Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 6, 2005i �w.ruA.v MEETING AGENDA Arcadia City Council/ Redevelopment Agency mm , o gem .• TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at this meeting. The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desk at the Arcadia Public Library and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any questions regarding any matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (626) 574 -5455. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three (3) business days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. 5:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room ROLL CALL AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (5 minutes per person) CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Vahe Manoukian v. City of Arcadia, et al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34867). b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Joseph T. Pulliam and Ethlyn J. Pulliam v. City of Arcadia, et al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34221). C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) 55 W. Huntington Drive Paul Rusnak 21 Morlan Place Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia) 28 W. Santa Clara Street Don and Ray Dahlgren 41 W. Huntington Drive Mrs. Robert Johannsen /Manuel De Jesus Romero 35 W. Huntington Drive Gary and Dan Braun (35 W. Huntington Partners) 27 W. Huntington Drive - Richard Fisher (Templekadian) 101 W. Huntington Drive Charles Frandson 103 W. Huntington Drive lames Darr Negotiating Parties - Agency Deputy Executive Director and Economic Development Manager Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 conference with real property negotiators. Property Description: Southerly parking area of Santa Anita Race Track property Negotiating Parties: City: City Manager, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and City Attorney Property Owner: Caruso Affiliated, Caruso Property Management Company, Magna Entertainment Corporation, the Santa Anita Companies and the Los Angeles Turf Club Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL a. Presentation of Certificate of Commendation to Monika Yeh. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. a. An Aooeal of Planning Commission's denial for a grogosed tentative map CfM 63552) for a 5 -lot subdivision at 1221 -5 South Second Avenue and 150 East La Sierra Recommendation: Deny appeal . b. Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No. 6495, adopting Transportation Impact Fee Proara Recommendation: Approve and Adopt C. Res olution 1• 6498 fo 1. no a cab television franchise agreement be tween the City Q Ar cad and • • • Communications. In •. • Adopt lt4mm M-1 • 1.1'. - • •1 _ • • .t :1! ••: ••.. •• • 1'11 I 1' •• set t i ng for terms and condit relat to the exe _ o f t h os e rights Recommendation: Adopt d, Resolubon Nn 6505 fable franchise transfer from Adelohia to Comcast/Time Warner Recommendation: Adopt a. Resolution Nn 6497 establishing fees for single - family architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt f. 7005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update Recommendation: Approve AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -(5 minutes per person) REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes f the November 15. 7005 Reoular Meeting and November 16 2005 Special Meeting Recommendation: Approve CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the November 15. 2005 Regular Meeting and November 16. 2005 Special Meeting. Recommendation: Approve C. R� R-vlution No 6501 1. and . . tobce of Yie 1.. fta of a Geieral .. i4. to helo Tuesday. April 11. 2006. for the election of certain officers as reauired by the provisions of the Ci Charte Recommendation: A dop 2. Resolution No. 6502, adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertainino to Candidat ibmitted to the ..5.. te and the costs thereof . r the General Munici El ec t ion to be held .1. Tues Apr I1. Recomme ndation: Adop to be made by \ .1. of \ of •. A dop t Ad f. Resolution No. 6504. reauestino the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to permit the Registrar-Recorder of said County to render specified services to the Oty relating to the conduct of a General Munic pal Election to be held on Tuesday. April 11. 2006 9. Resolution No 6496. adopting the guidelines for single - family architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt h. Or dinanc e 1. amending 1 Sectons of .1 cle IX, Ch t v slon 5 of ... Municipal Code relating to architectural design review, Recommen dation: Adop Recommendation: Approve Approve k. Recommen dation: Approve 1. Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase contract to Home Depot for the purchase of smoke al arms 111 amount not T'. '61111 Recommen dation: App e and authorize .1 - final payment . - • •mpletmade 1 accordance with the contract documents. . 4S to retent of 1 Recommendation: Approve n. Authorize the City 111 - concre Mana por . 1 2005/06 Conc - .. ,S approve - orde Calif ornia •_1• n Inc, _ 1 ..1 . 1 111 -- Removal - - men and rel eye the apparent low bidder of their bid obliaation, Recommendation: Approve 0. Award a one-year Professional Services Agreement a dv o c acy se rvices n the amp . 11 beginning extensi 10 Recommen dation: .. . - Consultina Services on Santa Anita Specific Plan/Caruso Proiect and Westfield Santa Anita Mall. A pprove Acc ept q. L perfo Serv 1 Environmental for the Asbes 1 Abate Pr oiect as c omplete and authorize t he final payment • be made I accordance ♦ - contra docu ments, subiec Recommen dation: Approve 3. CITY MANAGER Recommend a. 2006 FederaUMFUNW-vocacy Priorities De and App b. R esoluti on 1• 1 6 determ h l • • interes . neces .'11.1. t . •1 "•• •1. replacement of - 1. 1 municipal imorovements and makino find Rec ommendation: App ►. •1 - \. T 1..11.1 •. !• •--S • . ! 1•.•: •11 !�1• !I "S• • ,l. S • .•_ 1 1 - 3 0-0 1. • I - : A N - ..1. • � • 1 •:. 1• 1' "1 '. •1 • ! - 11.1 .• 11. • '1 4 1" .11• • y' • 1 •• • I. •1 11" ♦ .1. !• iS •1 • - 1. 11- !, - •y. sS •I , '! 11..1• 11.11' • 1• • I• I' -11 .I• • • . 1• I• 4• Recommendation: Introduce . f . . ••. -1. _/ . . 11 1 •111'1. ...5 :'!1 . �� �T.IY1Ol•SLR•SS!ffcf m�.a Recommendation: Approve _. 1!•1 1• - 1•• !1• 1 . - •1 ••IC •1 Y• 1' A ♦ 11 the General Plan Recommendation: Adopt ADJOURNMENT The City Council will adjourn this meeting in memory of Fred Richard Jahnke to January 3, 2006, 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber Conference Room. ANNOTATED AGENDA Arcadia City Council /RedevelopmentAgency E ]E • E] ,� a • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 5:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room CLOSED SESSION - a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Vahe Manoukian v. City of Arcadia, et al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34867). b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Joseph T. Pulliam and Ethlyn J. Pulliam v. Clty of Arcadia, et al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34221). C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) 55. W. Huntington Drive Paul Rusnak 21 Morlan Place Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia) 28 W. Santa Clara Street Don and Ray Dahlgren r . 41 W. Huntington Drive Mrs. Robert Johannsen /Manuel De Jesus Romero 35 W. Huntington Drive Gary and Dan Braun (35 W. Huntington Partners) 27 W. Huntington Drive Richard Fisher (Templekadian) " 101 W. Huntington Drive Charles Frandson 103 W. Huntington Drive . James Corr Negotiating Parties - Agency Deputy Executive Director and Economic Development Manager Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 conference with real property negotiators. Property Description: Southerly parking area of Santa Anita Race Track property Negotiating Parties: City: City . Manager, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and City Attorney Property Owner: Caruso Affiliated, Caruso Property Management Company, Magna Entertainment Corporation, the Santa Anita Companies and the Los Angeles Turf Club Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council Member seconded. by Council Member and carried without objection to read all "ordinances /resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL a. A A I of Planning Commissions denial for a proposed tentative map (TM 635521 for a 5 -lot subs b. Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No 6495 adopting Transportation Impact Fee Program Recommendation: Approve and Adopt C. Resolution Ng 6498 formally terminating a cable television franchise agreement between the CiN of Arcadia and Altrio Communications Inc. Recommendation: Adopt - Re4Icfiion No 6499 agreement between the City of Arcadia and Champion Broadband California LLC arantina nonex rights to construct and operate an Open Video System in the City of Arcadia and _ setting forth terms and conditions relating to the exercise of those rights. " NO REPORTABLE ACTION NO REPORTABLE ACTION NO REPORTABLE ACTION NO REPORTABLE ACTION APPROVED 5.0 APPEAL APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 APPROVED 5 -0 Recommendation: Adopt d. Resolution No 6505 cable franchise transfer from Adelphia to ComcastRme Wamer APPROVED Recommendation: Adopt 5-0 2. e. Resolution No 6497 establishing fees for single - family architectural desian review APPROVED Recommendation: Adopt 5-0 f. 2005 Urban Water Manaaement Plan (UWMP) Update. APPROVED Recommendation: Approve 5-0 CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the November 15. 2005 Regular Meetino and November 16 2005 Special Meeting APPROVED Recommendation: Approve 5-0 CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the November 15. 2005 Reaular Meetina and November 16, 2005 Special Meetino. APPROVED Recommendation: Approve 5-0 C. Resolution No 6501 callino and aivino notice of the holdina of a General Municipal Election to be held on APPROVED Tuesday April 11 2006 for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the City 5-0 Charter. Recommendation: Adopt d. Resolution No 6502 adopting reaulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to Candidates APPROVED Statements. submitted to-the—e-lectorate an the costs thereo for the General Municipal Election to be held 5-0 e. Resolution No 6503 ordering the canvass of the General Municipal Election to be held on April 11, 2006. APPROVED to be made by the City Clerk of the City of Ar i . 5-0 f. Resolution No 6504 reauestino the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to permit the APPROVED Registrar- Recorder of said County to render specified services to the City relating to the conduct of a 5-0 General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday April 11 2006. APPROVED alarms in the amount not to exceed $60,009. Recommendation: Adopt 5-0 Recommendation: Approve g. Resolution No 6496 adootino the guidelines by E C Construction for the Santa Anita for sinale - family architectural desian review APPROVED Recommendation: Adapt 5-0 to a retention of $42,310,97. 5-0 h. Ordinance No. 2213, m n in in Sections of Article IX. Chapter 2 Part 9. Division 5 of the Arcadia APPROVED Municipal Code relating to architectural desian review 5-0 Recommendation: Adopt i. Accept all work performed by Powell Enaineedng Construction for the Golden West Avenue Roadway APPROVED Rehabilitation Waterline Rehabilitation and Sewer Repair Proiect as complete and authorize the final 5 - 0 payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents subject to a retention of $23,717.48. Recommendation: Approve j. Consideration of reauest by Methodist Hospital to utilize three (3) temporary modular structures for APPROVED classroom_$pace and toil facilities for a. maximum of fourte months 5-0 k. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Aareement with Phillip Sexton for APPROVED construction management services during the construction of Fire Station 105 5-0 Recommendation: Approve I. Authorize the City Manaaer to award a purchase contract to Home Depot for the purchase of smoke APPROVED alarms in the amount not to exceed $60,009. 5-0 Recommendation: Approve M. Accept all work performed by E C Construction for the Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair Proiect as APPROVED complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject 5-0 to a retention of $42,310,97. Recommendation: Approve n. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Damn Construction Comoanv in the amount of APPROVED $292.000 for the concrete portion of the 2005106 Concrete Repair Project, approve a chanoe order with 4-0 Califomia landscape Services Inc (CLS) in the amount of $30,000 for Tree Removal and Replacement KOVACIC and relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation. "ABSTAIN" Recommendation: Approve 3. o. Award a one -year Professional Services Aareement extension to The Ferouson Group for federal Ieaislative APPROVED advocacy services in the amount of 565.000 beginning January 1. 2006 5-0 Recommendation: Approve P. Authorize the City Manaaer to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Donna Butler for APPROVED Consultina Services on Santa Anita Soecific Plan /Caruso—Pmiect and Westfield Santa Anita-Mall. 5-0 q. Accent all work performed by Service 1st Environmental for the Asbestos /Lead Base Paint Abatement APPROVED Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract 5-0 documents subject to retention Recommendation: Approve _ CITY MANAGER a. 2006 Federal Legislative Advocacy Priorities: APPROVED Recommendation: Determine and Approve, 5-0 b. Resolution No 6506, determining that the public interest and necessity demand the acauisition, APPROVED construction repair and replacement of certain municipal improvements and making findings relating 5-0 thereto. Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No 2214 calling a municipal bond election for the purpose of submittina to the electors of the APPROVED CRY of Arcadia a measure providina for the issuance of aeneral obligation bonds of the City for the 5-0 ap01 jsition construction installation and improvement of a grade separation fo'r Santa Anita Avenue; declaring the estimated cost of the municipal improvements the amount of the principal of the indebtedness to be incurred therefore and the maximum rate of interest to be paid thereon: makina provision for the lew and collection of taxes; fixing the date of the election as April 11 2006 and the manner of holding the same and providing for notice thereof. Recommendation: Introduce Consideration of Addendum No 1 to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan APPROVED 5.0 Recommendation: Approve Resolution No 6493 establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency_ APPROVED with the General Plan. 5-0 Recommendation: Adopt I 47:0110 wt ^° w MINUTES Arcadia City Council/ Redevelopment Agency . t:cr -,:, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 °airo °tit °m° 5:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (S minutes per person) Chris Sutton, appeared to address the Council on item c. on the Closed Session Agenda. Manny Romero, appeared to address the Council on item c. on the Closed Session Agenda. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Vahe Manoukian v. City of Arcadia, at al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34867). b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Joseph T. Pulliam and Ethlyn J. Pulliam v. City of Arcadia, et al. (Pasadena Superior Court Case No. GCO34221). C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) 55 W. Huntington Drive Paul Rusnak 21 Morlan Place Hann Ling Shaw (Church In Arcadia) 28 W. Santa Clara Street Don and Ray Dahlgren 41 W. Huntington Drive Mrs. Robert Johannsen /Manuel De Jesus Romero 35 W. Huntington Drive Gary and Dan Braun (35 W. Huntington Partners) 27 W. Huntington Drive Richard Fisher (Templekadlan) 101 W. Huntington Drive Charles Frandson 103 W. Huntington Drive James Dorr Negotiating Parties - Agency Deputy Executive Director and Economic Development Manager Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 conference with real property negotiators. Property Description: Southerly parking area of Santa Anita Race Track property Negotiating Parties: City: City Manager, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and City Attorney Property Owner: Caruso Affiliated, Caruso Property Management Company, Magna Entertainment Corporation, the Santa Anita Companies and the Los Angeles Turf Club Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 12 -6-05 47:0111 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber INVOCATION Reverend Brenda Simonds, Arcadia Methodist Hospital PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jo Ann Hunter ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, reported that the City Council met tonight in Closed Session in order to discuss four (4) matters on the agenda. There was no reportable action taken by the City Council on any of the items. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried without objection to read all ordinances /resolutions by title only and waive reading In full. a. Presentation of Certificate of Commendation to Monika Yeh. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda, you may be limited to raising only those Issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. a. An Aooeal of Planning Commission's denial for a proposed tentative map (TM 63552) for a 5 -lot subdivision at 1221 -5 South Second Avenue and 150 East La Sierra Recommendation: Deny appeal Staff Report Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator presented the staff report; staff noted that the Tentative Map Application No. TM 63522 was submitted to create five residential lots from three existing lots at 1221 and 1225 S. Second Avenue, and 150 E. La Sierra Drive; the Planning Commission voted 4 -1 to deny this application and an appeal was submitted by the property owner; staff is recommending denial of the appeal because one of the proposed lots has a substandard lot width. Staff responded to various Inquiries made by the City Council regarding potential options for the subdivision of this property. Public John Barker owner of 1225 Second Avenue, appeared to speak in support of the approval of Tentative Map TM Testimony 63552. Gordon Maddock 900 South First Avenue, appeared to speak in support of the approval of Tentative Map TM 63552. Kent Lin • 165 E. La Sierra Drive, appeared to speak in opposition to the approval of Tentative Map TM 63552. Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and noting no further Public Hearing objection the Mayor closed the public hearing. 12 -6 -05 47:0112 City Council In response to an Inquiry from Council Member Chandler, Ms. Butler noted that staff would prefer one (1) substandard Deliberation lot, rather than two (2) In this case. Mayor Wuo and Council Member Marshall expressed that granting this appeal would not set a precendent for the neighborhood. Motion A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Chandler, to approve Tentative Map No. TM 63552, overturning the denial of the application by the Planning Commission. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Kovacic, Chandler, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. b. Transpgrtatlon Master Plan and Resolution No 6495. adopting Transportation Impact Fee Program Recommendation: Approve and Adopt Mr. Penman, and Philip Wray, City Engineer, presented the staff report; staff recently updated the Transportation Master Plan which.projects traffic growth over the next 25 years on the 27 most critical signalized intersections in need of Improvements; based on the results of the update, a Transportation Impact Fee Program has been prepared to help fund the Improvements; the Program proposes a fee for all new development, is consistent with state law, establishes a "fair share" contribution from new development based on the number of p.m. peak -hour vehicle trips added to the City's arterial network; staff is recommending approval of the fees. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Kovacic, staff will be working with Los Angeles County to address traffic at Michilllnda Avenue and the remaining Intersections, which are shared by Los Angeles County and the City of Arradia. Public Judie Marvin Romin appeared to speak In approval of this Item . Testimony Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and noting no further Public Hearing objection the Mayor closed the public hearing. - City Council None. Deliberation Motion _ A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Chandler, and carried on roll call vote to approve the Transportation Master Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6495, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, setting a transportation impact fee for new development in the City of Arcadia; in addition, the prorated costs of the three Intersections on Michillinda will be added to the Impact Fee Analysis and an amended - Resolution be placed on a future Council Agenda for Council's consideration. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Kovacic, Chandler, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. C. Resolution No 6498 formally terminating a cable television franchise agreement between the City of Arcadia and Altrio Communications. Inc. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No 6499 agreement between the City of Arcadia and Champlon Broadband California LLC granting nonexcluslve rights to construct and operate an Coen Video System in the City of Arcadia and setting forth terms and conditions relating to the exercise of those rights Recommendation: Adopt Staff Report Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director, and Jeff Ballinger, representing the City Attorney's Office, presented the staff report; staff Is requesting that the City Council formally terminate the cable television franchise agreement with Altrio Communication as they no longer exist as a corporate entity doing business in the City of Arcadia; staff Is also recommending the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider an agreement between the City of Arcadia and Champion Broadband setting forth terms and conditions to grant nonexclusive rights to construct and operate an Open Video System. 12 -605 47:0113 Public None. Testimony A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Kovacic, and noting no further objection Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal, and noting no further objection Public Hearing the Mayor closed the public hearing. City Council None. Deliberation to approve Resolution 6505, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, conditionally authorizing Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Kovacic, and carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution No. 6498, a resolution of the City of Arcadia, California, formally terminating a cable television Roll Call AYES: franchise agreement between the City of Arcadia and Altrio Communications, Inc. and approve Resolution 6499, a NOES: resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, conditionally approving an open video system (OVS) e. agreement with Champion Broadband, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company. Roll Cali AYES: Council /Agency Members Segal, Kovacic, Chandler, Marshall, and Wuo NOES: None. d. Resolution No 6505, cable franchise transfer from Adelphla to ComcasGTlme Warner Recommendation: Adopt Staff Report Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director, presented the report; staff is recommending that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider a conditional assignment of a Cable Television Franchise from Adelphla Public Testimony Communications Corporation to a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, CAC Exchange II, LLC. Public Testimony None. Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Kovacic, and noting no further objection Public Hearing the Mayor closed the public hearing. City Council Deliberation None. Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution 6505, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, conditionally authorizing the assignment and change of control of a cable television franchise by Century-TCI California, LLP, to CAC Exchange II, LLC. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Kovacic, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. e. Resolution No 6497. establishing fees for single- family architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt Staff Report Mr. Penman and Ms. Butler presented the staff report; staff noted that the City Council had previously approved Text Amendment 2005 -04 adding single - family design review to the Architectural Design Review regulations in the Arcadia Municipal Code and Introduced Ordinance 2213, amending certain section of the municipal code relating to Architectural Design Review; staff presented fees for the design review which must be established by Resolution of the City Council. Public Testimony None. Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and noting no further Public Hearin objection the Mayor closed the public hearinq. City Council None. Deliberation Motion A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Chandler, and carded on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6497, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, establishing fees for single-family residential architectural design review. 4 12 -6-05 47:0114 Roll Call AYES: CouncilJAgency Members Kovacic, Chandler, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. f. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update Recommendation: Approve Staff Report Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director, and Tom Tait, Field Services Manager, presented the report and a power point presentation; staff noted that the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to describe and evaluate sources of water supply, efficient use of water, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs; Urban water suppliers are required to update their Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP) every 5 years and staffs presentation tonight . is to present the 2005 update to the adopted 2000 UWMP; staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the UWMP. Public Testimony Judy Marvin Romine appeared to speak in support of the approval of this item. Motion to Close A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal, and noting no further objection Public Hearinq the Mayor closed the public hearinq. City Council None. Deliberation Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to adopt the City of Arcadia's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update and direct staff to submit it to the State Department of Water Resources. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (5 minutes per person) Joann Hunter representing the Arcadia Public Library Foundation, appeared to speak regarding a variety of upcoming events at the Library. Red Forrest appeared to present the Council with an original recording of "Seabiscuit Run." Judith Romine appeared to speak regarding a traffic ticket issue. Joe Borland appeared to speak requesting an additional appeal to the City Council regarding a previously appealed item. Brian Miles, appeared to speak reqardinq Mr. Borland's request for an additional appeal before the City Council. .REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS CHANDLER Wished the community "Happy Holidays "; noted the dates City Hall would be closed; provided an update regarding recent mail thefts in Arcadia. KOVACIC Thanked Mr. Forrest for the original recording; responded, via the City Attorney, to Mr. Borland's request for an additional appeal; made reference to the upcoming holiday recreational and social events around Arcadia; noted that December 7th is Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day; wished all In the community a "Happy Holidays." MARSHALL Thanked each member of the public who chose to speak at tonight's meeting; reminded the community of the Christmas Tree recycling program provided by the Sanitation District, and wished all members of the community a "Merry Christmas and New Year." SEGAL Wished everyone a "Happy Holiday and New Year; " reminded the community to drive carefully during the holiday season; requested that the matter of retirement insurance benefits for City Council Members be placed on a future agenda (Marshall and Wuo supported); invited the community to the upcoming Breakfast with Santa and Holiday Snow Party on December 17th. WUO Thanked Mr. Forrest for the Seabiscuit CD; noted the Chamber of Commerce' recent anniversary; Invited members of the public to attend the annual Breakfast with Santa event. 12 -6 -05 47:0115 CITY Noted that tonight would be Community Development Administrator Donna Butler's last City Council meeting as she has MANAGER announced her retirement from the City; he thanked Ms. Butler for her years of dedicated service to the City. BILL KELLY 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the November 15 2005 Regular Meeting and November 16 2005 Special Meeting. Recommendation: Approve CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the November 15 2005 Regular Meeting and November 16 2005 Special Meeting Recommendation: Approve C. Resolution No 6501 calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday Aorll 11 2006 for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the City Charter. Recommendation: Adopt d. Resolution No 6502. adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to Candidates Statements submitted to the electorate and the costs thereof for the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday. April 11. 2006. Recommendation: Adopt e. Resolution No 6503 ordering the canvass of the General Municipal Election to be held on April 11 2006 to be made by the City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Recommendation: Adopt f. Resolution No 6504 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to oermit the RReglstrar- Recorder of said County to render specified services to the City relating to the conduct of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday. April 11 2006 _ Recommendation: Adopt 9. Resolution No 6496, adootino the guidelines for single - family architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt h. Ordinance No 2213 amending certain Sections of Article IX Chapter 2 Part 9 Division 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt 1. Accept all work performed by Powell Engineering Construction for the Golden West Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation Waterline Rehabilitation and Sewer Repair Project as comolete and authorize the final payment to he made in accordance with the contract documents, subiect to a retention of $23.717.48 Recommendation: Approve J. Consideration of request by Methodist Hospital to utilize three (3) temporary modular structures for classroom snare and toilet facilities for a maximum of fourteen (14) months Recommendation: Approve k. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Phillip Sexton for construction management services during the construction of Fire Station 105 Recommendation: Approve I. Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase contract to Home Depot for the purchase of smoke alarms In the amount not to exceed 360.000 Recommendation: Approve M. Accept all work performed by E C Construction for the Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents subject to a retention of 342.310.97 Recommendation: Approve 12 -6-05 47:0116 n. Authorize the City Manager to enter Into a contract with Damon Construction Company. in the amount of $292.000 for the concrete portion of the 2005/06 Concrete Repalr Proiect, approve a change order with California Landscape Services Inc (CLS) in the amount of $30.000 for Tree Removal and Replacement and relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation. Recommendation: Approve 0. Award a one -year Professional Services Agreement extension to The Ferguson Group for federal legislative advocacy services in the amount of $65.000 beginning January 1. 2006 Recommendation: Approve P. Authorize the City Manager to enter Into a Professional Services Agreement with Donna Butler for Consulting Services on Santa Anita Specific Plan /Caruso Protect and Westfield Santa Anita Mall Recommendation: Approve q. Acceot all work performed by Service 1st Environmental for the Asbestos /Lead Base Paint Abatement Protect as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the Contract documents, subiect to retention. Recommendation: Approve Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.a. through 2. q. on the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and City Council Consent Calendars. City Council Member Kovacic noted that he would abstain from voting on item 2. n. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo (Kovacic abstained from voting on Item 2.n.) NOES: None. 3. CITY MANAGER a. 2006 Federal Legislative Advocacy Priorities Recommendation: Determine and Approve Mr. Kelly presented the report; staff noted that the City Council annually reviews and approves projects for which the City's legislative consultant, the Ferguson Group, will prioritize In the coming legislative session; staff is recommending that the City Council consider projects related to water, regional counter - terrorlsm training, and the Foothills Special Enforcement Team, as the City's legislative prlorlUes. Council Member Marshall noted the success of the Ferguson Group in assisting Arcadia obtain federal funding. Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall, seconded by Council Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to authorize staff to direct the Ferguson Group to work on behalf of the City of Arcadia to seek funding for the water, regional counter - terrorism training and Foothills Special Enforcement Team programs and authorize staff to submit any documents or application forms for federal funding as may be needed for each project. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Marshall, Segal, Chandler, Kovacic, and Wuo NOES: None. 12.6 -05 47:0117 b. Resolution No 6506, determining that the public Interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction. repair and replacement of certain municipal improvements and making findings relating thereto. Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No 2214 calling a municipal bond election for the puroose of submitting to the electors of the City of Arcadia a measure providing for the Issuance of general obligation bonds of the City for the acouisition construction Installation and Improvement of a grade separation for Santa Anita Avenue: declaring the estimated cost of the municipal Improvementr the amount of the principal of the indebtedness to be Incurred therefore and the maximum rate of interest to be paid thereon• making provision for the levy and collection of taxes: fixing the date of the election as April 11 2006 and the manner of holding the same; and providing for notice thereof. Recommendation: Introduce Mr. Penman and Ms. Hause presented the report;. staff has been directed to look at financing options for constructing the grade separation at Santa Anita; a two -thirds majority vote is required to place this Item on the April 11, 2006 General Election Ballot. Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6506, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, determining that the public interest and necesity demand the acquisition, construction, repair and replacement of certain municipal Improvements and making findings relating thereto, and to introduce Ordinance No. 2214, an Ordinance of the City of Arcadia, calling a municipal bond election for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Arcadia, a measure providing for the acquisition, construction, Installation and Improvement of a grade separation for Santa Anita Avenue; declaring the estimated cost of the municipal Improvements, the amoung of the principal of the indebtedness to be incurred therefore, and the maximum rate of Interest to be paid thereon; making provision for the levy and collection of taxes; fixing the date of the election as April 11, 2006 and the manner of holding the same; and providing for notice thereof. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Segal, Marshall, Chandler, Kovacic, and Wuo NOES: None. C. Consideration of Addendum No 1 to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan Recommendation: Approve Resolution No 6493 establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures conslstena with the General Plan. Recommendation: Adopt Mr. Penman and Ms. Butler presented the report; staff noted that during the City's recent review of the 1996 General Plan several strategies involving traffic circulation goals were Identified that related to maintaining roadway operations at or better than Level of Service D during the non - racing season along all roadway links under control of the City of Arcadia; as the City is updating its Transportation Master Plan the Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council adopt tonight's Resolution establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan. Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall, seconded by Council Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to approve Addendum No. 1. to the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6493, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan. Roll Call AYES: Council /Agency Members Marshall, Segal, Chandler, Kovacic, and Wuo NOES: None. 12 -6 -05 47:0118 ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned this meeting at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Fred Richard Jahnke to January 3, 2006, 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber Conference Room. James H. Barrows, City Clerk 4 By: Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager 9 12 -6-05 7 4 STAFF REPORT � OS NO 0 Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator X 17 Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner ,z SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Map Application No. 63552 for a five -lot subdivision at 1221 and 1225 S. Second Avenue, and 150 E. La Sierra Drive Recommendation: Deny Appeal SUMMARY Tentative Map Application,No. TM 63552 was submitted by the civil engineer, EGL Associates, Inc., to create five residential lots from three existing lots at 1221 and 1225 S. Second Avenue, and 150 E. La Sierra Drive. The Planning Commission at its October 11, 2005 meeting voted 4 -1 to deny this application. On October 20, 2005, an appeal was submitted by the property owner, John Barker. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of this appeal because one of the proposed lots has a substandard lot width. BACKGROUND The three subject properties are located in the R -1 (First One - Family Residential) zone, which permits one dwelling unit on a lot. Two of these properties have a legal non - conforming status of having more than one unit, resulting in a combined total of five units existing within the boundaries of the subject properties. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject properties into five single - family properties with the following lot characteristics: Lot Area Width Depth 1 21,812 sq.ft. 91.12' to 101.12' 231.26' 2 17,344 sq.ft. 75' 231.26' 3 Corner lot 9,117 sq.ft. 81' 100' to 113' 4 8,490 sq.ft. 75.13' 113' 5 8,490 sq.ft. 75.13' 113' Min. R -1 Interior lot requirement 7,500 sq.ft. 75' 100' Min. R -1 Corner lot requirement 8,500 sq.ft. 85' 100' Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will front on La Sierra Drive and Lots 3, 4 and 5 will front on Second Avenue. Proposed Lot 3 is a corner lot. All the lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of 7,500 sq.ft. for interior lots and 8,500 sq.ft. for corner lots. However, Lot 3, the corner lot fronting on Second Avenue, would have a substandard lot width. According to the Subdivision Section 9113.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, reverse corner lots in the R -1 zone are required to have a minimum lot width of 85' -0 ". The proposed corner lot (Lot 3) is a 81' -0" -wide reverse corner lot, where the rear property line abuts the side property line of the adjacent property. With a front and street side yard setback of 25' -0 ", the substandard width would result in a restrictive building footprint for any future development. The reduced width would encourage maximizing the lot coverage (building footprint). The applicant's original proposal was to retain all three existing buildings along the northerly portion of the subject site. However, such proposal would create significant setback violations, including one building that would have a front setback of approximately three feet. Therefore, for this appeal, only the dwelling at 150 E. La Sierra Drive (Lot 1) is proposed to remain. This building has a front yard setback of 19 feet, six feet less than the minimum requirement of 25 feet. Staff is recommending denial of this application because this proposal is not consistent with the City's current subdivision code and building setback requirements. Section 9115.8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states that a Tentative Map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made. Staff feels that findings 1 and 2 would apply to this proposal: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and 'specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act. TM 63552 December 6, 2005 Page 2 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. 5.. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through' or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The applicant cited numerous existing corner lots in the vicinity that do not comply with the 85-0" corner lot width requirement. These non - conforming lots were subdivided before this code requirement was adopted in 1988. Staff cannot justify supporting a substandard lot width based on existing non - conforming properties. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission at its October 11, 2005 meeting voted 4 -1 to deny the requested tentative map. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and felt that this proposal does not meet the City's requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of TM 63552 December 6, 2005 Page 3 historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council deny the appeal of Tentative Map No. TM 63552, because the proposal does not meet the City's minimum subdivision requirements as set forth above. If the City Council determines that based on the evidence presented this is an appropriate subdivision proposal and moves to approve Tentative Map No. TM 63552, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Public Works 'Services Department, and Development Services Department. 2. That all existing structures shall be removed. 3. That there shall be no setback modifications granted for the future development of the proposed properties. 4. That after the issuance of a building permit a Rough Grading Certificate will be required prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading Certificate shall be required prior to the final building inspection. Said certificates will certify that all grading operations have been completed in substantial compliance with the final grading plan approved by the City Engineer, and shall be filed with, and approved by, the Community Development Administrator. 5. That a tree preservation plan identifying by size and type all trees with a diameter in excess of four inches (0' -4 ") shall be presented to the Development Services Department for its review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. Approval of TM 63552 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited TM 63552 December 6, 2005 Page 4 to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 8. Approval of TM 63552 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and ; filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. .Approved: "g William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: 1) Vicinity Maps 2) Tentative Map 63552 3) Appeal letter dated October 18, 2005 4) October 11, 2005 Planning Commission Draft Minutes 5) Negative Declaration & Initial Study 6) Comments from Engineering Services dated Oct. 5, 2005 TM 63552 December 6, 2005 Page 5 1 100 (1209) (1215) Q O (1221) W LIZ W (1227) LU 0 A N 0 (1210) 100 Feet (1136) (1201) (1203) Q LA SIERRA C p (202) (206) U W W (1236) (213) (131) (1300) DR (153) ILENE DR ILENE DR (130) (1306) (150) (166) F( 1308) (210 (152) (160) F(1318) (1312) (1321) (1321) °OFFO 1221 & 1225 S Second Avenue Development Serv Department 150 E La Sierra Drive Engineering Division PraPered by R.s.Gwela; W05 ma� T1Ul 63552 (151) I (157) J LA SIERRA DR I.TJ r KAKI J 112 LA SIERRA JL IF 1, q VE 14A, 10. Eld "Ail is LA SIERRA LUM > Lu of IJ ILENE DR ILENEDR., Ilk 1,01 t 1 ' Eld "Ail is I mv T 90016 VO 'VIOV 3nN3AV ONZ 'S 92ZI 'ONI'S31viob NMIAIans slog g CV U to aw %D < LU v'�¢. �� s3,�x.x- < LLJ m40 Y c >a� U i A z.— � — t7 Rs zs ,ti II 2MD A VE. I O I. 1'a vgt a All "0 I lls i . 1 1 4 1 -J, It, E g 1 1> '1411, F v I I ZF j l it j L --zf v'�¢. �� s3,�x.x- G(n A z.— � — t7 ,ti II 2MD A VE. I O I. 1'a vgt a All "0 I lls i . 1 1 4 1 -J, It, E g 1 1> '1411, F v I I ZF j l it j L --zf RECEIVED JOHN & KAREN BARKER 3778 QUARTER MILE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Mayor John Wuo & Arcadia City Council P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91006 October 18, 2005 OCT 2 0 2005 CNY CLERK w We, the applicants for Tentative Tract Number 063552, do hereby exercise our right to appeal the decision rendered by the Arcadia Planning Commission At its meeting on October 11, 2005 that denied our proposed subdivision. We have submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map that has corrected some minor omissions that seemed to cause some confusion. Attached please find a $500.00 check payable to the City of Arcadia for the required filing fee. Sincerely, hn Barker Applicant CLIENT NAME REND PY: SN 020D0005496 PAYGF;: TODAY'3 DATE: 101 REGISTER DATE: 10/201 TIME: 11:31:28 DESCRIPTIOi! ',MOUNT PLANNING APPLICATION =500.00 TOTAL DUE: 5;00.00 CHECK PAID: 5500.0 "u' C:i "N NO: 24_ TENDEIED: 5500.00 CHAiiGE: $.00 _ M I N U T E S Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Dr. with Chairman Lucas presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Senior Planner Lisa Flores Associate Planner Tom Li Assistant Planner Andrew Gonzales Senior Administrative Assistant Silva Vergel MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler indicated that a revised page 6 was distributed for item no. 3 on the agenda as well as new elevations for the project. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. PUBLIC HEARING TM 63552 1221 and 1225 S. Second Ave. and 150 E. La Sierra Dr. EGL Associates Consideration of a tentative map for a 5 -lot subdivision. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Hank Jong, EGL Associates, 11819 Goldring Rd., explained that there was an error on the map. When they were redrawing the map, they changed the dimension and failed to show the new dimension on the lots. Based on this change, all of the new lots, with the exception of the corner lot, which will be 81' in lieu of 85' required will comply with the minimum code requirements. They noticed this when they were reviewing the staff report; thus, the report is incorrect because they showed the wrong dimension on their plans and the report is based upon the wrong map. John Barker, 3778 Quarter Mile, Dr., San Diego, explained the mistake. He indicated that he has been a realtor in the community for many years. When this was being drawn, they were contemplating if it is better to have the two interior lots be substandard or have a substandard comer lot. They surveyed the area and found that the majority of the corner lots are not in compliance with the 85' requirement. He presented a map of the area that delineated all of the corner properties, 87% of which do not comply, i.e.; 54 of the lots. He pointed out that they are not asking for one -sided cul-de -sacs because they know that these are not desirable. They feel that what they have proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. He did not see any problems with having an 81' wide lot. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that he did not realize that the lot size for comer lots had increased; he was always under the impression that they had to be 75' wide. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First Ave., said that he was the one that suggested having a substandard comer lot instead of two interior lots because he thought it would be better to have only one lot be in non- compliance. He pointed out that the comer lot exceeds all minimum requirements with the exception of the lot width. He distributed a diagram that illustrated the building envelope for a hypothetical home on an 81' wide lot. Presumably, a 4,000 sq. ft. house could be built on this lot, excluding the garage. Thus, the width of the lot would not hinder the future development of the lot. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, he assured the Planning Commission that if approved, they would never construct a house on this particular comer lot that would require modifications. Spencer O'Brien, 150 E. La Sierra, was in favor of the proposed lot split. He asked why they would need to redo the gutters when these were done within the last two years? In reply to questions by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that if approved, the existing structures would not be in compliance. They prefer to keep the structure on the comer lot. It would have a 23.92' setback in lieu of 25' required. They want to construct a house on La Sierra. He said that they would like to keep the single -story structure (garage) on lot 2, which is located 5' from the property line, until the property on La Sierra is developed. Mr. O'Brien is currently using this structure. Ms. Butler indicated that the setback of the structure on lot 3 does not comply and asked what their plans were with regard to this building. Mr. Barker replied that they would tear it down if they were required to do so. Kent Lin, 165 E. La Sierra, felt this was an inappropriate development of the lot, especially because it does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act. Laws have been put in place for a reason and they need to follow them; there should be no deviation because it will set a negative precedent. He did not object to the development if they were in compliance. The intent is to have compatible projects. He could not see any hardship or any viable reason to approve the project as proposed. Corer lots are very important and he did not want to have one that is substandard in his immediate neighborhood. There are numerous Arcadia City Plains Camtmssion 2 10/11/5 mature trees on these lots and the ones that are not in the way of the building envelope should be preserved. He did not think that they should be given special privileges. In rebuttal, Mr. Barker said that they have been attempting to obtain this property for 20 years and have recently purchased it because it became available. If they had purchased it 20 years ago, they would have been in compliance because the minimum lot width was 75' at that time. They want to have a quality development and he pointed out that one of the lots is over 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Maddock stated that their request to keep the one structure is for Mr. Barker to reside there while his new home is being constructed. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas NOES: None In answer to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler stated they should be able to construct a house on these lots and still comply with code. This is an older neighborhood and many of the lots and houses existed prior to the 85' wide lot requirement, which was changed in 1988, also, increasing the required setback for corner lots. When asked if it would be better to have substandard interior lots or a comer lot, Ms.'Butler said that interior lots have less of an impact. She explained that the Arcadia Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to grant a modifications under specific findings for substandard lot dimension. She felt that they could construct a home on the corner lot without requiring any modifications. She suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this as proposed, that the structure on lot 2 be removed. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Ms. Butler said that when new code is adopted, all existing structures become "grandfathered" but if they were to develop the lots, the new structures would have to comply with the new regulations. She went on to say that if this were approved, the setbacks of some structures on the lots would not be in compliance. She remarked that any future homes on these lots should be able to comply with code. The removal of all structures would need to be a condition of approval. She stated that even though the interior lots are being amended to comply with code, staff does not encourage substandard lots. She said that there was noway for staff to know that they made an error on the map because lots are not always rectangular and staffs recommendation and report was based upon the information that was provided by the applicant. She also stated that they would be required to provide a tree preservation plan, if the project is approved. She did not think that approval would set a precedent because similar situations are already in existence, but she did not want to encourage these types of developments. The new -lots as proposed would not be incompatible with the neighborhood because there are many in the area that are similar or, smaller. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this as proposed, they could make a finding that the dimensions of the comer lot meet or exceed what currently exists in the area. Arcadia City Pla®mg Camminaim 3 10 /11 15 Ms. Butler explained which structures comply with current setback requirements. Commissioner Baderian made a motion to approve this request but it died due to lack of a second Commissioner Olson was not convinced that there should be 5 lots here. There was a reason for the code amendment in 1988, i.e., to give corner lots greater setback and pulling them back from the street. He did not think that there was anything unusual or circumstances about this property that would warrant an approval. He could not see a compelling reason to approve this request. Commissioner Wen was concerned not only about oak trees but also about other trees on the property. Ms. Butler replied that oak trees are preserved in the city but the developer would be required to submit a tree preservation plan. Mr. Li stated that there are 2 oak trees on the lot. