. 121 Diesel exhaust is associated with asthma and respiratory impairments, is identified by the State as known to cause cancer, and is classified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board. Oxides of nitrogen gas are important precursors to the formation of photochemical smog, including ozone. 122 POLA implemented a vessel speed limit of 12 knots within 20 miles of the Port in 2002; the speed limit inside the breakwater is 6-10 knots depending on ship size. Alternative marine power (AMP) means the use of electricity from shore by berthed ships rather than burning bunker fuel. POLA has retrofitted several of its berths to provide AMP receptacles for ship-to-shore connections. 225 sulfur oxide emissions from ocean-going vessels, cargo-handling equipment, trucks and locomotives. Addressing air quality concerns at POLA will remain a challenge in the coming years. The Ports are committed to updating the CAAP annually to advance new technologies and implementation strategies to reduce emissions while maritime commerce continues to grow at the Ports. Industry Consolidation The Port of Los Angeles is addressing an increasing trend toward consolidation, as shipping lines merge. The Transpacific trade at POLA is projected to evolve from the current system in which five carrier alliances/large independent lines operating 70 percent of port capacity to a system in which six to eight alliances/large lines operate approximately 95 percent of the capacity.123 Business alliances among shipping lines have created increasing demand for development of progressively larger container terminals, frequently exceeding 250 acres. The Port is working to expand existing terminals, upgrade wharves, as well as construct new facilities to meet the demand. Environmental mitigation is critical in that process. Seismic Issues Historically, the most widespread cause of seismically induced damage to port and harbor structures has been the liquefaction of loose, saturated, sandy soils that are predominant at ports. The interaction of piles with sloping embankments is an important consideration, as the embankment is susceptible to movement under seismic loads. The embankment deformations can cause damage to the piles. In a worst case seismic event, embankment failure may occur, causing pile failure. To mitigate such impacts, POLA has adopted a seismic risk reduction plan. An element of this plan is the creation and adoption of the first container wharf seismic design code in the U.S. As part of POLA’s channel-deepening program, a number of deep-water berthing facilities at container terminals will be seismically upgraded. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Financing constraints and opportunities impacting delivery of services are discussed in this section. The revenue sources currently available to POLA are identified. The section discusses innovations for contending with financing constraints, cost-avoidance opportunities and opportunities for rate restructuring. Financing Sources The revenue growth and profitability of the Port's business depend upon changes in income, global industrial output, and the relative value of world currencies. Real increases in domestic consumer income tend to induce increases in foreign imports of goods, while growth of consumer spending power outside the United States fosters our export market. Expanding industrial production overseas generates more shipments of export raw materials and intermediate (semi-finished) goods. A rise in the value of the U.S. dollar would typically adversely impact U.S. exports while accelerating imports. Conversely, a 123 Grand Alliance, New World Alliance, CHKY Alliance, Maersk Sealand, and Evergreen are the current carrier alliances and independent lines operating at the Port. 226 significant drop in the value of the U.S. dollar would reduce imports and strengthen the U.S. export market. The revenues for the Port of Los Angeles come from three categories, shipping services, rentals and other revenues. Shipping services provide 89 percent of the revenue. Shipping services include wharfage, dockage, demurrage, cranes, pilotage, assignment charges, and storage. Within the shipping services, wharfage comprises 88 percent of the shipping service revenue. Wharfage fees are assessed by a pier or dock owner for handling incoming or outgoing cargo. Wharfage is charged either by size of the container or by weight. Land rental revenue constituted the largest portion of the rental revenue at 92 percent. Fees, concessions and royalties constituted the largest portion of other revenue at 63 percent. The Port utilizes funds received from its customers for the maintenance and modernization of Port facilities and other activities consistent with the Tidelands Trust. Capital construction is financed from operations, bonded debt, and loans secured by future revenues and federal grants. Daily operation of the Port facilities and regular maintenance are performed by the Port's permanent work force. Generally, major maintenance and new construction projects are assigned to commercial contractors. Transit Services Transit services in the MSR area are mainly provided by the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County MTA (MTA) on the east and the City of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus on the west. The MTA operates bus, subway, and light rail lines. Rail passenger service is provided by Amtrak and Metrolink. Union Station is the central public transportation hub where the MTA’s rail system meets the Metrolink commuter rail service, and other commuter bus routes operated by MTA and other agencies.124 BEVERLY HILLS The City of Beverly Hills does not operate its own transit system. Instead it utilizes the services of MTA. Currently there is no Metrolink service to or from the City of Beverly Hills. The Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, the Antelope Valley Transit Authority, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation also provide limited transit services. BURBANK The City of Burbank operates a shuttle system called Burbank Bus that connects to Metrolink, Metro Red & Orange Lines and municipal bus services in surrounding cities and communities in the MSR region. Burbank Bus provides efficient and accessible transportation to the city’s media district, downtown Burbank, Burbank Airport/Empire District and the North Hollywood Media District. CULVER CITY The City of Culver City owns and operates the Culver City Bus transit system. Established in 1928 as the result of a dispute over rising fares with the Pacific Electric 124 http;//www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Los-Angeles,-California. 