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to deny TM 63552 based on findings D.I to D.4. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Lucas NOES: Commissioner Wen Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a there is a ten -day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by October 21". 2. PUBLIC HEARING MP 2005 -011 178 W. Longden Ave. Gary Alzona and Dean Lee Consideration of a modification for a second -floor setback for a proposed single - family residence on a reverse comer lot. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Gary Alzona, 178 W. Longden, thanked Mr. Gonzales for helping him through this process. He felt that this is a good resolution and that the proposed materials and the design will create a handsome home. He thought they have designed a very special home. In answer to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. Alzona said that the design is their interpretation of a California Prairie style. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City Plarning COMMiWiUn 4 10/11/5 FILE NO.: TM 63552 *J AR1 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Application No. TM 63552 2. Project Address (Location): 1221 & 1225 So. Second Avenue, and 150 E. La Sierra Dr. 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Hank Jong 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 263 -3588 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia — Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Thomas Li, Associate Planner (626) 574 -5447 6. General Plan Designation: Single- Family Residential (0 -6 du /ac max.) 7. Zoning Classification: R -1 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) , Tentative Map Application No. TM 63552 to consolidate three lots and subdivide them into five single - family properties. -1- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 FILE NO.: TM 63552 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The surrounding properties are developed with single- family dwellings, and are zoned R -1. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City Engineering Division / City Maintenance Department / City Water Division / Los Angeles County Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Mineral Resources Population & Housing Recreation Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use & Planning Noise Public Services Transportation / Circulation [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the -2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 FILE NO.: TM 63552 environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department � 4 mW -� -os ignature Date Thomas Li _ Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. -3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 FILE NO.: TM 63552 4. 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. -4- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial, light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposal is for single - family residential purposes and will not have such impacts. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to, non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? The proposal is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -1 Residential zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for a residential use which is consistent with the surrounding development. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: CEQA Checklist 4 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial, light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposal is for single - family residential purposes and will not have such impacts. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to, non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? The proposal is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -1 Residential zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for a residential use which is consistent with the surrounding development. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: CEQA Checklist 4 7102 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ El people? The proposal is for single- family purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, after climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery CEQA Checklist 5 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation sites? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposal is for single - family purposes, and is within a populated area zoned for single- family residential uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? The proposal is for single - family purposes, and is within a populated area zoned for single- family residential uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: . i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 6 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for single - family purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. No unique geologic or physical features have been identified at the site. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? � 0'04 ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 7 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death . involving wildland fires, including where- wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposal is for residential single - family purposes and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑' ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CEQA Checklist 8 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ED ❑ or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a ❑ manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on ❑ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? ❑ 1) Potential impact of project post - construction activity on storm ❑ water runoff? m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material ❑ storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm ❑ on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ N � CEQA Checklist 9 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ ❑ ❑ uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? The proposal is for single- family purposes. The project will have to maintain existing surface drainage in accordance with State Law and City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat. conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? The proposal is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -1 zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for residential single - family purposes in a populated area that is zoned for single - family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No mineral resources are known to exist at the site. 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ CECA Checklist 10 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is completed, it is anticipated that the noise factor would not increase since the use will remain the same. Furthermore, they are subject to the same noise regulations as they do today. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ ED construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposal is for single - family purposes and is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -1 zoning of the site. The proposed density is within the new subdivision standards. The project will not create any significant impact upon population or housing. CEQA Checklist 11 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is completed, it is anticipated that the noise factor would not increase since the use will remain the same. Furthermore, they are subject to the same noise regulations as they do today. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ ED construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposal is for single - family purposes and is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -1 zoning of the site. The proposed density is within the new subdivision standards. The project will not create any significant impact upon population or housing. CEQA Checklist 11 7102 File No.: TM 63552 13. 14. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposal is for single - family purposes in a populated area zoned for single- family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational services. is. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? J) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? CEQA Checklist 12 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is for single - family purposes in a populated area zoned for single- family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposal is for single - family purposes in a populated area zoned for single- family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational services. is. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? J) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? CEQA Checklist 12 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ID g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposal is for single - family purposes and is consistent with the residential designation in the General Plan and with the R -f zoning of the site. The project will not create any significant impact in reference to transportation/ circulation services. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U 0 CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 File No.: TM 63552 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The proposal is for single - family purposes in a populated area zoned for single - family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly . or indirectly? The proposal is for single - family purposes in a populated area zoned for single - family residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above - mentioned effects or impacts. CEQA Checklist 14 7/02 File No. CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5400 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1.. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: John Barker 2651 Bia De La Va Del Mar, CA 92014 2. Address of project (Location): 1221.& 1225 S. 2nd Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Hank 11819 Goldrinq Road, Unit A. Arcadia, CA 9100 Tel: 626 - 263 -3588, Fax: 626- 263 -3599 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: N/A 5. Zoning: R -1 6. General Plan Designation: Residential medium Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Demolishing existing houses and associated structures for new residential buildings prunoses 8. Site Size: 68,065 Sq. Ft. / 1 .56 Acres) 9. Square footage per building: N/A 10. Number of floors of construction: N/A 11. Amount of off - street parking provided: N/A 12. Proposed scheduling of project:. 6 months 13. Associated projects: N/A 14. Anticipated incremental development: N/A 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule, of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 5 units residential avera e 13 057.80 "_ "., sale prices depend on mar et con itions, ui t or single ami y use only. 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A EmironinfoForm -2- 4101 20. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO ❑" x❑ 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. ❑ ❑ 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. ❑ ® 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. ❑ ® 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ❑ 0 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ❑. 0 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. ❑ ® 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels irrthe vicinity. ❑ 0 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? ❑ 0 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives ❑ 0 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) ❑ 0 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) ❑ ® 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects ❑ ® 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? ❑ ❑ 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmental Setting 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) EnvironlnfoForm -3- 4W 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set - backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date ;�' b 1 l (Signature) For EnvironlntoForm -4- 4rot 'Y , i,. `` , ,�+ �� ^ gr g V.J. [ '. Y 1. �i .� _ 'y �< :za ,x,.. PHOTO 2: EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT THE EAST OF THE PROJ PHOTO 3: EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT THE WEST OF THE PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING WEST FROM 2ND AVE.) Environmental Setting 35. The project site is located the western side of the S. 2 nd Avenue. It is located at the cross section of La Sierra Drive and S. 2nd Avenue. Six existing residential buildings and their associated structures are currently located on the project site. Several mature tree are located on the site. None of them are oak trees. Besides the residential structures, the site is generally covered with concrete pavement and landscape area. No known cultural, historical and scenic elements are located on the site. The site photos are attached. 36. The surrounding properties of the project site are all residential buildings. Most of them are one story single- family house except there are two stories single - family house located to the southern of the project site. The vicinity site is generally covered with concrete pavement, asphalt and landscape area. No know cultural, historical and scenic elements are located _on'the vicinity. The vicinity photos are attached. rs K 71 J J �Y I PHOTO 6: EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST OF THE PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING SOUTHEAST FROM 2 ND AVE.) A MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: October 5. 2005 TO: Thomas Li, Assistant Planner FROM: Rafael Fajardo, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval for TM 63552 1221 & 1225 Second Avenue and 150 La Sierra Drive Consolidate 3 lots and divide into 5 single - family properties. In response to your memorandum, the Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed application. The items which Engineering division has concern or special knowledge are listed below: 1. The existing parkway width is 12 -feet on Second Avenue and 12 -feet on La Sierra Drive. 2. According to record drawings, the subject property has an existing sewer lateral connecting to the sewer main line on La Sierra Drive and Second Avenue serving the subject project. Developer shall contact Public Works Services Department to verify if the existing sewer lateral is adequate for this development. 3. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall remove structures including garage in conflict with proposed lot lines. The following items are General Conditions of Approval for the subject project: 1. The developer will be required to pay the following fees prior to occupancy: Map Fee $ 100.00 Final Approval Fee (5 lots @ $25.00 ea.) $125.00 TOTAL $ 225.00 2. Post a $200 deposit for Mylar copy of the recorded map. Conditions of Approval for TM 63552 Consolidate 3 lots and divide into 5 single - family properties October 5, 2005 Page 2 3. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall remove and replace the curb and gutter per APWA standard for the entire length frontage on La Sierra Drive due to the drainage problem with existing gutter. 4. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer on City approved drawings sheets. 5. Dedicate 15 -foot radius corner cut -offs at the southwest corner of Second Avenue and La Sierra Drive for street purposes. 6. Submit to the City Engineer the total cost of improvements with a complete accounting of costs incurred in constructing public facilities prior to final acceptance of the project. 7. The preparation and recordation of a tract/parcel map shall be in accordance with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. The map shall be submitted to the County Engineer for checking. After checking, the map along with the County Engineer's letter recommending approval shall be submitted to the City Engineer for map certification. Concurrent with map submission to the County Engineer, the developer shall also submit a copy of the City's Conditions of Approval for review. New boundary monuments set, as part of the subdivision must be inspected to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works with the letter to the City prior to approval of the map. A Mylar copy of the recorded map must be submitted before final acceptance of the project. B. Arrange with utility companies to underground all overhead utilities connecting to existing structures. 9. Arrange with the Southern California Edison Company to install 5800 lumen HPSV -owned (LS -1) on marbelite poles with underground circuits design by a registered civil or electrical engineer. Street light improvement plans shall be on approved Mylar and submitted to the City for approval. The plan shall include the number of lights, locations, and details. Contact the Engineering Division 24 hours prior to construction of street light base. 10. Existing parkway trees in good condition shall remain. 11.Close existing driveways not to be used and reconstruct curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing. 12. Obtain approval from the Engineering Division prior to removal of any portion of the existing curb and gutter. Conditions of Approval for TM 63552 Consolidate 3 lots and divide into 5 single - family properties October 5, 2005 Page 3 13. Construct PCC curb ramp per APWA Standard Plan at the southwest corner of Second Avenue and La Sierra Drive. 14. Construct six -inch (6 ") thick PCC driveway apron(s) per Arcadia City Standard Drawing 801 -1 through 801 -4. No driveway shall be constructed closer than three -feet (3') from any curb return, fire hydrant, ornamental light standard, telephone or electrical pole, meter box, underground vault or manhole or tree. NOTE: a) No portions of existing gutter and AC pavement shall be removed unless prior approval is obtained from Development Services Director. b) Driveway approach shall be constructed monolithic. 15. Gravity drainage outlets shall be constructed per applicable APWA Standard Plan. 16. Replace AC pavement on the street damaged during construction. Limits of removal shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 17. Obtain approval from the Building Division for assigned address(es) to be used for subject development (including all units). 18. Obtain permit for all work performed in public right -of -way from the Development Services Department /Engineering Division. The Public Works Inspector shall be contacted at least 24 hours prior to construction of off -site improvements. 19.All construction in the public right -of -way shall be in accordance with all applicable sections and/or provisions of the latest edition of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (Greenbook) and the City of Arcadia's Standard Drawings. 20. New boundary monuments set as a part of this subdivision must be inspected to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works with the letter to the City prior the approval of the final map. 21. Prior to issuance of the certificate of completion for the project, all survey monuments, centerline ties, and survey reference points shall be protected in place or re- established where disturbed in accordance with Section 8771 of the Land Surveyors Act. This work will be the responsibility of the permittee and shall be the permittee's expense. Conditions of Approval for TM 63552 Consolidate 3 lots and divide into 5 single - family properties October 5, 2005 Page 4 22.The contractor shall comply with all requirements of Federal, State, and local laws, and regulations pertaining to the CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACT and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP). 23. Submit separate erosion control plan to Public Works Services Department prepared by registered civil engineer for City's approval. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall participate in the City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program, if adopted by the City of Arcadia. The above items are to be complied with to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Prior to the City Engineer's approval of the final map, the developer shall: (1) complete all required public improvements and conditions as stipulated above and on the related project, or (2) enter into an Agreement for Completion of Public Improvements with the City with appropriate security if the required public improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the City. Please allow minimum of two weeks processing time for final map signature(s). If the developer posts a security for the required improvement, the Agreement for Completion of Public Improvements has a 12 -month expiration date and all work specified in the Agreement for Completion of Public Improvements shall be completed within 12 months. If approved, the City Engineer will approve and execute the Agreement for Completion of Public Improvements for this subdivision. cc: Greg Gerlach, Inspection Services Manager Mark Ornelas, Public Works Inspector RECEIVED JOHN & KAREN BARKER 3778 QUARTER MILE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 Mayor John Wuo & Arcadia City Council P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91006 October 18, 2005 OCT 2 0 2005 CITY OF ARCADIA ORY OLm We, the applicants for Tentative Tract Number 063552, do hereby exercise our right to appeal the decision rendered by the Arcadia Planning Commission At its meeting on October 11, 2005 that denied our proposed subdivision. We have submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map that has corrected some minor omissions that seemed to cause some confusion. Attached please find a $500.00 check payable to the City of Arcadia for the required filing fee. Sincerely, 6� hn B� Applicant CLIENT NAME RECUD 8Y: SN PAYOR: TODAY'S DATE: 10/20/05 REGISTER DATE: 10/20/05 02000005446 TIME: 11:34:28 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PLANNING APPLICATION TOTAL DUE: $500.00 $500.00 CHECK PAID: $500.00 CHECK N0: 245 TENDERED: $500.00 CHANGE: $.00 DECLARATION I, ' Tan � 1445 Imo" 5 hereby declare that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter; that my business address is 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California; that I am employed in Los Angeles County, California; that I placed public hearing notice for in (application number) envelopes addressed to property owners whose names appear on the attached list supplied by the applicant, which envelopes were then sealed and postage fully paid thereon and on Arcadia, California. in the U.S. mail at I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. 1. - I La Declarant NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by and before the ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL to determine whether or not the following appeal should be approved, conditionally approved or denied. TO: Property owners and residents within a 300 -foot radius APPLICATION NO.: Tentative Map Application No. TM 63552 LOCATION: 1221 & 1225 S. Second Avenue, and 150 E. La Sierra Drive APPELLANT: John Barker, Property owner APPEAL: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a proposed tentative map to consolidate 3 lots and subdivide them into 5 single - family lots. ENVIRONMENTAL See the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration /Mitigated DOCUMENT: Negative Declaration on the reverse of this notice. TIME AND HOUR Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California The application file is available at the Planning Services Office. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the appeal. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the above mentioned appeal you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. Persons wishing to comment on the appeal may do so at the Public Hearing or by writing to the Community Development Division prior to the December 6, 2005 Public Hearing. It is in the best interest of any concerned party to be present at the Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447 in City Hall or by writing to the Community Development Division at 240 West Huntington Drive, P. 0. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Public Hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working days before the meeting. This notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access at the Public Hearing. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m, to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on November 24 and 25, 2005. Vida Tolman Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Publish Date: November 14, 2005 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ 0 '� NEGATIVE DECLARATION s� ,��un ,pe Notice is hereby given that Planning Services of Arcadia. CA has completed an Initial Study of the Tentative Mao No. TM 63552 for a 5 -lot subdivision at 1221 & 1225 S. Second Avenue. and 150 E. La Sierra Drive project in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Project site _ is X is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project — is X is not considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance. The proposed project _ will X will not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. A scoping meeting _ will X will not be held by the lead agency. Provide the date, time and location of scoping meeting if the project meets the criteria requiring the meeting or if agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting: Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall, Planning Services and are available for public review. Comments will be received until October 11, 2005. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on October 11, 2005 and the Planning Commission will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Thomas Li Staff Associate Planner Title Notice of Intent 7/02 1 5781 - 010 - 010,052 O BRIEN DANIEL S & JUNE D TR 150 E LA SIERRA DR ARCADIA,CA 91006 2 5781 - 010 -051 OCCUPANT 1225 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006 5 5781 - 010 -049 HACKETT ALGENE J TR 150 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4119 C010 8 5781- 010 -046 CHENG TONY & SHARLENE 166 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4119 C010 10 5781 -010 -031 WANN CHYH JIUN TR 3814 ELMA RD PASADENA CA 91107 -3921 0075 12 5781 -010 -040 MIESSINCLAIR JUNE TR 1318 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4150 C040 15 5781 -010 -037 COHN ARNOLD & JEANNETTE TR 1300 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006-4150 C040 18 5761 -010 -034 CONSALVI ALFRED & LINDA TR 1220 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4149 C040 21 5781- 008 -018 WEINBERG BRIAN & JEANETTE S 1134 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4145 C040 1 5781- 010- 010,052 OCCUPANT 1221 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006 3 5781 - 010 -045 ROBINSON DOROTHY A 1303 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4109 C010 6 5781 - 010.048 HUANG AN MIN LIU YING FEN 152 ILENE OR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4119 C010 9 5781 -010 -030 HUANG DAVID C & GRACE T 1321 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4111 C010 10 5781 - 010 -031 OCCUPANT. 1327 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006 13 5781 -010 -039 SOLIMAN MAGDY A & GIHAN Y 1312 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4150 C040 16 5781- 010 -036 HARDING PATRICIA A TR 1234 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4149 C040 19 5781 -008 -020 SCHMIDT BARBARA TR 1210 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006 22 5781- 008 -017 CHEN JACK C & JULIE 1128 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4145 C040 2 5781- 010 -051 BARKER JOHN S & KAREN D 3778 QUARTER MILE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92130 -1295 R118 4 5781 - 010 -050 CARLSON BILLIE V TR 153 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4118 CO10 7 5781- 010 -047 WONG CHIU Y & LEE SYLVIA 160 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4119 C010 9 5781- 010 -030 OCCUPANT 1323 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 11 5781 - 010 -041 TSAI HAO CHENG CHEN LI HUA 1324 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 910064150 C040 14 5781- 010 -038 LAGATTUTA FRANK & MARLEEN TR 1306 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4150 C040 17 5781.010 -035 CHAIN MING H & MEI N 1226 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4149 C040 20 5781 -008 -019 TUNG GIA PHAN 1200 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4147 C040 23 5781- 008 -010 LIN GENE K & SHIRLEY S TR 1135 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4169 C010 24 5781- 008 -038 25 5781 - 008 -040 26 5781- 008 -050 HOPKINS MARK G & MARY CHUN CHIA HWANG & HUANG /TR TONG LUCY & GABRIEL TR 151 E LA SIERRA DR 165 E LA SIERRA DR 1201 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4164 C040 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4164 C040 ARCADIA CA 91006.4108 C010 27 5781 - 008 -051 HSU CHENG FONG PAN MEI S 1203 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4108 C010 29 5781 -01 B -046 HU OING LI WEI Z 208 E MAGNA VISTA AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4248 C010 32 5781 - 017.015 WONG GARY N & VICTORIA L 1218 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4107 C010 35 5781- 017 -032 XIE XUEYI 210 E LA SIERRA DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4239 C010 38 5781- 017 -023 LIU FAMILY TRUST 1236 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4107 CO 10 41 5781- 017 -026 LAU MAN F WU XIU W 3705 SPRING CREEK DR IDAHO FALLS ID 83404 -8241 R013 43 5781 -017 -028 KU LUNG S & YAO H 1308 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4110 C010 44 5781- 017 -009 OCCUPANT 1312 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 46 5781- 011 -037 WILSON GEORGE A TR 1317 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4151 C040 49 5781 -011 -042 PAN WENDY 125 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4160 C040 28 5781 - 018 -047 28 5781 - 018 -047 RICHTER ERIC V & CLAUDIA R OCCUPANT PO BOX 1023 204 E MAGNA VISTA AVE SIERRA MADRE CA 91025 -4023 B011 ARCADIA,CA 91006 30 5781- 017 -017 31 5781 - 017 -016 WU TSUNG CHIN & ALICE A WU JOHN H LUTZ JAMES LUTZ & LIAO /TR 1188 S 2ND AVE 1212 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4105 C010 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4107 C010 33 5781- 017 -034 34 5781- 017 -033 DE SANTIS ROBERT S & DIANE L CHI MEI NG 1618 AVENIDA MONTE VIS 212 E LA SIERRA DR SAN DIMAS CA 91773 -4159 CO23 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4239 C010 36 5781 - 017 -031 37 5781- 017 -030 HUANG LI M TRUST PASCASIO ZOSIMO A & NELIA V 206 E LA SIERRA OR 202 E LA SIERRA OR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4239 C010 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4239 C010 39 5781- 017 -024 40 5781- 017 -025 HAEBERLEIN LEE W & JOAN L TR KIMURA BRUCE K & LORRAINE L 213 ILENE DR 217 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4121 C010 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4121 C010 41 5781 - 017 -026 42 5781- 017 -027 OCCUPANT WEI MEI DON CHU SHUJUNG LIN 216 ILENE DR 210 ILENE DR ARCADIA,CA 91006 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4120 C010 44 5781 - 017 -009 44 5781- 017 -009 STRANGE MARLENEF OCCUPANT 35651 CHAMPAGNE DR 1310 S 2ND AVE REAR CALIMESA CA 92320 -2009 C004 ARCADIA,CA 91006 44 5781 - 017 -009 45 5781- 016 -021 OCCUPANT CHANG CHIA LEE 1316 S 2ND AVE 1320 S 2ND AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4110 C010 47 5781 -011 -038 48 5781 -011 -039 DIN JAMES J HUANG WENDY M YEUNG DEREK W HUI ANGELA K 130 ILENE DR 128 ILENE DR ARCADIA CA 91006 -4159 C040 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4159 C040 50 5781 - 011 -043 51 5781 - 011 -044 WONG YUK CHEUNG KAM S CARTER DALE K & MIRIAM J TR 131 ILENE DR 1227 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4160 CD40 ARCADIA CA 91006 -4148 C040 52 5781- 011 -035 CHEN SHAO 0 WANG BIN 1222 S 1ST AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4129 C040 55 5781- 009 -008 MATHOG DAVID R & PAMELA L 1215 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4148 C040 58 5781- 009 -002 CHUI MI C CHEUNG DANIEL Y S 1135 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4170 C040 60 5781 - 009 -026 KARI WAY 2003 TRUST 116 KARI WAY ARCADIA CA 91006 -4161 C040 EGL CINDY 11819 GOLDRING RD 'A' ARCADIA CA 91006 53 5781 - 011 -036 LEK JIM D & SUTHIPUN D TRUST 1220 S 1ST AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4129 C040 56 5781- 009 -007 OLSEN ANN M & KIRK W 1209 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA,CA 91006 59 5781 -009 -025 SHU YEE YANG 590 S 3RD AVE UNIT C ARCADIA CA 91006 -3895 C005 61 5781- 009 -027 TANG PU YIN JIN LING W 108 KART WAY ARCADIA CA 91006 -4161 C040 54 5781 - 011 -045 MACKLIN JAMES & AMY TR 1221 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4148 C040 57 5781- 009 -001 KUEHFUSS ERIC & ELIZABETH J 1201 GREENFIELD AVE ARCADIA CA 91006 -4148 C040 59 5781- 009 -025 OCCUPANT 117 KARI WAY ARCADIA,CA 91006 JOHN BARKER 2651 VIA DE LA VALLE DEL MAR CA 92014 2 O n 0 � c � k x a � 2 O °} CD m )a CD a M 7 \ \ = 2 _ § / k 2 m M \ / F k cn Vm k - Pi p» n - 2 �° » ` �{ \ <o ƒo <o C: ]§ (_(n �m oa a� 7 a (] e/I mq , , Cn �\ §k ED }( � Z m - a � E z- } - K 0 «Co =g; �m -cn §C EM m )Q E� ]� /& B] &< ({ &[ )E f , \M (D %� ®G cn \ 2 O n 0 � c � k x a � 2 O I, h ld r� STAFF REPOPT DATE: December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, City Engineer `. SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No. 6495 Adopting . Transportation Impact Fee Program Recommendation: Approve and Adopt Resolution No. 6495 SUMMARY In December of 2004, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Meyer, Mohaddes &,Associates to prepare an update of the City's Transportation Master Plan. The plan projects traffic growth over the next 25 years on the 27 most critical signalized intersections in Arcadia. The update, which was completed in September, identifies several Arcadia intersections in need of improvements in the future such as additional lanes or traffic signal improvements in order to comply with the City's General Plan. Based on the results of the update, a Transportation Impact Fee Program has been prepared to help fund the improvements. The Program proposes a fee for all new development that will go toward paying for the improvements in the Master Plan. The Program, which is consistent with state law, establishes a "fair share" contribution from new development based on the number of P.M. peak -hour vehicle trips added to the City's arterial network. The Development Services Department recommends approval of the fees set forth in the staff report and adoption of Resolution 6495 establishing a Transportation Impact Fee for new development. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City contracted with Meyer, Mohaddes & Associates (MMA) to prepare a Transportation Master Plan for the City of Arcadia. The plan projected traffic growth Staff Report Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No. 6495 Adopting Transportation Impact Fee Program December 6, 2005 Page 2 over 15 years on the 23 most critical intersections in the City. The plan identified five (5) intersections that would fall below an acceptable level of service D as set forth in the Arcadia General Plan as a guideline for traffic management. On October 2, 2001, the City Council held a study session to discuss the Master Plan and decided against pursuing impact fees at that time. Traffic counts taken at master plan intersections in May of 2003 indicated traffic growth faster than projected in the Master Plan. On December 7, 2004, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with MMA to prepare an update of the City's Transportation Master Plan. The critical intersections were expanded from 23 to 27 and the growth period was expanded from 15 to 25 years. The study established new growth rates for the next 25 years. The growth includes all known projects such as the mall expansion and racetrack and a regional growth rate for future unknown projects, both within and outside the City. The results of the analysis indicate that seven (7) intersections are currently deficient and 22 intersections will be deficient by the year 2030. Deficiencies are measured using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The ICU method determines the ratio of volume to capacity at a given intersection, and converts the ratio into a letter ranking from A to F, known as Level of Service (LOS), with LOS "A" being best and LOS "F" being worst. The City's General Plan Strategy is to maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D ". The City recognizes that there will be periods where intersection operations may exceed LOS "D", as with the seven current intersections, but it is the City's goal to explore ways to improve these intersections to ultimately bring them back to LOS "D ". DISCUSSION The Master Plan Update identifies the improvements necessary at each of the 22 intersections that are proposed to be below LOS "D ". Of the 22, four intersections have been excluded from consideration in the fee program. Three of the four intersections are on Michillinda and fall partially out of the City so the improvements are subject to other jurisdictional approval. The fourth intersection, Holly Avenue and Huntington Drive is impacted by the potential development of the racetrack and will be improved as part of that development. The total cost to improve the remaining 18 intersections is $22,958,000. The improvement costs include additional right -of -way and a traffic signal control and synchronization system. The regional growth rate used in the master plan estimates that a little more than fifty (50 %) percent of the future traffic growth is generated from development within Arcadia. The balance of the traffic growth is projected in areas surrounding Arcadia but is Staff Report Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No. 6495 Adopting Transportation Impact Fee Program December 6, 2005 Page 3 anticipated to use Arcadia streets. The impact caused by the growth outside the City must be factored out of the fee determination because the City has no control over that development. The City may impose impact fees on development in Arcadia for their fair share, but must look for other opportunities to fund the portion caused by development outside the City. The City will look into .the Federal STP -L funding program, County, State and Federal grants, and the local return funds from Proposition C and Gas Tax as potential funding sources. For the Arcadia development portion, MMA has prepared a Transportation Impact Fee Program. The Program identifies the portion of improvements attributed to future development in Arcadia, and divides the cost by the total number of P.M. peak -hour vehicle trips generated by the Arcadia development. The cost also includes a credit for the improvements attributed to the current deficiencies. The result is a unit cost of $2,379.00 per P.M. peak -hour vehicle trip. The unit cost was used to determine unit costs for several common types of land uses. See exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 6495. If adopted by the City Council, the Fee Program will go into effect on January 1, 2006. The fee will be required at the time of building permit, and will be charged regardless of any past or existing use on the property. The fee costs per land use table, Exhibit "A" of Resolution 6495, will be used to determine the fee for each development. In the event an unusual land use is proposed, the City may use the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or equivalent to determine a more appropriate trip rate and cost. All fees are based on the $2,379.00 per P.M. peak hour trip. The City will establish a priority list of the improvements in the Master Plan and begin to incorporate projects into the City's Capital Improvement Program, as projected funding is available. The Transportation Master Plan and the Transportation Impact Fee Program Documents are on file in the Development Services Department/Engineering Division and available for review. The Public Hearing Notice was published in the adjudicated newspaper on November 17, 2005 and November 21, 2005. The Notice was also placed on the City's web page, posted at the Community Development Division, the Engineering Division, and the City Clerk public counters. A press release was issued to the various local newspapers. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 15276(a) of the CEQA guidelines, the preparation of a transportation improvement program is exempt from CEQA. Staff Report Transportation Master Plan and Resolution No. 6495 Adopting Transportation Impact Fee Program December 6, 2005 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT The new fees will enable the City to pay for the portion of the transportation improvements necessitated by new development in Arcadia. The City will need to pursue other funding opportunities to pay for the improvements necessitated by regional development outside of Arcadia. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Transportation Master Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6495 approving the Transportation Impact Fee. Approved By: IN" William R. Kelly, City Manager DP:PAW:pa RESOLUTION NO. 6495 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arcadia received the Transportation Master Plan and the Transportation Impact Fee Program reports dated November 2005 relating to traffic impacts, infrastructure improvements, and impact fees; and WHEREAS, new development will increase the amount of congestion on the City streets; and WHEREAS, the Arcadia General Plan established a target of level of service "D" or better to be attained for roadways and at intersections within the City; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Master Plan identifies certain intersections that must be upgraded with necessary improvements to maintain a level of service "D" or better; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Impact Fee Program assigns the percentage of the improvements due to new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends that for new development to pay its fair share of the needed traffic improvements; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council concerning the proposed adoption of Transportation Impact fees on this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A. The fees established herein shall be imposed upon all new development (regardless of any prior development on the subject property) in the City. The purpose of the fee is to help pay for needed traffic improvements to maintain certain intersections at a Level of Service "D" or better. B. The City has determined that certain street intersections which were identified in the Transportation Master Plan and the Transportation Impact Fee Program as needing long -range improvements, 'must be improved. The needed improvements to maintain Level of Service "D" or better at the intersections increases with the increased traffic flow expected from new'development. C. The fee imposed by this Resolution shall be used for the improvements to the intersections identified in the Transportation Impact Fee Program. D. It is reasonable to impose the traffic impact fee on all types of new development within the City as all new development adds additional vehicular trips that place an increased burden on the City's roadway capacity. E. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee that is established by this Resolution and the new development that is paying the fee, as the fee will be based on the amount of P.M. peak hour vehicle trips attributed to such development in relation to the total number of P.M. peak hour vehicle trips that the intersections are designed to handle at Level of Service "D" or better and new development is only being required to fund its share of the improvements. SECTION 2. The fees for new development shall be based on $2,379.00 per PM Peak Hour vehicle trip. The resulting fees for the different land uses are listed in Exhibit A and are hereby adopted. -2- V .. SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in 15273(a)(1) of the California Administrative Code. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved, and adopted this 6th day Of Decemb 2005. /S/ 41nWN WIl Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: / JAMES Ha BARROWS Y®WS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: n �� li ' • tee' • Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6495 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JAMES H. BARR® City Clerk of the City of Arcadia a] TRIP RATES AND IMPACT FEE COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE Viand Use PM Peak .Hour Trips i Cost Per Unit General Retail 3.75/ KSF $8 ,.,_ .921 SF Restaurant 7.49 / KSF $17.82 / SF Fast Food Restaurant 17.32 / KSF* $41.20 / SF Supermarket 7.32 / KSF ** $17.41 / SF General Office 1.49 / KSF $3.54 / SF Medical / Dental Office 4.45 / KSF $10.59 / SF Industrial / Manufacturing 0.98 / KSF $2.33 / SF Warehousing 0.47 / KSF $1.12 / SF Single Family, Condo, Townhome 1.01 / DU $2,403 / DU Apartment 0.621 DU $1,4751 DU Senior Attached Housing 0.11 / DU $262 / DU Assisted Living 0.22 / DU $523 / DU NOTE: All fees are based on the unit cost of $2,379.00 per P.M. peak hour trip. For all land uses not listed above, the number of P.M. peak hour trips may be determined by the City using the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or equivalent, to determine the appropriate fee. ABBREVIATIONS: SF = Square Feet KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit *Rate reduced by 50% to reflect pass -by trips. * *Rate reduced by 30% to reflect pass -by trips. Exhibit A �i 1�C, Administrative Services Department DATE: December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor, and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6498 — Formally terminating a cable television franchise agreement between the City of Arcadia.and.Altrio Communications, Inc. Recommendation: Adopt Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Over the past approximately 18 months, Champion Broadband has assumed the operations of Altrio Communications and in May 2005 the .City received an Open Video System (OVS) franchise application from Champion Broadband, LLC. In anticipation of working with Champion Broadband, the City Council approved legislation in June 2005 enabling the City to grant an OVS; which is similar to a cable television franchise. In accordance with Section 1303 of the City of Arcadia Charter, on November 15, 2005 the City Council declared its intention to conduct a public hearing on December 6, 2005 to consider the proposed application. Staff is recommending the City Council take two actions on this matter. The first action is to formally terminate the cable television franchise agreement with Altrio Communication, as they do no longer exist as a corporate entity doing business in the City of Arcadia. In addition, staff is recommending the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider an agreement between the City of Arcadia and Champion Broadband setting forth terms and conditions granting nonexclusive rights to construct and operate an Open Video System. BACKGROUND In November 2001 the City Council approved a Cable Television franchise agreement with Altrio Communications, Inc., allowing construction and operation of a new cable television, broadband and telephone service in the community. Until that point, a single Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 2 cable operator had held an exclusive franchise for a number of years. The agreement with Altrio established a competitive marketplace and provided Arcadia residents and businesses with a choice of providers and services. Currently, more than 2,000 Arcadia households subscribe to Champion Broadband. Altrio operated successfully here until late in 2003 when the firm failed to obtain a second round of financing and its operations were assumed by a group of its secured creditors. In March 2004, those creditors reached an agreement with Champion Broadband California, LLC to take over the ownership and operation of the Altrio system. Champion immediately went to work restructuring operations and debts and settling outstanding financial issues, all the while maintaining service to Arcadia's Altrio subscribers without interruption. At the time of its failure, Altrio was on the verge of shutting down its services to local residents and had defaulted on more than $69,000.00 in franchise fees, utility taxes and Public, Education and Government (PEG) fees owed the City. The City successfully drew upon the $26,070.00 bond put in place by Altrio in order to satisfy part of this default.. Since that time, City Staff has closely monitored the situation and worked with representatives of the creditors and the new Champion management team to maintain subscriber services and to structure a new franchise agreement that both preserves the provisions and advantages of the original Altrio contract and clears up Altrio's outstanding franchise fee and PEG fee debts owed the City. As Altrio was operating under similar franchise agreements in the neighboring communities - of Monrovia and Pasadena, Arcadia staff has also worked in close cooperation with staffs in those cities to coordinate efforts and share in the expense of consultants and attorneys who have assisted with the effort. We "have called on the expertise and services of the following individuals and firms in our investigations, analysis and negotiations — Jeff Ballinger of the law firm of Best Best & Krieger, a specialist in cable franchise matters; John Risk, president of Communications Support Group,'a cable franchise administration consultant; and William Morgan, of Diehl, Evans & Company LLP, a certified public accountant with expertise in cable industry financial analysis. While there were initial attempts to simply transfer the existing Altrio franchise to Champion, the lack of an entity from which to make the transfer (Altrio is no longer in existence) made this legally impossible. Additionally, Champion's limited resources in the face of existing franchise requirements from three communities, including a multi- million- dollar build -out requirement and extensive undergrounding in Pasadena, necessitated the formulation of new agreements. Given the financial, legal, and structural problems left in the wake of the Altrio failure, structuring a new OVS franchise agreement with Champion Broadband California LLC was a long and difficult process. /, . C Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 In June 2005, the City Council approved the legislation to enable the City to grant an Open Video System (OVS); which is similar to a cable television franchise, but more closely mirrors the legislation that Monrovia and Pasadena have. The City of Monrovia granted an OVS agreement to Champion on October 6, 2005. A similar agreement to the City of Monroiva's is proposed between the City of Arcadia and Champion Broadband California, LLC, referenced as Exhibit A in the Resolution. A copy of the agreement is on file at the City of Arcadia in the Office of the City Clerk and in the Administrative Services Department. DISCUSSION Several issues were identified early on as primary to any new franchise agreement with Champion Broadband California, LLC. These requirements have all been addressed and satisfied in the proposed OVS franchise agreement before the City Council this evening. 1) Uninterrupted phone, internet and television service to Arcadia's subscribers Since taking over the system in March 2004, Champion Broadband California, LLC has maintained and expanded services to Arcadia subscribers and continues to operate the system today in a satisfactory manner. The level of consumer complaints to the City in relation to Champion is at the same low level achieved and maintained by both the Altrio and Adelphia systems since competitive operations were established in 2002. Staff and its consultants have completed financial and technical reviews of Champion Broadband California, LLC and have concluded that it has both the financial and technical resources to successfully operate an Open Video System in the City of Arcadia through the term of the proposed franchise agreement. 2) A franchise term long enough to ensure that contractual obligations will continue the future. The term of the proposed agreement with Champion Broadband California, LLC is for 10 years and will protect those contractual agreements during that time. 3) Recovery of Altrio's outstanding debt to the City The new agreement sets forth in detail the combined utility users tax, franchise fee and PEG fee debts owed the City under the Altrio contract in the aggregate amount of $43,841.00 and requires that Champion Broadband California, LLC pay that full amount to the City of Arcadia upon approval and signing of the agreement. Of that total amount, $9,724.68 is in PEG fee payments. The remaining $34,116.32 will be realized in the Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 4 City's General Fund, along with the proceeds of $26,070.00 from Altrio's performance bond discussed above. 3) Adequate and secure surety to cover any future default on franchise requirements The original Altrio franchise called for a performance bond and a cash deposit, for a total surety of $80,000.00. The City received and is still holding the $13,050.00 cash deposit. The new franchise agreement credits Champion Broadband California, LLC with the $13,050.00 still on deposit from Altrio and requires an additional cash deposit of $96,950.00 upon approval and signing of the agreement for a total surety of $110,000. 4) Continued franchise fee and PEG fee payments consistent with the original Altrio franchise The new agreement maintains franchise and PEG payments at the same levels as the Altrio agreement, .55¢ per subscriber per month. Altrio was required to make franchise fee payments in the amount of 5% of gross annual revenues, calculated and paid on a quarterly basis. Champion continues those payments at the same level, calculated on the same basis, but requires that they be made monthly rather than quarterly and annually. Champion unilaterally began making such monthly payments soon after assuming operation of the system as a show of good faith, and has met those monthly obligations since then. Continuing that monthly reporting and payment schedule will ensure earlyAetection of late or defaulted payments and adds another level of surety to the agreed requirements. 