227 Railway, the Culver City bus has been in operation for over 75 years. The Culver City Department of Transportation is responsible for the maintenance of all equipment and refueling stations. Culver City Bus was the first transit agency in Los Angeles County to convert its entire fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fuel. In addition to complying with all required emissions standards both state and federal, the department is actively engaged in projects designed to make their mass transit both technologically efficient and environmentally sound. GLENDALE The City of Glendale operates a public transportation system called the Beeline with fixed routes and express connections to Metrolink providing connections to communities and municipalities within the MSR region. LOS ANGELES The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) services approximately 30 million passenger boardings a year and currently operates the second largest fleet in Los Angeles County with Metropolitan Transit Authority operating the largest.. The LADOT has won two first place awards for website and brochure design from the American Public Transportation Association, the national association for transit operators. LADOT was also honored for its DASH and Commuter Express buses all being completely accessible to elderly and physically challenged customers. Most local bus routes in the City of Los Angeles are focused along Broadway, and the 7th Street/Metro Center subway station serves as a major transfer point. Hollywood is also serves as a transit hub point, where several bus routes meet the Red Line. Wilshire and Vermont in Koreatown, UCLA transit center in Westwood Village, and the area around the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica are also significant transit hubs. SAN FERNANDO The City of San Fernando operates a small transit line called Mission City Transit that links to the major transit systems throughout the region. SANTA MONICA The City of Santa Monica operates The Big Blue Bus transit system. It links the City of Santa Monica with all of the transit hubs in the MSR area in particular the City of Los Angeles. The Big Blue Bus was ranked the number 1 urban transit system in the United States three times. WEST HOLLYWOOD The City of West Hollywood does not operate its own mass transit system. However, the city’s Transportation Division does operate a mini system called the City Line West Hollywood. This low cost mini transit system links the city’s residents to MTA and Metrolink. Overall the cities within the LA MSR Area provide adequate transportation for their residents. Additionally, all the cities operate a para transit system designed for the movement of the elderly and the physically challenged residents in the respective cities. The transportation departments within the LA MSR area also focus their resources on improving the quality of urban life for residents, visitors and commuters. They accomplish 228 this goal by implementing, maintaining and improving neighborhood traffic management, traffic controls and pedestrian crossings; managing local transit services; regulating taxicabs; assessing the impact of local development on the transportation system, applying measures and/or fees towards mitigation; and implementing plans for future needs. 229 Chapter 9 Special Districts Garbage Disposal Districts County Water Districts are formed pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 49000, et seq. The governing body established by statutory law to administer the operation of a garbage disposal district is the County Board of Supervisors. ATHENS-WOODCREST-OLIVITA GARBAGE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Athens-Woodcrest-Olivita Garbage Disposal District (AWOGDD) is a dependent special district was formed on November 28, 1939. The District boundary is approximately 1.8 miles of unincorporated county territory, bounded by Manchester Boulevard. to the north, Vermont Avenue to the east, El Segundo Boulevard to the south, and Van Ness Avenue to the west. The District’s function is to provide refuse collection and recycling services. Those services are provided under contract with a private company, Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC. AWOGDD provides service to approximately 7,120 residential and business clients. LAFCO initiated a separate MSR of Miscellaneous Government Services for all agencies under LAFCO jurisdiction providing services other than backbone municipal services. These include cemetery, community service, hospital, mosquito abatement and vector control, library, park, resource and conservation districts. The MSR and sphere of influence updates were adopted by the Commission on June 23, 2004. 23 0 Consolidated Fire Protection District About the District The Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) is governed by the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, California Health and Safety Code Section 13800, et. seq. It was established on April 12, 1949 by a resolution of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as a result of merging several fire protection districts. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body. The CFPD provides fire protection, emergency medical, hazardous materials response, rescue services, and in some areas lifeguard services. It also provides other related services such as forestry, fire prevention and educational programs. All cities that receive services from CFPD are within the District’s sphere of influence boundary area. West Hollywood is the only city in MSR area that contracts with the District for fire protection and emergency medical services. The majority of cities within Los Angeles County contract for services with CFPD. There are ten cities in the County and one city (La Habra) in Orange County that receives fire protection services from CFPD on a fee-for-service basis. They are: Azusa, Commerce, Covina, El Monte, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lynwood, Palos Verdes Estates, Pomona, and La Habra. CFPD receives funding primarily through property tax revenue, special tax and contract fees. The Board of Supervisors adopted a Developer Fee Program to meet the need for increased resources in designated high growth areas. There are five cities that have adopted the program, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Malibu, Lancaster and Santa Clarita. Monies received from the program can only be spent within that particular area and are used to help finance new stations and equipment needed due to new development. This report does not provide a complete comprehensive service review of the CFPD. 23 1 County Sanitation Districts The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles (CSD) are a confederation of independent county sanitation districts that operate under one or more joint powers agreements. CSD provides wastewater and solid waste management. The Districts are formed pursuant to State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 4700, et seq. CSD’s are enabled to construct, operate and maintain facilities for the purpose of collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater. CSD is made up of 25 separate districts under one administration. Each district has a separate Board of Directors. The agency maintains 1,200 miles of main trunk sewers, 11 wastewater treatment facilities, and three active sanitary landfills. In addition, the agency operates a refuse transfer station, a refuse-to- energy facility, three gas-to-energy facilities, and two recycling centers. District 26 was formed on January 12, 1991 and District 32 was formed on March 23, 1965. CSD Districts No. 26 and 32 were officially consolidated in February 2004; however, the consolidation will not be effective until July 1, 2005. After Districts 26 and 32 are consolidated this year, there will be 24 sanitation districts. Funding There are no financing requirements for annexation proposals generated by proposed housing developments; however, County Sanitation maintains a policy of requiring that a developer be responsible for conveying wastewater generated by the project to the existing network. Developers pay annexation fees and costs of lines to service their developments. Connection fees charged for hooking into those lines are placed in a special fund to finance future capital improvements and expansion. The County Sanitation Districts CITY COUNTY SANITATION DIST. provide wastewater services to the four cities in the MSR area, Beverly Hills 4 Beverly Hills, Culver City, Los Culver City 5 Angeles, and West Hollywood. The chart indicates which Los Angeles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 34 district(s) provide service within the MSR area. West Hollywood 4 LSA and Associates prepared a detailed MSR study of the CSD. The MSR was adopted in May 2005. According to LSA, Sanitation Districts 4 and 9 are served by the City of Los Angeles through contract. 23 2 County Waterworks District #21-Kagel Canyon Enabling Act County waterworks districts are dependent special districts formed pursuant to Division 16 of the California Water Code Section 55000, et seq. Waterworks districts are empowered to provide water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and fire protection purposes. The district can operate facilities relative to the sale of water, treatment and reclamation of saline and wastewater, and sewage collection. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT #21 The Los Angeles County Waterworks District was first formed on December 9, 1935. The County waterworks districts are operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The governing body for the districts is the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. District #21’s service area is approximately 0.2 square miles of unincorporated county territory in Kagel Canyon. District #21 provides retail water service to 247 connections. Its principal water supply is from three groundwater wells. Dudek and Associates’ Draft MSR report of water providers in the Los Angeles region states that all of the District’s wells have structural, nitrate and bacteria issues. The District is looking into purchasing water from other sources. The draft report is available on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics- City-msr.html. 23 3 County Water Districts Enabling Act County Water Districts are formed pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000, et seq. County water districts are authorized to receive water rights, appropriate, sell, store and conserve water. Surplus water may be sold to municipalities, public agencies or consumers outside of the district. County water districts can also provide wastewater treatment. LAFCO initiated a municipal service review study of all water agencies under its jurisdiction. Water MSR studies were prepared according to the designated LAFCO MSR regional areas. Dudek and Associates has prepared a detailed Municipal Service Review study of water service providers for the Los Angeles Basin area which is scheduled to be adopted by LAFCO. As a result of the Draft MSR report of water providers in the Los Angeles region, Dudek recommends further study of the issues involving overlapping infrastructure and service areas with Crescenta Valley Water District and the City of Glendale and the La Cañada Irrigation District. Crescenta Valley is providing service outside of its designated service area. The draft report is available on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics-City-msr.html. CRESCENTA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Crescenta Valley Water District (CVCWD) was established on December 26, 1950. The District provides retail water service in the unincorporated area of La Crescenta and Montrose and portions of the City of Glendale. Its service boundary covers 4.2 square miles of territory. The CVCWD also provides wastewater collection services. CVCWD receives half of its water supply from groundwater from the Verdugo Basin. Remaining water is imported from the Foothill Municipal Water District. 