5) Continued financial, logistical and operational support for community television In addition to repaying Altrio's PEG fee and connectivity fee debt, Champion is being held to all of the same provisions for community access support as were in the original Altrio agreement, with the exceptions to payment schedules noted above. Additionally, the proposed agreement now requires that Champion maintain local PEG channels at their current numerical designations (Channels 6, 15 and 35). If the numerical designation of those channels are proposed to change, Champion, under this agreement, must give written notification to the City at least 120 days prior to such a change and provide the City a grant of $5,000 per channel to cover costs of notice to subscribers, modifications to descriptive literature and other related expenses. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 5 6) Maintenance of a competitive market As noted above, Champion's operation of the Altrio system during the past 18 months has provided Arcadia residents and businesses with options to the Adelphia cable system and competing satellite systems. This competitive marketplace has helped hold down costs to subscribers, encourage and provide new technologies and services and improve customer service, as witnessed by the much lower level of complaints received by the City on cable operations as compared to pre- competition days. It is reasonable to assume that continued operation of competing systems would sustain those advantages. 7) Maintenance. of "level playing field" parity as established by the Altrio agreement of 2001. Integral to a competitive market in a regulated industry is the establishment of a "level playing field," wherein competing firms operate under substantially similar rules, regulations, expectations and imposed financial obligations. Arcadia has worked hard to establish and maintain the parity necessary to ensure a level playing field for our competing systems. The two franchised firms serving Arcadia operate under differing Federal Communications Commission definitions. Adelphia operates as a "Cable" provider as Altrio did. Champion will operate as an "Open Video" provider. Federal definitions and requirements for those two designations differ. Also, while provisions for local PEG support required in the Adelphia franchise met the requirements of Federal law at the time the franchise agreement took affect, Congress altered and eliminated many of those requirements prior to the granting of the Altrio franchise in 2001. Congress is now poised to make other sweeping changes to telecommunications law that will further erode the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate such operations or to require public access support. Additionally, telephone companies such as Verizon and SBC are now moving aggressively into the video and broadband business using existing and upgraded infrastructure and may not be required to obtain local franchises in the future, further un- leveling the competitive playing field for franchised Cable and OVS operators. City staff was able to negotiate an agreement with Altrio that brought financial, technical, regulatory and public access support to parity with the existing Adelphia franchise. While there are obvious differences between the two in dollar amounts and some public access support requirements, there is substantial similarity and parity. A level competitive playing field exists today in Arcadia between these two competing franchises. While new competing franchises in other communities have faced legal challenges from existing franchised systems claiming inequities, our competing franchises have not raised such issues and we are confident that parity and fairness are well established here. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 6 Staff also finds that the economic and social interests of the City and its residents will best be served by authorizing Champion Broadband California, LLC to own and to operate a competitive open video system in accordance with the terms of the proposed franchise agreement. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the proposed OVS franchise agreement with Champion Broadband California, LLC triggers payment to the City of $43,841.00, of which $34,116.32 goes to the General Fund. Another $96,950.00 in cash will be deposited with the City to assure performance under the franchise requirements. .Additionally, Champion Broadband California, LLC paid the City $30,000.00 as required when it filed its OVS franchise application, helping offset the costs associated with the City's due diligence analysis. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6498 a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, formally terminating a cable television franchise agreement between the City of Arcadia and Altrio Communications, Inc., and Adopt Resolution No. 6499 approving the proposed Agreement between the City of Arcadia and Champion Broadband California, LLC, granting nonexclusive rights to construct and operate an Open Video System in the City of Arcadia and setting forth terms and conditions relating to the exercise of those rights. Approved: n William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH: RESOLUTION NO. 6498 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FORMALLY TERMINATING A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND ALTRIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This Resolution is adopted in consideration of the following facts and circumstances: A. In November 2001, the City and Altrio Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( "Altrio "), entered into an agreement that was titled "An Agreement Between the City of Arcadia and Altrio Communications, Inc. Granting Nonexclusive Rights to Construct and to Operate a cable television system in the City of Arcadia and Setting Forth Terms and Conditions Relating to the Exercise of those Rights." B. Commencing in September 2003 and continuing through March 2004, Altrio defaulted in its contractual obligations to the City, including Altrio's obligations to pay franchisee fees, community connectivity contributions, PEG fees and other documented costs and expenses that had accrued during Altrio's construction and operation of the cable television system. C. On March 26, 2004, Altrio, as seller, and Champion Broadband California, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company ( "Champion "), as buyer, consummated an asset purchase and sale transaction that involved the execution of an Asset Purchase Agreement, a Convertible Note, an Option Agreement, and a Security Agreement. Prior to the consummation of this transaction, neither Altrio nor Champion formally requested the City's prior written consent as required by Altrio's Cable Television Agreement with the City and by City's regulatory ordinance, although Champion gave verbal notice of the proposed transaction to the City. D. Since March 26, 2004, Champion has operated the cable television system that was previously constructed by Altrio, and Champion has paid to Grantor, on a going- forward basis, franchise fees, community connectivity contributions, and PEG fees that were required to be paid under the provisions of the City's Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Altrio. E. On February 28, 2005, Champion filed with the FCC's Cable Services Bureau an FCC Form 1275, titled "Certification for Open Video System." That certification application was approved by the FCC on March 10, 2005, and Champion was authorized by the FCC to operate an open video system in specified communities within Southern California, including the City of Arcadia. rj F. On May 5, 2005, Champion submitted to the City an application for an open video system. This application substantially addressed the items of information .required by the City's regulatory ordinance. Supplemental information was requested by the City and provided by Champion. A new open video system agreement has been negotiated by the City and Champion, and that agreement will be considered by the City Council at its meeting on December 6, 2005, following a noticed public hearing. SECTION 2. Based on the facts and circumstances set forth above in Section 1, the City Council finds and determines that, effective as of March 26, 2004, Altrio abandoned all rights and obligations under the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with the City. The City Council further finds and determines that, effective as of the date of approval of a franchise agreement with Champion, the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Altrio is terminated in its entirety and is deemed to be null and void. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the former general counsel of Altrio, as follows: Altrio Communications, Inc. 2702 Media Center Drive Los Angeles, CA 90065 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 3 Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December 2005. /$/ JOHN WUO Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6498 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None MI JAMES H. RARRO P1 City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 5 RESOLUTION NO. 6499 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM (OVS) AGREEMENT WITH CHAMPION BROADBAND, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECITALS A. On May 5, 2005, the City of Arcadia ( "City") received from Champion Broadband, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company ( "Champion ") an application (the "Application ") for the approval of an open video system (OVS) agreement, in order to officially take over the existing cable franchise agreement entered into between the City of Arcadia and Altrio Communications, Inc.; and B. In accordance with Section 54 of City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 2206 (the "Telecommunications Ordinance "), the City has the right to require any entity that wishes to operate an open video system utilizing the City's rights of way to enter into an OVS agreement; and C. Pursuant to Section 1303 of the City of Arcadia Charter, the City Council of the City of Arcadia has, on November 15, 2005, declared its intention to conduct a public hearing, following which the City Council has considered the � I t proposed OVS agreement with Champion, at which time all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard; and D. The City Council has thoroughly considered the terms of the proposed OVS agreement and hereby finds and declares as follows: 1. There will be significant positive impact on the community being served. 2. There will not be any unreasonable adverse economic or aesthetic impact upon public or private property within the area. 3. There will not be any unreasonable disruption or inconvenience to existing users, or any adverse effect on future use, of utility poles, public easements, and the public rights -of -way contrary to the intent of Section 767.5 of the Public Utilities Code. 4. The Applicant has the technical and financial ability to perform. 5. There will not be any impact on the City's interest in having universal cable service. 6. Other societal interests generally considered by franchising authorities will be met. 7. The operation of the OVS, in addition to the existing cable television system in the community, is economically feasible. `a E. The City has reviewed the documentation that accompanied the Application and, based upon the representations set forth in that documentation, has concluded that Champion has the requisite technical and financial qualifications to adequately perform, or to ensure the performance of, all obligations under the proposed OVS Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. In accordance with Section 54 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, the City hereby approves that certain Open Video System Agreement between the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Champion Broadband California, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, which agreement is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. The adoption of this Resolution is not a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), pursuant to Section 15378(b)(2) of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, as this Resolution pertains to continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as general policy and procedure making and because it k3 can be seen with certainty that there is no likelihood that this Resolution would have any effect on the environment. City staff are authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the above findings. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: IS JAMES Ho MAR WS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6499 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None I SI JAMES Ho BARRO City Clerk of the City of Arcadia C Yaet� p DATE: December 6, 2005 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services DirectoQ) SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6505 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia Approving a Conditional Assignment of a Cable Television Franchise by Century-TCI California. L.P. to CAC Exchange IL LLC Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Time Warner Cable, Inc. (TWC), Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC (Comcast), and Adelphia Communications Corporation (Adelphia) submitted to the City of Arcadia an application to transfer the cable franchise currently operated by Adelphia. In accordance with Section 1303 of the City of Arcadia Charter, on November 15, 2005 the City Council declared its intention to conduct a public hearing on December 6, 2005 to consider the proposed transfer. Staff is recommending the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider a conditional assignement of a Cable Television Franchise from Adelphia to a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, CAC Exchange II, LLC. DISCUSSION Time Warner Cable, Inc. (TWC), Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC (Comcast), and Adelphia Communications Corporation (Adelphia) submitted to the City of Arcadia an application to transfer the cable franchise on June 16, 2005. Federal Law stipulates that if a Local Franchise. Authority (LFA) does not act to approve or deny such an application within 120 days of its submission it is deemed approved, unless the LFA and the applicant have mutually agreed to an extension. However, the City Council on September 19, 2005 adopted resolutions granting the City Manager authority to deny the transfer without prejudice, as an administrative measure subject to a certain set of conditions. Prior to making a determination of denial without prejudice, Time Warner and the City agreed to an extension of a timeline until December 7, 2005. Federal Law authorizes the City, in considering a proposed transfer, to consider the 'legal, financial and technical' qualifications of the proposed transferee. The City directed the matter to the City Attorney's Office and engaged Mr. John Risk of Communications Support Group, Inc., to investigate the completeness of the 394 application and provide background and information to assist the City's legal counsel in evaluating the qualifications of Time Warner Cable, In connection with this engagement, Communications Support Group, Inc. conducted a "due diligence" review of the financial qualifications of TWC to purchase and subsequently operate the cable systems acquired directly from Adelphia. All legal and financial issues and franchise compliance and conditions have been resolved. Although Time Warner is generally regarded as a well - established entity, City Staff, its consultant, and the City Attorney's Office believe that additional information would be helpful in determining Time Warner's ability to operate the Franchise in a manner that is acceptable to the City Council in conformance with the Franchise Agreement. Therefore, City Staff is recommending the accompanying resolution, which conditionally approves the transfer, subject to the new franchisee providing evidence that it will operate the Franchise in a manner acceptable to the City in compliance with the Franchise Agreement. These issues include evidence of the following: 1. Telephone Call , Center Performance, reporting and transition to Time Warner. 2. Public, Educational, or Governmental Access (PEG Access) staffing. 3. Insurance and Surety certificates after close including "additional insured language ". 4. Security Instrument (Letters of Credit or Performance Bonds) provisions. 5. Location of franchise financial and other records pertaining to franchise reviews, which are expected to be, moved to Time Wamer's Costa Mesa offices within 60 days of close, 6. Activation to subscribers regarding email and account transitioning and domain name changes. 7. Payment of the City's applicable processing charges. 8. Provision of a guarantee to the City by the parent company, Time Warner Cable, Inc., to ensure the faithful compliance by its subsidiary, CAC Exchange ll, LLC. This information must be provided to the City within 60 days of the closing of the proposed transfer. In addition, the transfer must occur within 180 days of the proposed resolution, or such other date as may be agreed to by the City Manager. If neither of these events occurs, the transfer will not be effective and Time Warner or another proposed transferee would be able to apply for a transfer. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of this Resolution will contractually require Time/Warner to maintain current revenues in the areas of franchise fees, utility users tax, and PEG fees. 2 It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6505 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia Approving a Conditional Assignment of a Cable Television Franchise by Century-TCI California, L.P. to CAC Exchange II, LLC Approved TLH William R. Kelly, City Manager 3 RESOLUTION NO. 6505 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY AUTHORIZING THE ASSIGNMENT AND CHANGE OF CONTROL OF A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BY CENTURY - TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P. TO CAC EXCHANGE II, LLC RECITALS A. The City of Arcadia, California ( "Franchise Authority") has granted a cable television franchise for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a cable television system within the City (the "Franchise ") to Century-TCI California, L.P. ( "Franchisee "), which Franchisee is presently controlled by Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia"), which is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings; and B. Pursuant to an asset purchase agreement dated April 20, 2005 between Adelphia and Comcast Corporation ( "Comcast "), an indirect wholly -owned subsidiary of Comcast will acquire Adelphia's interest in the Franchise (the " Adelphia Transaction "); and C. Pursuant to an exchange agreement between Time Warner Cable Inc. ( "Time Warner Cable ") and Comcast, dated as of April 20, 2005 ( "Exchange Agreement "), Comcast will conclude the asset purchase transaction, whereby Comcast will cause its indirect wholly -owned subsidiary, Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, to assign the Franchise to CAC Exchange II, LLC (the "New Franchisee ") I and the New Franchisee will become an indirect subsidiary of, and will do business as, Time Warner Cable (which transaction shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Exchange "); and D. On June 16, 2005, the Franchise Authority received from Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC and Time Warner Cable Inc., an application for the assignment of the existing Franchise from Franchisee to the New Franchisee through the Adelphia Transaction and the Exchange. This application included FCC Form 394 titled "Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise." Supplemental information was provided to the Franchise Authority by Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC and Time Warner Cable Inc.; and E. In accordance with Section 8 of City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 2206 (the "Telecommunications Ordinance "), the Franchise Authority has the right to review and to approve the financial, technical, and legal qualifications of a proposed transferee in connection with a proposed assignment of the Franchise; mine F. The Franchise Authority has reviewed the documentation that accompanied FCC Form 394 and, based upon the representations set forth in that 9 documentation, has concluded that the proposed New Franchisee has the requisite financial, technical, and legal qualifications to adequately perform, or to ensure the performance of, all obligations required of Adelphia under the Franchise, and that the New Franchisee will be bound by all existing terms, conditions, and obligations of the Franchise as it currently exists or as it may be modified or superseded by the parties prior to the closing of the Adelphia Transaction and the Exchange. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. In accordance with Section 8 of the Telecommunications Ordinance, the Franchise Authority consents to and approves the proposed assignment and change of control of the Franchise by Century-TCI California, L.P., through Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, to CAC Exchange II, LLC, which, upon the closing of the asset purchase transaction, will be an indirect wholly -owned subsidiary of Time Warner Cable Inc., and will be qualified to conduct business as a limited liability company in the State of California. SECTION 2. The authorization, consent and approval of the Franchise Authority to the proposed assignment is hereby expressly conditioned upon, and 3 made contingent upon, compliance with the following requirements within sixty (60) days following the closing of both the Adelphia Transaction and Exchange: (a) Adelphia and the New Franchisee will execute and file in the office of the City Clerk an "Assignment and Assumption Agreement" in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A ", and incorporated by reference herein. The Mayor is authorized to execute that document and thereby evidence the written consent of the Franchise Authority to the assignment and assumption of all rights and obligations under the Franchise. (b) An original or conformed copy of the written instrument evidencing the closing of the Adelphia Transaction and the Exchange must be filed in the office of the City Clerk. (c) Provision of written report to the City Manager documenting the following: (i) Staffing and technical measures have been implemented to ensure adequate telephone call center performance, reporting capabilities, and transition programs to provide service as Time Warner Cable, including the capability to bring current call center performance into compliance with the Franchise terms; (ii) Staffing and technical measures have been implemented to ensure adequate public, educational, or governmental (PEG) Access channel allocation, staffing and service provision in accordance with the Franchise; 10 (iii) All necessary insurance policies, endorsements or certificates, as required by the Franchise, including, without limitation, applicable "additional insured" language shall been provided to the City Manager or his designee; (iv) All necessary security (cash deposit, surety fund, construction bond, and/or any other security as approved by the City Manager or designee) provisions of the Franchise shall have been provided to the City Manager or his designee; (v) That the New Franchisee shall have established the location of franchise financial records and other cable system records pertaining to Franchise fee reviews as Time Warner Controller's Office, 959 South Coast Drive, Suite 300, Costa Mesa CA 92626, or that the New Franchisee shall make available all such records available for inspection and photocopying at Arcadia City Hall; and (vi) The New Franchisee's program for providing notice to subscribers of, and implementing, account transition, including, without limitation, e -mail account transitioning and domain name changes. (d) The New Franchisee shall have caused to be paid to the Franchise Authority all processing charges required by law for the review and consideration of the proposed transfer. SECTION 3. If the closing of the Adelphia Transaction and the Exchange shall not have occurred within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of this Resolution (or such other date as may be agreed upon by the City Manager), or if any one or more of the conditions set forth above Section 2 of this Resolution is or are not satisfied within the period of time specified in that Section, then the authorization and consent of the Franchise Authority to the proposed 5 assignment as provided for in this Resolution shall be deemed of no force or effect, shall be treated as null and void without further action by the Franchise Authority, and the FCC Form 394 application will be deemed denied in all respects, as of the date of adoption of this Resolution. In such event, the City Manager is authorized and directed to give written notice to all affected parties of such effect, which will be deemed to be without prejudice to the right of any parties to submit a new FCC Form 394 to the Franchise Authority if required by the Franchise or local ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the following persons: If to New Franchisee: Mr. Roger Keating, President Los Angeles Division Time Warner Cable Inc. 959 South Coast Drive, Suite 300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 If to Adelphia: Brad M. Sonnenberg, Esq. Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Adelphia Communications Corporation 5619 DTC Parkway Denver, CO 80111 3 If to Comcast: Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. 1 Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: w p f Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA } I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6505 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JAMES H. BAR ROWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia EXHIBIT A ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE OF ASSIGNEE'S OBLIGATIONS (CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT) THIS ASSIGNMENT AN] ( "Agreement ") is entered into this between Century-TCI California, L.P., ( "Assignor "), CAC Exchange II, LLC, a ( "Assignee "), and the City of Arcadia, ( "Franchise Authority "). ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT day of , 200_, a California limited partnership Delaware limited liability company a California municipal corporation RECITALS A. Assignor is the authorized holder of a franchise that authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of a cable television system within the City of Arcadia, California. B. Subject to the prior consent of the Franchise Authority as set forth more fully in Resolution No. , adopted December 6, 2005 (the "Consent Resolution "), Assignor desires to assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, effective as of the closing of the asset purchase transaction described in the FCC Form 394 as filed with the Franchise Authority on June 14, 2005 (the "Closing "), all rights, duties, and obligations under the cable television franchise agreement between the Franchise Authority and the Assignor ( "Franchise Agreement ") as it currently exists, or as it may be modified or superseded by the parties prior to the Closing. THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Effective as of the Closing, Assignor assigns and transfers to Assignee all of Assignor's rights, duties, and obligations under the Franchise Agreement. 