23 4 Irrigation Districts Enabling Act Irrigation Districts are formed pursuant to the California Water Code Sections 20500, et seq. They are empowered to provide water for any beneficial purpose and can control, store, treat, distribute and reclaim water or wastewater. An irrigation district can also provide electric power. KINNELOA IRRIGATION DISTRICT Kinneloa Irrigation District (KID) was established in October 1953. It is governed by a publicly elected five member board of directors. The District service area covers 2.3 square miles. It provides service to the City of Pasadena and county unincorporated area northeast of Pasadena. A very small portion of its territory lies within the MSR area east of Glendale. The District provides service to 510 households. KID is a member agency of the Foothill Municipal Water District. The District however, currently receives all of its water from groundwater from the Raymond Basin. Water deliveries from FMWD are not anticipates until 2010. Dudek and Associates prepared a detailed Final Municipal Service Review study of water providers for the West San Gabriel Valley area that includes the Kinneloa Irrigation District. The report was adopted on December 8, 2004 and is available on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics-City-msr.html. 23 5 Municipal Water Districts Municipal water districts are formed pursuant to the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (California Water Code Section 71000 et. seq.). They are authorized to supply water for beneficial purposes; sell water to cities, agencies, and individuals; construct and operate recreational facilities; construct and operate fire protection and emergency medical facilities, acquire waterworks systems, and construct and operate sanitation facilities. CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) was formed in December 1952. It is governed by five publicly elected directors. The CBMWD provides wholesale water service to 25 cities in Los Angeles County, mostly in south east Los Angeles County. Its service boundary covers a small portion of unincorporated county territory within the City of Los Angeles sphere of influence, west of the City of Compton, within the Los Angeles MSR area. CBMWD has adjudication rights for 217,368 acre-feet per year of ground water from the Central Basin, where most of its water source comes from. Central Basin also imports water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and purchases recycled water from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts for resale. FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Foothill Municipal Water District (FMWD) was formed on January 7, 1952. It is governed by a five-member board of directors that are publicly elected. The District is a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). FMWD’s service boundaries encompass 21.6 square miles. It provides wholesale water to seven purveyors that service the communities of La Cañada Flintridge, Altadena and La Cresenta. Its service boundary serves a small portion of the City of Glendale and unincorporated county territory with Glendale’s sphere of influence. Foothill Municipal provides water to its member agencies for their storage in the Raymond Basin. Kinneloa Irrigation District and Crescenta Valley Water District are member agencies of FMWD. WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) was formed in November of 1947. It is governed by five publicly elected directors who serve a five-year term. The District was created to preserve and recharge groundwater supplies and to locate supplemental water. WBMWD is a public agency that purchases imported water from the MWD. WBMWD wholesales imported water to 17 Cities within the South Bay, mutual water companies, investor-owned utilities, and private companies in southwest Los Angeles County. Imported water is transported through the Colorado River Aqueduct System and from Northern California. Within the Los Angeles MSR area, it provides service to Culver City. 23 6 WBMWD has 185 square-mile service area with a population of approximately 851,000 people living in the South Bay area, as well as unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. WBWMD provides barrier water for injection into the South Bay’s groundwater basin to guard against saltwater intrusion. WBMWD also supplies the region with recycled water for municipal, commercial, and industrial use. Over 28,000 acre-feet of recycled water is distributed to more than 170 facilities in the South Bay. The West Basin Recycling Facility is located in the City of El Segundo, one of the largest in the nation. It can ultimately recycle 70,000 acre-feet per year of waste water from the Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. Approximately 220,000 acre-feet of water is used annually in the WBMWD service area. An acre-foot is approximately 326,000 gallons, enough to meet the water demands of two families in and around their homes for one year. Dudek and Associates prepared a detailed Final Municipal Service Review study of water providers for the South Bay Region that was adopted on September 28, 2005. The report is available on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics- City-msr.html. 23 7 Water Agency CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY Enabling Act The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) was formed pursuant to California Uncodified Water Acts, Act 9099b (Deerings). The agency is empowered to acquire water from the State and distribute it at wholesale through an agency owned transmission system. Statutory provisions allow the agency to reclaim water, manage groundwater basins, and develop and sell wholesale hydroelectric energy. About the District Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) is a special district whose service boundaries are under LAFCO jurisdiction. CLWA was formed on April 20, 1962 for the purpose of contracting through the California Department of Water Resources to provide supplemental imported water to the Santa Clarita Valley. The agency provides water to four retail purveyors, Valencia Water Company, Newhall County Water District, Los Angeles County Waterworks District # 36, and CLWA’s retail water division Santa Clarita Water Company. Santa Clarita Water Company (SCWC) was purchased by the Castaic Lake Water Agency in 1999. SCWC is a private company that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. The agency’s boundary area covers 195 square miles and includes an area of unincorporated territory north of the City of Los Angeles, within the Los Angeles MSR area. CLWA is a contractor of the State Water Project (SWP) and maintains approximately 80 service connections. The Agency’s available SWP entitlement is 95,200 AF/yr deliveries for 2003 were 47,600 AF/yr. The agency maintains four water treatment facilities. The Quartz Hill plant services the region and was expanded in 1989. It has the capacity of producing 65 million gallons per day. Dudek and Associates prepared a Municipal Service Review study of water providers for the Santa Clara Region, of which Castaic Lake Water Agency is a major provider. In addition, Stetson Engineering Inc. prepared a detailed report of water providers in the area. Both reports are available on LAFCO’s Website at http://lalafco.org/topics-City-msr.html. 23 8 Chapter 10 Sphere of Influence Determinations 23 9 City of Beverly Hills LAFCO has adopted a coterminous sphere of influence (SOI) for the City of Beverly Hills. There is no possibility for expansion of the city’s SOI because it is completely surrounded by incorporated territories, primarily Los Angeles and West Hollywood. Beverly Hills did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI in response to LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES The primary land use in the city is low-medium density IN THE AREA residential. Approximately 85 percent of developable land is dedicated for residential use, nine percent for commercial, three percent open-space, and three percent public schools/public facilities. The City is principally built-out. Opportunities exist for residential development through in-fill development, mixed use proposals, and zone changes. Proposed future land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and open-space. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR The City of Beverly Hills provides adequate facilities and PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the present needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. In comparison to other cites in the MSR area, Beverly Hills is projected to experience a relatively low rate of growth. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience minimal demand in the future. The City appears capable of providing additional services to meet demand needs as projected. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of Beverly Hills is adequate. The City appears capable SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES of providing additional services to meet demand needs as OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST IN exist within the city, there are no social or economic THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 0 City of Burbank LAFCO previously adopted a sphere of influence for the City of Burbank that expanded into the City of Los Angeles boundary limits. Furthermore, the Commission adopted these areas as joint SOIs with the understanding that Burbank would apply to LAFCO for annexation of the areas. Staff recommends that the Burbank work with the City of Los Angeles to address these areas of their SOI. The City is surrounded by Glendale to the east, Los Angeles to the north, west, and south. A small pocket of unincorporated county territory (Universal Studios) lies at the southernmost tip of the city. Burbank did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI in response to LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is low-medium density USES IN THE AREA residential. Present land uses in the city consist of 35 percent residential, 24.5 percent open-space, and 23 percent circulation, 10.8 percent industrial, 4.9 percent commercial, 1.5 percent education, and 0.3 percent educational. The City is built-out. Planned land uses include opportunities for residential and commercial development uses through zoning changes and increased density. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of Burbank provides adequate facilities and FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the present needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. Burbank is projected to have the highest growth rate in comparison to other cities in the MSR area. It is estimated that the City will increase its population by 17,665 by 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience moderate demand in the future. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of Burbank is adequate. The City appears capable of SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES providing additional services to meet demand needs as OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR Several social and economic communities of interest exist ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST within the City’s current sphere of influence, such as Bob IN THE AREA Hope Airport operations, that support maintaining the City’s current sphere of influence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 1 City of Culver City LAFCO previously adopted a sphere of influence for the Culver City that expands beyond the city boundary to the east that includes the area of unincorporated county territory known as Blair Hills/Baldwin Hills. The City is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, west, and northeast, and the unincorporated county territory to the east and southeast. Culver City did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI in response to LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESET AND PLANNED LAND USES The primary land use in the city is low-medium density IN THE AREA residential. Present land uses in the city consists of 53 percent residential, 17 percent commercial, nine percent freeway, eight percent industrial, eight percent open-space, and five percent public institutions. The City is built-out. Planned land uses include opportunities for residential, commercial, and industrial development through rezoning. Although, the undeveloped area has been zoned for single-family development, most of the Blair Hills area is designated as open-space. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of Culver City provides adequate facilities and FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. Culver City is projected to have the lowest growth rate of all the cities in the MSR area. It is estimated that the City will increase by 977 residents by the year 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience minimal demand in the future. The City appears capable of providing additional services to meet demand needs as projected. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC Culver City is adequate. The City appears capable of SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES providing additional services to meet demand needs as OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST exist within the city, there are no social or economic IN THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 2 City of Glendale LAFCO previously adopted a sphere of influence for Glendale that expands beyond the city boundary to the northeast that includes the unincorporated communities of La Cresenta and Montrose. Glendale is surrounded by the Angeles National Forest to the north, La Cananda-Flintridge and Pasadena to the west, Los Angeles to the south and northwest, and Burbank to the west. Glendale did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI on LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is low-medium density USES IN THE AREA residential. Current land use consists of 37 percent residential, 40 percent vacant, 16 percent public facilities, three percent commercial, two percent industrial, and one percent miscellaneous. Opportunities for residential development exist in the vacant areas of the city and through infill development. Planned land uses include residential, commercial, and industrial development. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of Glendale provides adequate facilities and FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. Glendale’s population is projected to experience a moderate rate of growth. The population of the city is estimated to increase by 14,593 by 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience moderate demand in the future. The City appears capable of providing additional services to meet demand needs as projected. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of Glendale is adequate. The City appears capable of SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES providing additional services to meet demand needs as OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST exist within the city, there are no social or economic IN THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 3 City of Los Angeles LAFCO has previously adopted a sphere of influence for the City of Los Angeles that expands beyond the city. Several pockets of unincorporated County of Los Angeles territory exist with the city’s limits and the current SOI boundaries. Out of 88 cities in the County, 27 of them share a common border with Los Angeles. Five cities are almost entirely surrounded by Los Angeles, with the exception of San Fernando which is entirely surrounded by the City. Los Angeles did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI on LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. However, the City subsequently filed an application for a sphere of influence amendment to include the areas north and northeast of the city boundaries. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is residential, with the USES IN THE AREA northern and southernmost communities of the city having low-density residential and medium-high density residential in the central communities of the city. Current land use consists of 48 percent residential, 21 percent open-space, 17 percent infrastructure, nine percent industrial, 2.5 percent mixed use, and 2.5 percent commercial. Planned land uses include residential, commercial, and industrial development, and open-space. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of Los Angeles provides adequate facilities and FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. Los Angeles is projected to experience a high growth rate. The population of the City is estimated to increase by 307,424 residents by 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience increased demand in the future. The City appears capable of providing additional services to meet demand needs as projected. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of Los Angeles is adequate. The City appears capable SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES of providing additional services to meet demand needs as OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While a multitude of social and economic communities of ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST interest exist within the city, there are no social or IN THE AREA economic communities of interest found relevant to the proposed sphere of influence boundary changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City of Los Angeles SOI boundary be expanded to include those parcels to the north and northeast, along the Ventura County line, primarily along the ridgeline of the Santa Susanna Mountains and to the City of Santa Clarita limits. 24 4 City of San Fernando LAFCO has adopted a coterminous sphere of influence (SOI) for the City of San Fernando. There is no possibility for expansion of the City’s SOI because it is completely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles and the City is built-out. San Fernando did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI on LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is low-medium density USES IN THE AREA residential. Planned land uses include residential, commercial, and industrial development. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of San Fernando appears to provide adequate FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA facilities and services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. San Fernando is built-out. The City is projected to experience a moderate growth rate. The population of the City is estimated to increase by 1,956 residents by 2025. Fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services are also expected to increase in the future. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of San Fernando appears adequate, with exception of SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES available parkland and lack of adequate funding for OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE improvements of streets, and park and recreational facilities. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST exist within the city, there are no social or economic IN THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 5 City of Santa Monica LAFCO has adopted a coterminous sphere of influence (SOI) for the City of Santa Monica. There is no possibility for expansion of the City’s SOI because it is completely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. Santa Monica did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI on LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is low-medium density USES IN THE AREA residential. Current land uses consist of 44 percent residential, 29 percent streets/rights of way, eight percent public, seven percent commercial, seven percent industrial, four percent public recreation, and one percent vacant. Planned land uses include residential, commercial, and industrial development. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of Santa Monica provides adequate facilities and FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. The City is projected to experience a small growth rate. The population of the City is estimated to increase by 1,458 residents by 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience a small increase in demand in the future. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of Santa Monica is adequate. The City appears SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES capable of providing additional services to meet demand OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE needs as projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST exist within the city, there are no social or economic IN THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 6 City of West Hollywood LAFCO has adopted a coterminous sphere of influence (SOI) for the City of West Hollywood. It is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles to the north, east and south, and Beverly Hills to the west. There is no possibility for expansion of the City’s SOI because it is completely surrounded by incorporated territories of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. West Hollywood did not indicate any proposed changes to its SOI on LAFCO’s Request for Information survey. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND The primary land use in the city is medium-high density USES IN THE AREA residential. Current land uses consists of 59 percent residential, 22 percent commercial, 16 percent open-space, and 4 percent industrial. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED The City of West Hollywood provides adequate facilities FOR PUBLIC F ACILITIES IN THE AREA and services to meet the current needs of its residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. West Hollywood is built-out. The City is projected to experience a small growth rate. The population of the City is estimated to increase by 1,713 residents by 2025. Therefore, the need for fire, police, water, wastewater, street maintenance, parks, and library services is expected to experience a small increase in demand in the future. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC The present capacity of public facilities and services in the FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC City of West Hollywood is adequate. The City appears SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES capable of providing additional services to meet demand OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE needs as projected. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR While several social and economic communities of interest ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTERST exist within the city, there are no social or economic IN THE AREA communities of interest in adjacent areas that would support a sphere of influence boundary change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends no changes to the City’s sphere of influence. 24 7 References Cited Assembly Committee of Local Government. Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, California Government Code Section 56000 et seq. Sacramento: Assembly Committee on Local Governance, November 2003. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2002 Annual Report Facility/Site Summary Details. Sacramento: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2005. California Emergency Medical Services Authority. EMS Standards and Guidelines. Sacramento: California Emergency Medical Services Authority, June 1993. City of Beverly Hills General Plan Update, Technical Background Report (October 2005). City of Los Angeles. 2003 Infrastructure Report Card for the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles : City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works, January 2003. Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century. Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, January 2000. Dudek and Associates. Final Municipal Service Review Report, Water Service- West San Gabriel Valley Region. Encinitas: Dudek and Associates, December 2004. Dudek and Associates. Draft Municipal Service Review Report, Water Service- Los Angeles Region. Encinitas: Dudek and Associates, June 2006. LSA Associates, Inc., Sanitation Districts Municipal Service Review, March 2005. Little Hoover Commission. Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, May 2000. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan 200e: Annual Report on the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2002. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Draft 2004 Congestion Management Program (January 2004). Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mta.net/projects_plans/cmp/default.htm. Parsons Transportation Group. MTA, North County Combine Highway Corridors Study, Final Report. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2004. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. 24 8 National Recreation and Parks Association, “Nation Park Land Open Space Guidelines and Standards,” (http://www.nrpa.org/content/default.aspx?documentId=3405). Southern California Association of Governments. Final Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, March 2004. State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2005 and 2006. Sacramento, California, May 2006. State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Policy Development, Chapter 2: California Housing Production Needs, 1997-2020. State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element Compliance Report 11/1/2006. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://housing.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/status.pdf State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, “Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview.” Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/quimby101.pdf Southern California Region of Governments, Housing Element Compliance and Building Permit Issuance in the SCAG Region.,September 2004. United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety Administration, Firefighters’ Two-in/Two-Out Regulation. University of California, Berkley. DWR Bulletin 155, General Comparison of Water District Acts. Available from the World Wide Web: http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/kopec/b155/html/home.html. University of California, Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 2000-2005. Available from the World Wide Web: http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/index.cfm. California Newspapers Publishers Association, Legislative Bulletin, Freedom of Information Watch. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cnpa.com/Leg/GA/foiarchive/los%20angeles.htm#2004 Data Sources Agency data – LAFCO Requests for Information (RFI) data surveys, budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Capital Improvement Plans, General Plans, official statements, and miscellaneous plans and reports available online. Building Permits – U.S. Census Bureau Crime Statistics and Clearance Rates: Federal Bureau of Investigation Demographic data – U.S. Census Bureau, Southern California Council of Governments, State of California Department of Finance Home Prices- Data Quick, California Median Home Price by City, September 2005 24 9 Library data- State of California Library, Library Statistics 2005 (2003-2004) Fiscal Year, Sacramento, California City Profiles – Yahoo Neighborhood Profiles: Retrieved January 29, 2006 from World Wide Web: http://realestate.yahoo.com/Neighborhoods. Library Data: California State Library Statistics Long-Term Debt: California State Controller, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Moody’s, and Standard and Poors. Maps: LAFCO archives, Los Angeles County Public Works Department, Thomas Brothers Population Projections: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan, 2004 Revenue: California State Controller, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Solid Waste Data: California Integrated Waste Management Board Stormwater Data: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Wastewater Data: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Interviews and Correspondence Mario Angal, California Housing and Community Development Department Sana Arakelian, Burbank City Manager’s Office Kien Chin, Planner, Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief Tom Hoefel, City of Burbank Police Department Sgt. Robert Jacobs, San Fernando Police Department Reginald Lee, Assistant Fire Chief, Los Angeles County Fire Department Abigail Luzon, Glendale Police Department Antione McKnight, Los Angeles Fire Department Tuyet Nguyen, Los Angeles Police Department Suzanne Post, Santa Monica Fire Department Patricia Reyes ASM I, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) Lt. Carlos Reynosa, Culver City Police Department Stan Speth, City of Beverly Hills Fire Department John Takhtalian, Glendale Fire Department Roberta Talbot, Santa Monica Police Department Ali Wulfekuhl, Culver City Fire Department Sergeant Hiroshi Yokoyama, LACSD West Hollywood Station Operations Alice Zuniga, City of Beverly Hills Police Department 25 0