2. Effective as of, and contingent upon, the occurrence of the Closing, Assignee covenants and agrees with Assignor and with the Franchise Authority to assume all rights and to assume and perform all duties and obligations of the Assignor under the Franchise Agreement. The Franchise Authority reserves any and all rights with respect to any non - compliance issues that may exist prior to A -1 the Closing, and Assignee reserves any and all rights and defenses with respect to any such non - compliance issues. 3. Franchise Authority consents to the assignment and transfer by Assignor to Assignee of all rights, duties, and obligations specified in the Franchise Agreement, contingent upon the execution by Time Warner Cable Inc., as guarantor, of the "Guarantee of Assignee's Obligations ", attached as Schedule 1 to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. 4. This Agreement will become operative and enforceable upon the closing of the asset purchase transaction described in the FCC Form 394 as filed with the Franchise Authority on June 14, 2005. TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, the parties have caused this Assignment and Assumption Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date set forth below the authorized signature. "ASSIGNOR" CENTURY -TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P., A Delaware limited partnership M_ (authorized officer) Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: Legal Counsel [SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE] A -2 "ASSIGNEE" APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel CAC EXCHANGE II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Authorized Officer) Date: "FRANCHISE AUTHORITY" CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: LOW Mayor City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date: FEW SCHEDULEI to ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND GUARANTEE OF ASSIGNEE'S OBLIGATIONS GUARANTEE GUARANTEE, dated as of , 2005, made by TIME WARNER CABLE INC., a Delaware corporation ( "Guarantor "), in favor of the City of Arcadia, California, ( "Beneficiary"). For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and to induce Beneficiary to timely consent to the transfer of the cable television franchise issued by Beneficiary and currently held by Century-TCI California, L.P. (the "Franchise ") to CAC Exchange II, LLC ( "Transferee ") in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission Form 394 filed by Transferee, Guarantor agrees as follows: I. Interpretive Provisions. A. The words "hereof," "herein" and "hereunder" and words of similar import, when used in this Guarantee, shall refer to this Guarantee as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Guarantee, and section and paragraph references are to this Guarantee unless otherwise specified. B. The meanings given to terms defined herein shall be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of such terms. II. Guarantee. A. Effective upon the close of the Exchange Agreement, Guarantor unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees to Beneficiary the timely and complete performance of all Transferee obligations under the Franchise (the "Guaranteed Obligations "). The Guarantee is an irrevocable, absolute, continuing guarantee of payment and performance, and not a guarantee of collection. If Transferee fails to W1 pay any of its monetary Guaranteed Obligations in full when due in accordance with the terms of the Franchise, Guarantor will promptly pay the same to Beneficiary or procure payment of same to Beneficiary. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, Guarantor shall be entitled to assert as a defense hereunder any defense that is or would be available to Transferee under the Franchise or otherwise. B. This Guarantee shall remain in full force and effect until the earliest to occur of: (i) performance in full of all Guaranteed Obligations at a time when no additional Guaranteed Obligations remain outstanding or will accrue to Transferee under the Franchise; and (ii) subject to any required consent of the Beneficiary, any direct or indirect transfer of the Franchise from Transferee to (or direct or indirect acquisition of Transferee or any successor thereto by (whether pursuant to a sale of assets or stock or other equity interests, merger or otherwise)) any other person or entity a majority of whose equity and voting interests are not beneficially owned and controlled, directly or indirectly, by Guarantor. Upon termination of this Guarantee in accordance with this Section II(B), all contingent liability of Guarantor in respect hereof shall cease, and Guarantor shall remain liable solely for Guaranteed Obligations accrued prior to the date of such termination. III. Waiver. Guarantor waives any and all notice of the creation, renewal, extension or accrual of any of the Guaranteed Obligations and notice of or proof of reliance by Beneficiary upon this Guarantee or acceptance of this Guarantee. Guarantor waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand for payment to Transferee or Guarantor with respect to the Guaranteed Obligations; provided, however, that Guarantor shall be furnished with a copy of any notice of or relating to default under the Franchise to which Transferee is entitled or which is served upon Transferee at the same time such notice is sent to or served upon Transferee. IV. Representations and Warranties. Each of Guarantor and Beneficiary represents and warrants that: (i) the execution, delivery and performance by it of this Guarantee are within its corporate, limited liability company or other powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate, limited liability company or other action, and do not contravene any law, order, decree or other governmental restriction binding on or affecting it; and (ii) no authorization or approval or other action by, and no notice to or filing with, any governmental authority or regulatory body is required for the due execution, delivery and performance by it of this Guarantee, except as may have been obtained or made, other than, in the case of clauses (i) and (ii), contraventions or lack of authorization, approval, notice, filing GE or other action that would not, individually or in the aggregate, impair or delay in any material respect such party's ability to perform its obligations hereunder. V. Binding Effect. This Guarantee, when executed and delivered by Beneficiary, will constitute a valid and legally binding obligation of Guarantor, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws applicable to creditors' rights generally and by equitable principles (whether enforcement is sought in equity or at law). VI. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, approvals, consents and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given and made if served by personal delivery upon the party for whom it is intended or delivered by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or if sent by Telecopier, provided that the telecopy is promptly confirmed by telephone confirmation thereof, to the party at the address set forth below, or such other address as may be designated in writing hereafter, in the same manner, by such party: To Guarantor and Transferee: Time Warner Cable Inc. 290 Harbor Drive Stamford, CT 06902 -6732 Telephone: (203) 328 -0631 Telecopy: (203) 328 -4094 Attention: General Counsel To Beneficiary: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Telephone: Telecopy: Attention: City Manager VII. Integration. This Guarantee represents the agreement of Guarantor with respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no promises or representations by Guarantor or Beneficiary relative to the subject matter hereof other than those expressly set forth herein. VIII. Amendments in Writing. None of the terms or provisions of this Guarantee may be waived, amended, supplemented or otherwise modified except by a written instrument executed by Guarantor and Beneficiary, provided that any right, power or privilege of Beneficiary arising under this Guarantee may be waived by Beneficiary in a letter or agreement executed by Beneficiary. IX. Section Headings. The section headings used in this Guarantee are for convenience of reference only and are not to affect the construction hereof or be taken into consideration in the interpretation hereof. X. No Assignment or Benefit to Third Parties. This Agreement shall not be assigned by Guarantor, in whole or in part, whether voluntarily or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the Beneficiary. This Agreement shall not be assigned by Beneficiary, in whole or in part, whether voluntarily or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the Guarantor. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon anyone other than Guarantor and Beneficiary and their respective permitted assigns, any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Guarantee. XI. Expenses. All costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Guarantee and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be borne by the party incurring such costs and expenses. XII. Counterparts, This Guarantee may be executed by Guarantor and Beneficiary on separate counterparts (including by facsimile transmission), and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. XIII. Governing Law. This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any legal action or proceeding concerning this Guarantee shall be filed and prosecuted in the appropriate California court in the County of Los Angeles, California. XIV. Waiver of Jury Trial. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives trial by jury in any legal action or proceeding relating to this guarantee and for any counterclaim therein. XV. Attorneys Fees. In the event that any action or proceeding is commenced to regarding any term of this Guarantee, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to all other relief to which it may be entitled, shall be entitled to recover from the other party the prevailing party's costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. The prevailing party shall be as determined by the court in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032. The attorney's costs and expert fees recoverable pursuant to this section include, without limitation, attorney's costs and expert fees incurred on appeal and those incurred in enforcing any judgment rendered. Attorney's costs and fees may be A -7 recovered as an element of costs in the underlying action or proceeding or in a separate recovery action. TO EFFECTUATE THIS GUARANTEE, each of the undersigned has caused this Guarantee to be duly executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer on the date set forth below the authorized signature. "GUARANTOR" TIME WARNER CABLE INC. By: Name: Title: "BENEFICIARY" CITY OF ARCADIA By: Name: Title: MN - - v '�r STAFF REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council � FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director �3 By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution No 6497 establishing fees for single - family residential architectural design review Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6497 SUMMARY On November 15, 2005, the City Council approved Text Amendment 2005 -04 adding single - family design review to the Architectural Design Review regulations in the Arcadia Municipal Code and introduced Ordinance 2213 amending certain sections of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 9, Division 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to Architectural Design Review. As noted in the November 15 staff report fees for the design review would be established by Resolution of the City Council. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the fees set forth in the staff report and adoption of Resolution 6497 establishing fees for single - family residential architectural design review. DISCUSSION The fees listed below for processing single - family design review are based on the estimated time necessary to process individual applications and should defray the City's expenditures and costs for processing the applications. As noted, there shall be no fee charged for the Administrative Review process. CC Rpt - Resolution 6497 Page 1 December 6, 2005 w � The table also includes the current design review fees for other types of architectural design review as well as the appeal fees. TYPE OF REVIEW COSTS Over the Counter Administrative Review Free Exterior Alterations, Additions and /or remodels up to 500 sq. ft. and /or detached accessory buildings up to 500 sq. ft. $245.00 Exterior Alterations, Additions and /or remodels 501 sq. ft. up to 1,000 and /or detached accessory buildings up to 1,000 sq. ft. $357.00 New Single- family dwellings, rebuilds, additions and /or accessory buildings over 1,001 sq. ft. $500.00 Signing $220.00 New Commercial /Industrial $1,225.00 Alterations to commercial /industrial $405.00 New Multiple-Family $510.00 Multiple-Family additions $245.00 Appeal to Planning Commission (existing fee $540.00 Appeal to City Council (existing fee $210.00 As a note, Administrative Review includes such things as roofing material; window /door change outs /replacements; fences /walls within the front yard area; exterior siding and other types of exterior alterations deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director. In addition, per Section 9295.11, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with the design review performed by the City's architectural and landscape design consultants prior to final approval of the design review when required. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 15273(a)(1) of the CEQA guidelines, rates, tolls, fare and charges are exempt from CEQA if the purpose of said fee is to cover the cost of operating expenses. FISCAL IMPACT The new fees will enable the City to recover the cost of providing the referenced services. CC Rpt - Resolution 6497 Page 2 December 6, 2005 �r 1 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6497, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia establishing fees for single - family residential architectural design review. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Resolution 6497 CC Rpt - Resolution 6497 Page 3 December 6, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 6497 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING FEES FOR SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The fees established herein for processing single - family design review applications are necessary for the purpose of defraying the City's expenditures and costs for this purpose, and said fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs for providing the service. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 9295.11 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the following fees are hereby established and adopted for single - family architectural design review: TYPE OF REVIEW COSTS Over the Counter Administrative Review Free Exterior Alterations, Additions and/or remodels $245.00 up to 500 sq. ft. and /or detached accessory buildings up to 500 sq. ft. Exterior Alterations, Additions and/or remodels $357.00 501 sq. ft. up to 1,000 and /or detached accessory buildings up to 1,000 sq. ft. New Single - family dwellings, rebuilds, additions $500.00 and /or accessory buildings over 1,001 sq. ft. Appeal to Planning Commission (existing fee) $540.00 Appeal to City Council (existing fee)$210.00 _- 6497 Jp SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. JOHN WUO Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: C SI NAMES H. BARRO City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -2- 6497 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6497 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ": `l :I M00, 4 2 l'.TT1 City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 3 ! 1 J t -v � , STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Deparhnent December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direccri Prepared by: Tom Tait, Field Services Manager SUBJECT: 2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT SUMMARY The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) requires urban water suppliers to describe and evaluate sources of water supply, efficient use of water, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs. Urban water suppliers are required to update their UWMP every five (5) years. It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt the City's 2005 UWMP Update. DISCUSSION On January 1, 1985, the California Urban Water Management Planning Act required every urban water suppliers (a supplier, publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes) to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (Plan) and to periodically review, update and adopt a revised Plan at least once every five years. In compliance with the Act, the City last updated our Urban Water Management Plan in 2000. This Plan is for the year 2005 and is an update from the 2000 Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to promote conservation and the efficient use of water supplies. A copy of the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update has been available for the public's review at public counters in the Arcadia City Library, City Hall and the Public Works Services Center. A copy is also available in the City Managers' office for the City Councils review and information. The updated Management Plan includes statistics on historical water use and general information including utility size, population served and number of service connections. Water conservation measures, which have taken place over the last five years, become part of this document. Additionally, the Plan serves as a guideline for water management planning for the next five years, which addresses suggestions for alternative conservation methods such as demand management measures, wastewater reclamation, and the use of drought resistant and native plants for landscaping. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005. Page 2 The Plan is evaluated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for compliance and is required in order for the City to be eligible for DWR administered State grants, loans and drought assistance. In addition, it serves as a long -range planning document for the City's water supply, a source of data for development of a regional water plan and a source document for cities and counties as they prepare their own General Plans. There have been various amendments added to the Act and some reorganization of the water code sections since the City's last update in 2000. The additions and changes are as follows: • Senate Bill 610, Land and Water Use Planning Bill • Assembly Bill 901, Water Quality Information • Senate Bill 672, Minimize Need to Import Water • Senate Bill 1348, Consider Demand Management Measures Implementation When Evaluating Eligibility • Senate Bill 1384, Wholesale Agency Water Supply Information • Senate Bill 1518, Recycled Water • Assembly Bill 105, Deposit Urban Water Management Plans in State Library • Senate Bill 318, Desalination In accordance with Water Code Section 10621, the City of Arcadia has reviewed its Urban Water Management Plan and appropriate changes were included. One of the strategic objectives of DWR and the State is to assist and encourage integrated regional water management planning. The UWMP can provide a step -by -step approach for water utilities to assess their water resource needs and supplies, which may serve as a building block for an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), as described in Water Code sub - section 10530. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 . Page 3 RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a Public Hearing and receive any public comments. 2. Adopt The City of Arcadia's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update and direct staff to submit it to the State Department of Water Resources. Approved LPJ William R. Kelly, City Manager i� �.7 ARCA STAFF REPORT Office of the City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager SU13JECT: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESOLUTIONS Recommendation: Approve Resolutions No. 6501, 6502, 6503, and 6504 in preparation for the April 11, 2006 General Municipal Election SUMMARY: The City of Arcadia will conduct its Regular General Municipal Election for the selection of Municipal Officers (Council Members) on April 11, 2006. In order to commence election preparation activities, the California State Elections Code requires that the City Council approve certain election activities by Resolution. In summary, tonight's proposed Resolutions include: Resolution 6501 — Calling and giving notice of the April 11, 2006 General Municipal Election Resolution 6502 — Adopting regulations for Candidates Statements Resolution 6503 — Ordering the Canvass of the General Municipal Election Resolution 6504 — Requesting specified election services from Los Angeles County. Separately, during the City Manager's report section of tonight's agenda, the City Council will consider introducing an Ordinance which will additionally place a bond measure on the April 11, 2006 ballot. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve Resolutions No. 6501, 6502, 6503, and 6504 in preparation for the April 11, 2006 General Municipal Election APPROVED: William R. Kelly, City Manager Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 6501 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Section 1100 of the Charter of the City of Arcadia, California, a Regular General Municipal Election is required to be held on April 11, 2006, for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Arcadia, California, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered to be held in said City, on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of the City for the purpose of electing THREE (3) MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL for the full term of FOUR YEARS ending April 13, P110a SECTION 2. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. 1 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 4. The polls for said election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of said election and shall remain open continuously from said time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when said polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 12310, a stipend for services for the persons named as precinct board members is fixed at the sum of $80.00 for each Inspector and $60.00 for each Clerk for the election. The rental for each polling place, where a charge is made, shall be the sum of $30.00 for the election. When required, the compensation of the Custodian of a building shall be $15.00 for the election. SECTION 6. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 7. The notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. 6 SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause notice of the election, the offices to by filled, and the other matters relating to the election to be given as required by the Elections Code of the State of California. Passed, approved, and adopted this 6th day of December 2005. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: ISI JAMES H. Sp'� s� ' City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: $43� I ju Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6501 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JAMES H. 64Cad g u� City Clerk of the City of Arcadia rd RESOLUTION NO. 6502 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the governing body of any local agency to adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates statement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Arcadia on April 11, 2006 may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk for inclusion in the voter's pamphlet. Such statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. Such statement shall 1 not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. Such statement shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Such statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. SECTION 2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY. (a) Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, the City shall translate candidates' statements into the Chinese language. (b) Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 13307, the candidate's statement shall be translated and printed in Spanish if requested by the candidate. (c) The City Clerk shall 1. Translations (a) have all candidates' statements translated into the Chinese language. (b) have translated into Spanish only those statements requested by a candidate. 2. Printing (a) print all translations of all candidates' statements in the voters pamphlet. 2 SECTION 3. PAYMENT. A. Translations: 1. Each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate's statement into the Chinese language and if requested by the candidate, into the Spanish language. B. Printing: 1. Each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in English in the voters pamphlet. 2. Each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in a foreign language in the voters pamphlet. The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing each candidate's statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended). Said estimate of costs stated at the time the candidate files his or her candidate's statement is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Each candidate shall be required to pay upon receipt of an invoice his or her prorated share of actual costs immediately. Said invoice shall be due and payable .c3 SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy, of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. SECTION 6. All previous resolutions establishing council policy on payment for candidates statements are repealed. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on April 11, 2006 and shall then be repealed. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved, and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. is7 . -inwowo Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /S/ JAMES H. BARRO1 City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM; g NZ4;-:� Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney M STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6502 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None ISl JAMES H. BARD 4' City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 5 RESOLUTION NO. 6503 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 11, 2006, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election will be held in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City desires the canvass of said election to be made by the City Clerk of said City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10263 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the canvass of the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, is hereby ordered to be made by the City Clerk of said City. SECTION 2. The City Cleric of said City shall prior to April 18, 2006, complete the canvass of said General Election and shall certify the results to the City Council on April 18, 2006. 1 SECTION 3 Resolution. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Passed, approved, and adopted this. 6th day of December , 2005. IS/ JOH WU® Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: 181 JAMES H. RA ". City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6503 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None A11111 ' : ■ • City Clerk of the City of Arcadia RI RESOLUTION NO. 6504 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR/RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Arcadia, California, on April 11, 2006; and WHEREAS, in the course of conduct of said election and in relation thereto it will be necessary to mail sample ballots and polling place inserts along with other related material to the registered voters of the City, and it will facilitate such mailing if the Los Angeles County Registrar /Recorder will perform duties outlined below; and WHEREAS, all necessary expenses in performing these services shall be paid by the City of Arcadia. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10002 of the Elections Code of the State of California, this City Council of the City of Arcadia hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of said County to permit the County 1 Registrar/Recorder to prepare and furnish to the City for use in conducting said election the computer record of the names and address of all eligible registered voters in said City in order that the City may print labels to be attached to self - mailer sample ballot pamphlets; and also to furnish to the City printed indices of the voters to be used by the precinct board at the polling place; and to make available to the City additional election equipment and assistance according to state law. SECTION 2. The City shall reimburse said County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and is hereby directed to forward without delay to said Board of Supervisors and the said Registrar/Recorder each, a certified copy of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] K Passed, approved, and adopted this 6 th day of December , 2005. /S/ JOHN WUO Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /S/ JAMES H. BARRGtAJ�' City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6504 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 7 ..... ° . a ..... STAFF REPORT oa t4nity at �nS Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6496 a Resolution of the Citv Council of the City of Arcadia California adopting architectural design review guidelines for single - family residential projects per Section 9295.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6496 BACKGROUND The City Council at its November 15, 2005 meeting voted 5 -0 to introduce Ordinance No. 2213 amending the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to revisions to the architectural design review regulations pertaining to single - family residential. Attached Resolution 6496 adopts the architectural design guidelines for single - family design review. This resolution will become effective upon the effective date of the Ordinance. Attached is City Council Resolution No. 6496 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California adopting architectural design review guidelines for single - family residential projects per Section 9295.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6496. APPROVED BY: —� William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 6496 RESOLUTION NO. 6496 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS PER SECTION 9295.6 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the text amendment revising the City's Architectural Design Review standards (T.A. 2005 -04) was initiated by the Development Services Department to amend the City's current Architectural Design Review Guidelines and establish new guidelines for single - family residential projects; and WHEREAS, Section 9295.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, as amended, states that general design review criteria for single - family, multiple- family and commercial /industrial projects shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2005 and September 13, 2005 duly noticed public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were. given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the single - family design review guidelines; and -1- 6496 WHEREAS, on November 15, 2005, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on said text amendment and voted 5 to 0 to approve said text amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the proposed single - family residential design guidelines provide for the orderly development of the City and will promote high - quality development while allowing diversity of style. SECTION 2. That the proposed single - family residential design guidelines are a tool to effectively communicate to a homeowneribuilder a clearer understanding of acceptable design solutions and establish standards for new homes and additions to existing homes that address mass, scale and other design features to encourage compatibility with surrounding development. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the single - family residential design guidelines as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2213. -2- 6496 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December 2005. Mayor of t e ity o cadia ATTEST: i • , City Cleric of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: I P 44 Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- 6496 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6496 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None ! S/ JAMES Ho SARRO City Clerk of the City of Arcadia rd r mu F L ` l 1 , I 1 i I I f) If I r , I o ; Y I �I I I I' � . f I t It I f a� ! cr w 2 � 2 � 9a«k y y CL - § �(�( / ƒ/} ƒ \(] - ±% )§{ § # \\ /:§ $ 7 § �¥ >/2 ( ®§ /(/ ' § §§§ 2 2&§3 \QZZ2G% 2 � 2 � @ ? r *� ° »` 2a$ \{ \ ƒ. {\ //y \ /\\ I \CD �\ 5 kit\ CD =M \ 0, i ° n CDUq >E �E\�\ /( / \o CD, $,.�E $( i §\C {¥\ \@\ . CD CD a®C$(« CL } #E{ e1e. ©��{ m§$= wIRDgf \ \° . » / \]E ƒ �2�� . &.xmE /ee! /®_§ CL �� }( \( =�® % \; . ƒ §-a §gf \\] %( \\ « po } \\ « \ } {)\)/ at m w . % } / w E b Q c 2 § ? g * !. 7 gC ) § CWD ! E e @ - 2. ] ±. 0 crud CD CD /E) {{ � � ) \\ Ems\ / \ 0 { co $ \$ z2) � 4 < {\ \ ƒ� //� CD CD CL )�� CD (/? \$ \ \ $7 \/ f�\ \\ \\ / ( \ ( i O � � \ } / / { \ 2 2 E E I ƒCD ;g E n \\« \ \ \\ (\ CD Eq : S. E q ƒ\ \ /) \ \\ ~ �d \ \ ƒ� //� CD CD CL )�� CD (/? \$ \ \ $7 \/ f�\ \\ \\ / ( \ ( i O � � \ } / / { \ 2 2 E , co `c n 0. m a C7 A �0 C A. 3 J � U l`" o F o O N R O o G 0. ao a c G O m O ^J p O y CD CD CD a w R m t:s 3 �� V 0 �, a' co Uo a O O G n• c CD 0 .. 0 • . . y p w A t A aw b 'e C C"D n w CD .f. co p� O CD r p � � y C o n R CD w O w . IN ti O^ G O O rn r z. a D ( o F o R p o �•, f° rn 45 a w � 1 R rm, CD Qy a �a coo (D .•c N N ° C a � p a O � ' co c n 0 y O G. a a CD zt D0 N O• q a. � y oo' � a o m S A _ O n d � ' b . . P CD b 'd z zt fD � U U � , co `c n 0. m a C7 A �0 C A. 3 A' G CIO w R .4 w n R 21 CD 1.4 G n• c CD 0 .. 0 • . . y p w A t c T C CD CD co p� O o � `< w . IN ti O^ G O O r z. a o ( f1 . n C o c a e .. F o �•, f° rn 45 a � 1 R rm, CD a O a. q coo o 0 a ° C a a co c n 0 y G. a a CD , co `c n 0. m a C7 A �0 C A. 3 S $. m § �2 )� / { CD / n > . CD . . . . . . f \ / E(» >% 9 R\ E w I Q \ \ ( m ® \ j �.z EE>\ \ E sƒ f E; ) ƒ E \ E R t §in C D ( ) k ƒ / m # t E). gCD k E � /{ ■ \$ ft c \. \/ § §E■ (E �6. CD \ C4 T. \ } E \ 2 / & .mac v' CD CD CD E do "" � O J � y W N r co CD N .n.. ° Q. C° wP'i CL (D q ° w y a 7' CD y o ° ° o E a •• w w v r 3 ❑ C ' o G n CD w CO a s y p y E' Cr• x ."' �j. ,gy CD ' qQ CD CD dQ 'S N O CD ^' y N o R' w E y G. - * o M y an d CD p w y a a o p CD �oe v E � ° b cp CD ac o ti ". a a b CD aw 0 CD CD o co r:,�co �• rn T P a .�. CD p C!Q C' rS 9M. ore °E CD a� a A � y � O A !y" x G x fp A_ n ti R � o O A ' a 'o O <: A ; a A.' A c ti A R. a� m m 4 A G O A l A � b b A n 'C! A o � A A O ,. x O G N w• �. y x � �s 0 CY CD C (D n " � CD b rn CD o o ~ CD n CD w = Cl . w C w W F D w _ rn C y ° C C o CD p ,G. �. 0. bi• ]. rn vo' N tr •ro � CD cr -t o a. 0 ct CD °' �•. y w p co ti r r CD y N m co rn m a. 3 A a: m a A b Cp ° ti a y n y n A o• � z C 0. cn I TJ d p CD CD 7 C b _ CD N O 00 to a y � y A_ M O r � A E w A A. C O A O S 'o c m 0 o . Q M ti 0 A y A .., A Op y O � b � � O A � 7 .:. DIZ t0 A t0 y a n A b m y �0 n G R. n y C/] CD CD C CD ct CD ri C GQ m CD r z CD to CD n 0 co C CD CD CD o CD CD CD C D lo CD L tj ,• C CD CO M y 14�/lYV !4 ! t fL¢ ef i 1 � r 7 ,1 44 r ti4 rl'i L't, t t it � r e tt f ! � ��ar •! W, � it r �tsr� n � i ,ar ; f f. f^rr r A A �G y 0. b Q m m (D �� Tg a, y `0 CD ao c aoa ° C^ w o gC T a eb m CD co ❑. CD E o. ^.tea CD CD y ° y•:: f9 CD N CD ° CD CD A A �G y 0. b Q m m \ } \� \ ƒ }/ \� \\ \§ &EJ $ 2 \� * ƒ / CD \ \� }\ \ §42» \� \ }\ « - f{ }*§ }( ƒ }( « %(} \fqQ -t3 Q. Q. \���` � w 3 } \ } / \ / \ cn I TI t7 CD co CD ro Ua "r � O vi (D 0 O•.� n CD N `G c (D CD u' :7 a. E; w aL � y�N 'r ❑ n. � y ° � r 0 5 c ao y w CD G 0. N n0 E.;. p y�E n Cr • G C 5, UQ CD CD N ti M < O CO CD rn y n a -tz G P m cD � A G a cxo « iyE�G ,G,mo. CD ' q � � can � �' � 0. °� , w = • m c�D 45 .. w w cD G (p O . pp .7. O' G CD � .:.OG- ;= ❑ CD O G n =- w CD - CO CD G m n y y M G �, fDw .. M k:m CD 0 o `° F ac c w o a It rn r. m CD (DD v p y CD G E. � CD aE•o "o, o o w a,o D co CO ?� w ' p C. r. G .... Co p w Uo Y n p CD CD y,p o. o E w E 00 .'o (D 0 O•.� n CD N `G c (D CD u' :7 a. E; w aL � y�N 'r ❑ n. � y ° � r 0 5 c ao y w CD G 0. N n0 E.;. p y�E n Cr • G C 5, UQ CD CD N ti M < O CO CD rn y m Ta ^a n a -tz rn � A G a cxo « iyE�G ,G,mo. CD ' q Go w w C CD 0 n =- w CD - o CD G m n y y G �, 0.`C .. a CD 0 o `° F E o a It rn n O O k 7 p 0 o o w D m Ta ^a 3 M p< O IM A G 3 n o « q ^ e ' p. q O O C0 O y .Z•• � :.. o Z'1 a m a. q b (0 5 5 �\ ) / \\ ( \� E)(\ \R z Z. «& � \\ \ \% \(» \( {� (} } \^ f\ e=m�� wt� % $ \ \� \( \4 \ \a \� \ .may\ : (k' i \ / \ $ . / �d \ } \ \ / / & d CD CD m O O W lli c �y° � � m � o s c a n " an y � 0 0 0 0 O A < t a UA C O h G H rn. C C :. ro ° a ° A C , ' Q�1i ro P p 1 0 m lA ° d ro U CL P G o' m rn w C,P, E ap O m m CD Iny cp C CD 0) a cs n e 0 CD cD m n .0 C a E w o o 0 0. 0 CD A ili A, O A � n •• Q' S Q O 0. O � O O y O A � ' y � Q A y � b o Q W W 0 0 C o CD CD o • CD on a CD U Q m m y a m 0 0 CD CL CD o m. C ❑ l . C n. CD 0 CD a an o p O 'C ^n n u C 9 < p O bQ b CD w o �• 7aCD � � y c C ° m w (D A ili A, O A � n •• Q' S Q O 0. O � O O y O A � ' y � Q A y � b o Q W W 0 p a 0. n U H �0 0. N 0 C o CD CD o CD on a n rn m m CD N C ° m 0 0 CD o m. CD a an o p � (D C ? R C 9 < p O n p a 0. n U H �0 0. N ' d p' N ry (D C CD E b G x:pq O O `•"N :TJ m y ti 0 V] w G y °p w c Co C Co 5 S" p e a c c C o tz N . p" O t" h N G w y- CD N 0.( w CAD y 9 G 'ter' Q• _ co o a: p m� w C m CD n zi co cd ° 'd G CD p m O...' • pQ O C y O O A. VO• a a CD A .`3 O CO n w. O G p co � � `G �• � b w (p t O C°C ti w CZ m CD 0 " g p'?: o. c w a b a c�v tl4 C w rn CD :C CD F w n m n i•0.' o �'"�'w o � a . O CCD D C C C CD N ° 0 y...°yy y p CD CD 0 , p w 0 CD CD h m Fn ti• y CD C �• o � & s : cD cD .•' CD m A O n b CD p O � O n CAD ^ �. .° CD R' �..a CD n C A, ' d p' N ry (D C CD E b G x:pq O � s S� 1 I TI A 4 A C F DO 3 T. a m m y 3 w G w w O . p" h N Ow _. '> 0 ° w y- CD v w CAD 'ter' .7 [D w C m CD ° w co cd w a n c fD a G CD CD c p N . a y a a CD, a a CD A .`3 O CO n w. O G p co � � `G �• � w (p t O C°C ti w CC m CD 0 CD CD :C CD n m CD 0 � � a . O CCD D C C C CD N ° 0 y...°yy y p CD CD 0 , p w 0 CD CD m Fn ti• y CD C trc cao 0 C" CD ., CD CD p n CAD 0 .° CD R' �..a CD n C � s S� 1 I TI A 4 A C F DO 3 T. a m m y i e sa Y Il :. .. r e yy '1 d ! fa t r r �t r Y 1 it lYlt t I� l r Y M P { J { 'S r, n r 'I I�' YY r �C i e sa Y Il :. .. r e yy '1 d ! fa t r r �t r Y 1 it lYlt t I� l r Y M P t � � C- a � c w � p � o ,._ ❑ � p ` .N. y CD :. G rn CD G. ,y 0. w E Tpq Fo•mp��° rno w y 0 o W ~ ao G C P? O 0., pp' ''K m :n r' CL ❑ CD r CD CD CD CP CD C CD rn „i CD- M r, ?i C � y.0. _. rn ^. E w 0.o PT aCC,,.( c o ° CD 0 oc c coo o• T o CD 7 y c CD w CD o. n ID PO co pa y O� y " _ c� O • [ p rn .0.� ' ' � w ` � � `G fj CD R O G 0. R �.- x m cAt N pG .�+ y. p CD O O O CD CD p C 0 . O P n ° w p n E•Q° 0 w O n, �. y :r ❑ a rr v° m o p ❑ � a. a CD o. � a ° a o. C° w W m Q..cr p,° CD as E ° a CD ° w ' N T o d ° m C.. y CD a m a w 0 CD a N •- O E � -a� CD M- y n y a 'v c o o E.m CD o c ` N n . Lv �y - .7 1 P. n . I to O r. ? .7 r-. (9 G y A a �o co o w 9 y CD 0 o y w CD co y C�D ' a E m `-�° rn co co' y E o W ° < E w °< o o C° CD C m � C o a ON r CD �O �G M T w W 00 Z7 a H A b oo G1 Z si m C6 \ )� * \' /f « 0 / ± | \\ ƒ }�$$ ( % z z. \ E r - s / % \ / \ \ § \ §� * CD' rjq 3` 0 ((� ] \� ($( !)i \ \+ §27 ^E; \ \) Q 4 ƒ[ � } \{ (/ (/ \\ /§ \( _ >) \(/ ®7 $ §/I \/\ q[[ (�\ !«*� `\ {§ \ \� z ^ \ \{) \(% (�} }/ \\ \( (� / } \ } \ / \ A W tQ O' � w y n va rn rn C` W U 0 .� 'G w Q' a O ro ao CD Do 0 C ° n xa.o CD 0 CL �• c m w o n O �. w •., y �. pow rz ��a G3. IC y a n c CD 0 M y3 UO O N CD y O y• p o n y 'Q o •S E c o n [9 O p CL o. d O' cc . . w .... n CD in n a y `' y �• n o w UQ - w C N (0 y y a CO ny CD n y N � � H y O O y " w O. n p. O. y N C y T CD w �. MA �O lJi CL o (G C3 0 y O. n CC A W tQ O' � w y n va rn CD o rn E W 0 .� 'G w Q' a O ro t Do �. O 0. �. c xa.o CD 0 (7q G vwri W 'o O �. w •., y �. pow ��a a e•P 1 ^ L . c' 2- n CD R 0 M y3 O y O y• p o n y 'Q o •S E c o n [9 n CE d CD o rn E W 0 .� 'G w Q' a O ro t Do �. O 0. �. c xa.o CD 0 (7q G vwri W 'o O �. w •., y �. pow ��a a e•P 1 ^ L . c' 2- n CD R 0 M y3 y O � 6 0 _ BCD o r -•mac H n n y :°. CD d O N y Q _N n O y Q ° N y r� Q ` Q C 0 a w 'f' w_ n' M M a° J a w G O. n G M O y W C, O' a cr Q O K r n O N n co CD a CD UQ CD n CL O y '' O n .� r�• n f° CD Q d' O Q y •• �� y ('] N w 0 O !- . may y ^: w '. K_: Q n "r3 n wy ? n O CD . ,G CD 0 °'v °��•'� •� CD y r. CL Q Q M Q M CP b CL n .. p„: �y CD n "�' C - n OG' N 0 ."5 ••t Qn y n M N C PL �....: n C O E, 0 b7 pp ° x Q ° e Qo RD 1 CA 0. CL 7 O O O o:m Q. ay e 0 a � ° 2 ti A m a. m A b y DO a. m y � W 0 .� 'G w Q' a O ro t a . �. O 0. �. c xa.o G vwri W C C A. w G O fND' e•P 1 ^ L . c' 2- R O CD R 0 M CD O': O y O y• p o n y 'Q o •S E c o N m a: o CD O CD CD CD in n a 'O Q y< N CD n o w UQ - w C N '^ y y a a w O " w O. n p. CD R w �. MA �O lJi CL o (G C3 0 y O. n CC J a w G O. n G M O y W C, O' a cr Q O K r n O N n co CD a CD UQ CD n CL O y '' O n .� r�• n f° CD Q d' O Q y •• �� y ('] N w 0 O !- . may y ^: w '. K_: Q n "r3 n wy ? n O CD . ,G CD 0 °'v °��•'� •� CD y r. CL Q Q M Q M CP b CL n .. p„: �y CD n "�' C - n OG' N 0 ."5 ••t Qn y n M N C PL �....: n C O E, 0 b7 pp ° x Q ° e Qo RD 1 CA 0. CL 7 O O O o:m Q. ay e 0 a � ° 2 ti A m a. m A b y DO a. m y cn '17 a z n b� w N O p U o A � C O . a o � A O 0. `< n a� c 0. y r A ti � Q7 0 0 C0 b b A Q < b 3 i m V A 0. W, m A 0. a b y G� a. m A. O C (D 'y O n 7 ❑ G to y o w S w CD y C CD O 0 0 t o CY C c w Uq <$ O o Or w o CD w n c a CD Cc rn° �' w m n ° o n ac p n n V w (D � Q y � m CD w . ^' 1 N W ' I CD w co v,' w w QO c h c c n n o n o B y. v a CD v c p w a° o o '< y 5 ' 0 o w ° c ^D n < C o CD a. C °� o n v o " n y 00 w L 0 0 0 N n . ^. ° „ o c + ° co m a o ° W CD. 'O p CD CD = �., ° n CN' N n w O x + D< w w w' m G• ' ^y " O O< �. n w CD F a n ° h n y n aK C C n n w a S, CD 5 co w- CD o y a o w CD as r c y w w CD w• a° ti w e w CL F w N w 0 y '� w P� w w .y n O n '� C) CD a < C � Q7 0 0 C0 b b A Q < b 3 i m V A 0. W, m A 0. a b y G� a. m A. N o o a rn ax °.X °ao w L . ^ W w O N b w a ° Jay y a oc y c� w Lb K fi n,. o _ ° O N. fD n n a n ° y CD _ O ,m C E. O N ° �4 ° y co Co CO CD 0 O o n ° ° o n o CD 0 N n CD CD w�.. w a 0 a p w CD CD rn a F vo m m o il m w C O O m w a N,a CD n O B CD 4 J. ^ w �, C Oo 0 0 0 CD O ' C o a J . o o m a n CD Jn UG w a N y m �7 A x w A . m A y W c� m m y A �• � a a o a � y 'p a R. m ° y .. a �. A y A p . I TJ d CD y . � �0 7y y rn � A O b fD N O m o il m w C O O m w a N,a CD n O B CD 4 J. ^ w �, C Oo 0 0 0 CD O ' C o a J . o o m a n CD Jn UG w a N y m �7 A x w A . m A y W c� m m y CD <E(@ � \ \\ kt »k » £�± \)\/ i ® &\ &j$ƒ � {(\ $ \ \ \� \](\ k\ ƒ� \�\ } ,e �$ §§ }# *$ $ \($ \(7 §J\ \ \ * \ 45[\ \) \! \ \ ®ƒ 4}}( \«$/ \ /a\ !\�2 §/)! /©f \ }\ (( \� \( \\ (� }\ \ \[ ]k/ \\� 2 {t ( }\' } %) [ ;[ \ }\ �() \�\ )�\ }( \ } \ & \ \ / \ a ..• w rn r N [� -- b ..-1 d rD O W qa A N d ro 7 C,..O '�' l W CD G C O �� `G.� N w G n? � O u C .. .`D o o c c :., a o w 0 CL CD acoD 0 = a CD 0 CD pa CD M o CD .+ �. -. O W 'y CD [7c CD w C. O ,o CD a o �.x Cc o?o x� w ^ CD — � M;� O CD N ^ 5 0 0 y p 0 a .7• C R • �t�.' N ' 5 0 0 o w a aq 5' a• o o y y y vq o o. w co — • "< CD w ❑ f r. w 0 R O w }O C• :A UQ CL w •' °. a °,o w a< a N o ONn acq c m C coo 0 n w C c C CD G N 0 o CD CD n w o 0 w O O C+. N 0 y^ w CD CD IV n . w' y O L P� < fn O ti ti rD Vl 0 CD ro p w CD f n a G o - 8 ~� << =. M N w+ F 0 ry w 5' �o m. o. ti C CDD' m N �. o It3 co : w in Cr m e w �' °- n C1 "a w rn 'a n N. b o ,,, ^ b 0 5' O 'a' (D 'O m p p o 'd a CD CD p ,ij a p o , ro o aq w CD a -,:I. d a 4 CD a 8° k� �. o o n co CD 5 GG Oq o rr� CD p H o N CD . n CD '�' �' O .•F y , C .w.-. = G'c� m' y CD CD ° ° g am Qom' � CD 0 � 'a N w� O �.. C) CD CD r+ w w w 0 Q �.. � '3 e+ 4 0 CD W to W 0 R rD m CD . p v O P CD w 7 N a a ti a u a. m a� b G� G 0. !0 ti o W o CD E .b " o w w a CD o o5; o CD CD CD CD w 1 0 n °, CD CD r w C]. m 0 w< `° c Q c CD CD wy•�3�. CD N n CD C 0 o C d CD G..' 0 C � ry CD CD 0 < w a 0 < w a p Fr CD CD d C d r- a a a o w rn CD o ?. Q 0,x.3 go C9 C7 a -.0 0 -a o y w • b0 n v' V) w `°� o n m T 0 C G CD o CD p 0 p < o < , �. ro ° CD ° O' ° E 0 C � � C. N CJ `O w � � • . � CD CD 0 d a °. CD °± O 'T1 b C m '�' - � m. CD 0 co „ =s w a a fD CD ° CD w w c a °D A o C CD . CD .1i '`,�' CD (7 . y rn O G (D O . G i O w CD .w--. 0 O . ,- y O CD a O O rn v w'O Ob C ddb' ro ro CD �' aq O• G . w - 0."O a tl0 -C3 ro 0 y T r P .Ot H C �. .'O�. O CD. <. m' o n ^ -C3 E 0 .E O. CD o < < (D r 7 3 ° D CD N a CD m o b d CD y o w O ~ O ° D y - a ro a < o 0 co O T y pq ryp < O P. C D p O Y. y C. ». 0 CD ° < < o ro o p CD CD y Y 2 0 w H O. LA 0 �+D w 0 GL ^ y C � MM ro O 0 W < ' w <�•bG y, � T CD CD aQ q Im CCD = p E y to y T n C6 °t — a O CD CD 0 ro o CD nE:o o CL 0 N p w CD P C A CD CD CD O f ' w w ro C) y m ro UQ O . 0 a ° w 17 0 < w a 0 < w a p Fr CD CD d C d r- a a a o w rn CD o ?. Q 0,x.3 go C9 C7 a -.0 0 -a o y w • b0 n v' V) w `°� o n m T 0 C G CD o CD p 0 p < o < , �. ro ° CD ° O' ° E 0 C � � C. N CJ `O w � � • . � CD CD 0 d a °. CD °± O 'T1 b C m '�' - � m. CD 0 co „ =s w a a fD CD ° CD w w c a °D A o C CD . CD .1i '`,�' CD (7 . y rn O G (D O . G i O w CD .w--. 0 O . ,- y O CD a O O rn v w'O Ob C ddb' ro ro CD �' aq O• G . w - 0."O a tl0 -C3 ro 0 y T r P .Ot H C �. .'O�. O CD. <. m' o n ^ -C3 E 0 .E O. CD o < < (D r 7 3 ° D CD N a CD m o b d CD y o w O ~ O ° D y - a ro a < o 0 co O T y pq ryp < O P. C D p O Y. y C. ». 0 CD ° < < o ro o p CD CD y Y 2 0 w H O. LA 0 00 n A A. A A b m R A N �+D w 0 GL ^ y C (D < ' w <�•bG CD CD aQ q Im CCD = p E y to y T n C6 C ti a ] y CD 0 ro o CD — N O CD 7 P C CD O f ' w w ro C) y m ro UQ O . n o w 17 CL w E ro CD b CD » C m .tea Cn CD G ° CD w CD O (D w ti o a n. c Q CD 0 w rn .. cD 00 n A A. A A b m R A N CD 'c 'c °mac o n �. o w b ti a ? a.� m -w l ac w w•�.n o CD'�.w - °r m �s.ad d CD 0 CD CD o' m O m CD CD co ( - (D -.ma y CD <• 7 CY n b ( 'C G w CD a a� y C o Co. pis S 5 � y a0 y y G O CD r CJ. C w Z) w `d C con m qj a �. == CD n CD ri m m O C C M Q 'Q y w O b m 'O m o< a E CD CD _, w o m w d 0 CD CL .• o w 0 t7 a (� n o p � - 0 CD 0 CD w w. tz ° o �] o o CD . CD CD CD CO `1 "• C y V M aQ CD 0 6 C .°y C' .w y b C<D r. O a �• O O O •-. G w O m m Cf(D rq .Mtn C [:.'i m G'. O 8 CD ' O H 't7 C U �. w t:l CD a o ,C O X C' C w ¢ n iD B m c• io w° -5 co 0 a m a y ,� ya a < c CD m b . m m w 'o 9 d � w m w 0. � d o an d 0 w CD c� c CD a ti ° O C v C 7r. G n . CD <, b O N Q 0 0 EL CD CD CD w m CL CD ' n C a m o CD y w �2. o o w S �• C o m❑ C CD tz n CD m °p C�❑ ° o G y- -may P_ ; w y QO n ^ o Q w. ,� m CD ' O w c y D CD G a Z. OV CD CD CD CD i� w as o . m a CD . =. � ❑ 0 CL '7 O O' O vi N y '•t m a �' `rj m ° ° P 'O CCDD CD a C CD y w m CD w w a a Y a .C d. ~ a O O Dye ^ fwi h m O p'�: w ^�• •� v' CD CD 0 CD rL w CD EL SD 0 ID roE W o'e:yoo moo Go 0� y C m w y p� ti �• O "� .n m N 0 CD m C�it w O ❑ O n CD C .. G M KD C. C (. �A M. � , a»,T 00 ft y O y 0. a b Qa 2 a 3 5 h d ti 01 . d Q ti d N . . d R CIO V 2 O N ° G4 a c ° Q w E° O r o C y P N 2 a E, U O a7 ° o. p� U) cC � U o rob ° U CZ4 b V y c b � T m a �o T �� � � •- w m fJ O O GG U u: C 0 O N ° G4 a c ° Q w v d •c C� q d . v w m DO _ w C W C O G G 3 O 4Wn ro L W a G O N C y T m bn v U o wN �a N > C Cl. th y p C S� O C ° T C O C N W yy b 3 W U ... �c W c > v o p o W N V on o a ^°. N ro .0 W' a .N+ ro � K ° 3 ro ° p '� ° ro m 0 y p b o 'U cd 0 ro 4�i p ro y ro o � •o �- f i-i d i � a � '� ou a � .a on o � o c� °; o �a y o o c7 q R p> Cd Cd .�.+ OD � •d .'- '� :b 'O O >' a+ C � .p+ G' " id b r. C Y ro F ±; = o Q +.. d 0 •� y • C O C p r a n >, �"" y� S! O C� p� «: y m cd u ,� o O y 0 a cc �° off" o c row.Sa s+ op. Y ro A N s �.. O bCA LIZ 0 0 ° w° „C p bn a f.' on "i c o O U R b s � oc'� y o y co ° „r cc L Y cd = N •'O a' -- Q bC^A h U y C y : "" 3 <d W C? ti c c ^: 3 ro row O d' wd°A d •• 06 .;3= ro C: y O �. O O Cd X C v r C ro R A d �.d•vadU �U aU.oU oA� W W oW WaW GT+L� r y , o a c X N 'o b a• ° ❑ w. O 6�0 w � U h � O ° � U C y O ro G 'o � R > ro O 7 G A O N W ro R+ a A w 5 ti �a y ^ v I tz V d C . m a O �L m co a Cq � b ' U � O ' b0 m W •C 61 O 'O N ctl W O ^� Ln O � O bA y U H ft7 r � H 0 o c o � y U h y C W N O ^" U � v c w 'O N .^ p a� w is O w C O . O � G U ^ y •� W � U � � h � d W 3 U O N Q T A y w O O � O ti w O 0 r O � r Q) y L •� b O Qi b0 . O Q w 1c N cd 0.� o >; 4 : c � a m m O N � O "a "[ m 00 O � 7 M 4 p O U 0 0 '�Oq D O 0 vi Col. C w O 3 ,> a Q o G • V1 � b � � 'ri � N •� � ^ y R ad N r y 0 U a e 7 w 3 U O N Q T A y w O O � O ti w O 0 r O � r Q) y L •� b O Qi b0 . O Q w 1c N cd 0.� I Y 1 , 11 L'L' . 1 1' Y �, I ll � r ♦ 11 } 1 / Yr I� 1 �� I b,dii Ir i n / •� I t 1 � N� NR� � ^ Y {vrt 1. .H ^' (1999999 ax�+l NBC ^f�ll�lil 1 z1,G�� + f F `I �h }Fr I r W i I dl +w P } 1� [ �P / ' f d a Do y v Q Q 01 d r Q �Y d �0 5 vi O o m �n Q w un tc STA FF REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services D By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator / 2 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2213 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Design Review Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2213 BACKGROUND The City Council at its November 15, 2005 meeting voted 5 -0 to introduce Ordinance No. 2213 amending the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to revisions to the architectural design review regulations pertaining to single - family residential. Attached is City Council Ordinance No. 2213: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending certain sections of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 9, Division 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to Architectural Design Review RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2213. APPROVED BY: �---J William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2213 ORDINANCE NO. 2213 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 2, PART 9, DIVISION 5 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9295 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295. PURPOSE. The purpose of the Architectural Design Review Guidelines and Process (the "Design Guidelines ") is to promote a desired level of quality residential, commercial and industrial development in Arcadia that will: Residential A. Contribute to a positive physical image and identity of single - family and multiple - family development. B. Allow diversity of style while promoting the positive design characteristics existing throughout the City. C. Provide guidance for the orderly development of the City and promote high quality development. D. Maintain and protect the property values by encouraging excellence in architectural design that: a. Will enhance the visual environment and character of the community; b. Will preserve and protect property values; c. Is sensitive to both the site and its surroundings; and d. Has been carefully considered with well - integrated features that express a definite architectural style. Commercial /Industrial A. Contribute to a positive physical image and identity of commercial and industrial development. B. Foster design that is sensitive to both the site and its surroundings. C. Provide guidance for the orderly development of the City and promote high quality development. D. Maintain and protect the value of property. E. Reinforce the importance of the pedestrian with scale and space. F. Ensure that the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are visually harmonious with surrounding development. G. Encourage improvements that respect or improve neighborhood character. H. Ensure that plans for the landscaping of open spaces conform to the requirements set forth in the code, and that they provide visually pleasing settings for structures on the site and on adjoining and nearby sites and blend harmoniously with the natural landscape. I. Ensure that the design and location of signs and their materials and colors are consistent with the character and scale of the buildings to which they are attached or which are located on the same site, and ensure that signs are visually harmonious with surrounding development. J. Encourage excellence and diversity in architectural design to enhance the visual environment of the city, preserve and protect property values and the character of the community, and mitigate against degradation and depreciation. -2- 2213 K. Promote and protect the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the community to promote the standards of appearance in the community and encourage the appropriate use of land within the City. The interpretation and implementation of the Design Guidelines should be based on the above purposes. Projects that are reviewed for compliance with the Design Guidelines should meet the intent of the above purposes. The Design Guidelines do not seek to impose an overriding style, a limited color palette, or an artificial theme, but seek to promote the positive design characteristics existing throughout the City. The goal is to promote quality designs that have been carefully considered. It is intended to promote designs that have well integrated features rather than tacked on details. The Design Guidelines are less quantitative than mandatory development standards and may be interpreted with reasonable flexibility in their application to specific projects. SECTION 2. Section 9295.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.1. APPLICABILITY. Design approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit, sign permit, conditional use pen variance and/or modification, for all projects located within all the single - family, multiple - family, commercial and industrial zones as well as exterior alterations, additions or new buildings located in the S -1 zone. In addition, the Design Guidelines apply to the following uses that do not require permits: painting of buildings and signs painted directly on a building. Exception: the Design Guidelines do not apply to the following: 1. Signs having no words or symbols greater than 3 inches in height. 2. Building permits for work which is located entirely within a building and which does not alter the external appearance of said building. -3 - 2213 In addition, single - family residential properties/homes located within the City designated homeowners association areas are not subject to the City's Architectural Design Review Process. However, the Associations shall adhere to and apply the Design Guidelines as well as the Association's enabling resolution in their Design Review Process. SECTION 3. Section 9295.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.2. HOW TO USE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. These Design Guidelines are intended to be used to generally influence the design of single - family, multiple - family, commercial and industrial development, exterior alterations or redevelopment of land uses. The Design Guidelines should be used as a starting point for the creative design process and should not be looked upon as the only solution for design. Owners of properties should strive to be creative and innovative and look beyond franchise or boilerplate architectural, signage and landscape architectural design treatment. SECTION 4. Section 9295.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.4. RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. The Design Guidelines shall be utilized during the City's Design Review Process to encourage the highest level of design quality and at the same time, provide the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of project designers in response to existing site conditions. Applicants submitting plans for new development, additions and/or exterior alterations or rehabilitation of buildings /structures must follow the Design Review Process set forth below in order to complete site and building improvements. SECTION 5. Section 9295.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: -4- 2213 9295.5. SCOPE AND AUTHORITY. Project proponents should review the entire set of Design Guidelines prior to beginning a project's design. The Design Review Process shall consist of the following three steps: 1. Preliminary consultation between the project sponsor and the Development Services Department staff to discuss Design Guidelines and design criteria applicable to the site and use. 2. Design concept review by the Development Services Department, Modification Committee, Planning Commission or City Council, as provided for in the code. Exception: Properties within City designated homeowners association areas are subject to the Design Guidelines set forth in this Division 5 (Section 9295, et seq.), but shall be subject to review and approval of only the homeowners associations' architectural review board, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. 3. Final design review during the plan check process by the Development Services Department for consistency with the approval or conditional approval as established in the design concept approval stage. SECTION 6. Section 9295.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.6. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ALL PROJECTS. General design review standards and criteria for single - family, multiple- family, commercial and industrial projects shall be established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 7. Section 9295.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.7. DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES. -5- 2213 A. The Development Services Department shall perform design concept review of all projects, with the exception of single - family homes within City designated homeowners association areas. B. The Development Services Department shall forward its recommendation for design concept review for projects that require a modification, conditional use permit or variance to the hearing body acting on such modification, conditional use permit or zone variance. C. Projects in excess of two (2) acres or buildings in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. shall be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. The Development Services Director or designee, Modification Committee, or Planning Commission may determine the matter or decline to review and instead may refer it to the hearing body that would consider the matter as if an appeal had been filed. SECTION 8. Section 9295.8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.8. INITIATION OF DESIGN REVIEW. A. Preliminary Consultation. Preliminary consultation shall be initiated by a project proponent by requesting an appointment with the Development Services Director or planner in the Community Development Division. B. Design Concept Review. Design concept review shall be initiated by submission of an application by a project proponent to the Development Services Department on a form approved and containing information required by the Development Services Director or designee. The application shall include such plans and materials deemed by the Development Services Director or designee to be required for adequate concept review. -6- 2213 Final Design Review. Final design review of development plans shall be initiated within one (1) year of design concept approval by submission of plans by a project proponent to Building Services for plan check. SECTION 9. Section 9295.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.9. DESIGN CONCEPT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. A. By Development Services Department. 1. Administrative Review — single - family dwellings. The Development Services Director or designee may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions for the following types of improvements to a single - family dwelling and/or accessory building(s), subject to, the determination of the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project complies with the single - family Design Guidelines: i. Roofing material; ii. window /door change outs /replacements; iii. fences /walls within the front yard area; iv. exterior siding; v. other types of exterior alterations as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director or designee. Review of the above improvements may be conducted upon submittal of plans by a project proponent to Building Services or subsequent to plans being submitted for plan check. If the Development Services Director or designee determines that the proposed improvements do not comply with the single - family Design Guidelines, the applicant shall apply for a regular review process as set forth below. -7- 2213 2. Regular Review: The Development Services Director or designee shall review development plans submitted by a project proponent for design concept approval within thirty (30) working days after receipt for a single - family residential project and within forty -five (45) working days after receipt for a multiple - family, commercial or industrial project, and may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions. After each submittal of a complete application, the City shall have thirty (30) working days of receipt to review the plans for a single - family residential project and forty- five (45) working days after receipt for a multiple - family, commercial or industrial project. Within five (5) working days after a decision, notice of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant. B. By Modification Committee, Planning Commission or City Council. Concurrent with the hearing of an application for a modification, conditional use permit or variance, the Modification Committee, Planning Commission or City Council may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the proposed design concept plans. SECTION 10. Section 9295.16 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9295.16. APPEAL. A. Appeals from the Development Services Director's or designee's or Modification Committee's decision shall be made to the Planning Commission within five (5) working days of the Development Services Director's or designee's or Modification Committee's decision and shall be accompanied by payment of an appeal fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. A public -8- 2213 hearing shall be scheduled not less than ten (10) calendar days or more than forty (40) calendar days after the filing of an appeal. B. Appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission shall be made to the City Council within five (5) working days of the Planning Commission's decision and shall be accompanied by payment of an appeal fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall be scheduled not less than ten (10) calendar days or more than forty (40) calendar days after the filing of an appeal. SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy or summary of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days of its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty-one (3 1) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. IS/ JOHN WU® Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: d.i APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -9- 2213 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2213 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JAMES He BARR City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 10 December 6, 2005 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dire dvil ? Engin Prepared by: Lubomir Tomaier, Senior er Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Golden West Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation, Waterline Rehabilitation. and Sewer Repair Protect Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Powell Engineering Construction for the Golden West Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation, Waterline Rehabilitation, and Sewer Repair Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $23,717.48 SUMMARY On May 17, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to Powell Engineering Construction in the amount of $226,736.86 for the construction of the Golden West Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation, Waterline Rehabilitation and Sewer Repair Project. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction for a total project cost of $237,174.85. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $226,736.86 plus two (2) contract change orders (CCO) totaling $10,437.99 or 4.6% above the original contract amount. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Powell Engineering Construction as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $23,717.48. DISCUSSION The roadway along Golden West Avenue between Vaquero Road and Monte Vista Drive sits upon a natural artesian spring and over time the street and underground utilities have been damaged from ground movement caused by rising and falling water levels and unsuitable soils. The roadway and underground utilities in this area were severely deformed and in need of extensive repair. Roadway deformations at some locations were in excess of one foot. In addition to the work on Golden West Avenue, damaged sewer lines identified by this year's CCTV inspections were added to the scope of the project. Four locations within the City of Arcadia with severely damaged pipe were on Canyon Road, an alley at St. Joseph Street, San Luis Rey Road and Newman Avenue. This project repaired the roadway, upgraded the waterline, repaired damaged sewer lines along Golden West Avenue and at the other said locations. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 2 In addition to'the work originally covered by the contract, the contractor also performed the following work. . CCO #Description Amount 1 Additional Repairs of damaged sidewalk $ 7,274.28 not included in the original contract 2 Change Orderto reflect final work quantities $ 3,163.71 Total Change Orders $10,437.99 Staff recommends that the City Council accept all_work performed by Powell Engineering Construction as complete and authorize the.final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of '$23 This amount reflects the original contract amount of $226,736.86 plus two (2) contract change orders in the amount of $10,437.99 or 4'.6% above the original contract amount for a total contract amount of $237,174.85. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $397,500 were budgeted for repairs to Golden West Avenue in the 2004 -2005 Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept all work performed by Powell Engineering i Construction for the Golden West Avenue Roadway Rehabilitation, Waterline Rehabilitation, and Sewer Repair Project. 2. Authorize final payment to be made In accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $23,717.48. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GFL:dw Attachment r__. GOLDEN WEST AVENUE ROADWAY REHABILITATION, WATERLINE REHABILITATION, AND SEWER REPAIR , �l - [ i 1 1 11 J t , STAFF REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Pen n, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Consideration of a request by the Methodist Hospital to utilize three Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Steve Kook, Director of Campus Development at the Methodist Hospital has submitted a letter to the City requesting approval to utilize three temporary modular buildings for classroom and toilet facilities while construction of a new education center is being completed. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this request. DISCUSSION The Methodist Hospital leases the subject property from the City of Arcadia. The hospital's lease provides that the "City shall have, the right to approve or disapprove the general design, layout, plot plan and architectural features of all buildings and structures to be located upon the premises." The hospital is requesting the City Council's approval to utilize two (2) modular structures containing a total of five (5) classroom spaces and one (1) modular self - contained toilet structure for approximately fourteen (14) months until completion of the construction of a new education center. Methodist Hospital — Modular Buildings December 6, 2005 Page 1 The Methodist Hospital is undergoing extensive space planning changes, including removal of the existing education center for construction of a proposed parking structure. A new education center is being proposed and plans are being completed for review and approval by the City Council. The modular units are located adjacent to southbound Huntington Drive and are being used as classrooms and toilet facilities. There are two (2) 24' x 60' modular units used for classroom purposes and one 12' x 40' unit that is a self- contained toilet facility (see photos). The modular units are located adjacent to southbound Huntington Drive. Permits have been secured for the units and both Building Services and the Fire Department have conducted site inspections to insure compliance with all codes. It should be noted that the hospital has requested temporary occupancy of the units due to their tight building schedule, which staff has granted subject to final City Council approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the use of the modular structures for fourteen months through January 31, 2007. Additionally, if the new education center is not completed by the above date, the applicant may request a time extension for the use of the trailers in writing to the City Manager. ACTION The City Council should approve the use of the three (3) temporary modular buildings until January 31, 2007. Attachments: Letter from Steve Kook Site Plan showing location of trailer Photos of existing trailers Approved by: iv 4 William R. Kelly, City Manager Methodist Hospital — Modular Buildings December 6, 2005 Page 2 111h METHODIST HOSPITAL T h e N e x t G e n e r a t i o n o f C a r e 8 November 2005 Ms. Donna Butler Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 Re: Methodist Hospital of Southern California Temporary Modular Buildings Dear Donna: As outlined in the City Review Package for consideration, Methodist Hospital of Southern California is embarking upon a major campus development program which will occur from 2006 until 2009. Proposed projects in the development include a new 5 -story patient tower, new parking structure and a new education center. As you may be aware, the construction of the new parking structure and education center will require that the existing classroom building be demolished. An important part of the Hospital's Mission is to provide education to physicians, staff and the public on a continuing basis. We are requesting that temporary modular buildings be allowed to be placed on site to allow this critical need to continue uninterrupted. The buildings may be described as two modular structures containing a total of 5 classroom spaces and one modular self - contained toilet structure. It is anticipated that these modular buildings will be in use for a time period of twelve months to fourteen months dependant upon the completion of the construction of the new education center. Upon occupancy of the new permanent structure, the modular buildings would be removed form the site and returned to its original condition. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Re pectf ily submitted, Steve ook Director, Campus Development 300 West Huntington Drive, P.O. Box 60016 • Arcadia, CA 91o66.6oi6 Telephone 6z6. 896.6000 • www.methodisthospital.org wa fag� 5! F� 5 gg a m 4 G Z Q \ a IEI: 119 u g� w Li 1 �eN 6 3 T ! � LII I s ae. • ja e- a gga i.. ! O °W..• g .R 1 W N G Z Q \ a IEI: 119 u h L.II ill `� u bQQ �eN 6 3 4 6 s • ja G Z Q \ a IEI: 119 u bQQ �eN 6 3 4 6 rlz F 4 u f I � I,. L I• I' Q I � � I I I' o Z ; I. t P z r � I � o-5 a m c 0 � u Sla J l; ) jM l; ) / ro I ■ el 1x1 i , i' a e7 ;?{ am a „ � �,. � •h�" y i - 4 a7f j �� . 9 I 1 1 I L .a r -`!v lt... •:!g'^ ¢�4�^suniy� i FA•iir Ft�� J 9+� 1 4 5 � n� 1��.� 4 r� s:.7�7�y°" �K'S� p }i e fiCl z a F•S4x. P IP 'f i(1� .�IP iN �n zz POE 1 ¢ x i a' -"A' . . > A r "i1 I[^ C3 IXT v; RIF L dMW I t If ery}o. .A I;r . °11 Ip V4i <'.ylfl' 1,'{ 14p ,. �'�Sx�� �+.dt •�! t 1 Ix ``4 r' I td�' wa�✓�t 1. ��'i y�i. i r[1 1 1 7 Ci N 1 r . 1, arv IFS r rr r 1i ,. , 7 Oiu .S�' , -� v i i il�b ®d�,7 +kip � yi, z' / �� . 1� 'r r ♦ r , 1 . {, hr F7: / 4 A o REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Brian Saeki, Economic Development Manager - SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement - Construction Management Services for Fire Station 105 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The construction of the new Headquarters Fire Station on Santa Anita is scheduled to commence in early 2006. Construction documents are near completion and staff is preparing to bid the project. Typically for a project of this type, a construction manager is needed to handle any communication, between the contractor, architect and City. This would include processing payments, logging and tracking change orders, requests for information and submittals, preparing weekly progress reports and monitoring construction activities and the project schedule. During the construction of the new Police Station, a full time construction manager was required. However, based upon the overall size of the new Fire Station and complexity of the construction, as compared to the Police Station, staff feels that a part-time construction manager would be sufficient. Staff solicited three (3) proposals from construction management companies; Construction Controls Group (CCG), Planning Partners Limited and Phillip Sexton. Based upon the overall cost, construction management experience, familiarity with City processes and close proximity to the project site, staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manger to enter into a professional services agreement with Phillip Sexton for construction management services during the construction of Fire k0 Station 105. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 2 As part of the construction of the new Police Facility, the services a full -time construction management firm was required. This included two (2) full time employees and a part time employee on site at all time during construction. The new Police Facility is 42,000 square feet with several ancillary structures including a firing range. Construction of the facility was complex. Not only is it an essential facility but included the construction of a jail which must be built to more stringent regulations as required by the State of California. The City used Construction Controls Group for these services. The new Headquarters Fire Station is 20,000 square feet of which a large portion will serve as the apparatus room. Living quarters and administrative offices comprise the remainder of the square footage. While an essential facility, construction of the new Station will not be as complex as the Police Facility. Based upon these differences, staff is recommending that the City retain the services of a construction management firm but on a part time basis (approximately 20 hours /week). Staff solicited proposals from construction management firms for the new Fire Station. Three (3) firms responded (Construction Controls Group, Planning Partners Limited and Phillip Sexton). It is staffs opinion that based upon the type of construction and overall size of the building, any of the three (3) firms could provide adequate construction management services. However, Phillip Sexton is able to provide his services at $40- $100 /hour less than CCG or Planning Partners. More importantly, Mr. Sexton resides close.by and can provide the needed services when required. He has also provided construction management services to the City in the past and staff has been very satisfied with his work. He is familiar with the rules and regulations of publicly bid projects and his close proximity to the site will be of benefit once under construction. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Phillip Sexton for construction management services for Fire Station 105. FISCAL IMPACT The professional services agreement with Phillip Sexton shall not to exceed $96,000. This cost assumes a 15 -month construction period at 20 hours /week. An additional month was also added for post construction activities. Any additional time above and beyond the approved amount will be billed at $75 /hour with the consent of the City. As part of the FY2005 -06 Capital Improvement Budget, $5.92 million ($350,000 — Redevelopment Funds and $5,570,000 — Capital Outlay Funds) was approved for the construction of Fire Station 105. This included the cost to construct the building, architectural and engineering fees, relocation costs, lead and asbestos removal and construction management services. . Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Phillip Sexton for construction management services during the construction of Fire Station 105. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager f DATE: December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Direct By: Jan Steese, Purchasing Officer SUBJECT: Purchase of Smoke Alarms Recommendation: Approve the Purchase of Smoke Alarms from Home Depot in an amount Not To Exceed $60,000.00 SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract to Home Depot utilizing federal grant funds and previously appropriated city funds in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00. BACKGROUND The City of Arcadia received approval and was awarded a federal grant for the 2004- 2005 fiscal year for a smoke detector program entitled "A Smoke Alarm for Every Residence ( "SAFER'). This grant included the purchase of smoke alarms and expenses to support the program. Federal funding under this grant is $88,553, with the City's shared cost of $37,951 and was appropriated by the City Council at the May 17, 2005 meeting. DISCUSSION Staff has purchased small quantities of smoke detectors in the past from Home Depot at a competitive price. In accordance with City Purchasing rules and regulations, staff attempted to solicit competitive bids for large quantities of smoke detectors. The Purchasing Officer contacted the manufacturer of the smoke detectors, First Alert, and was told that there were only two major distributors on the West Coast in addition to retail stores that sell the alarms. Retail stores are places like Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, etc. Administrative Services Department Staff prepared a formal bid and mailed copies to ten (10) prospective bidders. The bid was advertised in the newspaper on November 14 and 17, 2005. The bid opening date was November 29, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. and only one response was received. That single response was a "no bid ". Staff believes it is in the best interest of the City and the community to purchase the smoke alarms from Home Depot. Home Depot usually has large quantities in stock at all times which allows staff to purchase them on an as needed basis. In accordance with the City's Purchasing Procedures Manual, Page V -7, and due to not receiving any bids at the bid opening, the City Council may authorize the Administrative Services Director to have the work accomplished or goods purchased without further competitive bidding. Therefore, staff is recommending City Council authorize the Administrative Services Director to purchase the smoke detectors from Home Depot without further competitive bids. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the SAFER Program is being provided by a federal grant and the City's shared cost previously approved. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase contract to Home Depot for the purchase of smoke alarms in the amount not to exceed $60,000.00 Approved: Od9 William R. Kelly, City Manager 7 REPORT STAFF Public Works Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Lubomir Tomaier, Senior Civil Engin er Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair Recommendation: Accept all work performed by E.C. Construction for the Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the.contract documents, subject to a retention of $42,310.97. SUMMARY On June 21, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to E.C. Construction in the amount of $416,783.76 for the Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair Project. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction for a total project cost of $423,102.19. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $416,783.76 plus three (3) contract change orders (CCO) totaling $6,318.43 or 1.5% above the original contract amount. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by E.C. Construction as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $42,310.97. DISCUSSION The January 9, 2005 rainstorm damaged the Santa Anita Canyon Road (A.K.A. Chantry Flats Road) 1.0 mile north of Arno Drive within the City of Arcadia boundaries. The hillside above the road at that location experienced super saturation and ground erosion causing extreme earth movements that modified existing drainage patterns on the Santa Anita Canyon Road. The change of water flow forced large amounts of water and debris to overflow an asphalt berm, eroding the hillside embankment. Excessive debris covering the roadway resulted in a complete collapse and loss of the roadway. Staff applied for and received approval for Federal and State funding for this repair. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved funding for 75% of the cost and the State Of California Office of Emergency Services (OES) has approved funding for 75% of the non - federal share (18.75 %), obligating the City of Arcadia to provide the remaining 6.25% from City funds or force labor. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 2 The terms and conditions of.this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to staffs satisfaction. In addition to the work originally covered by the contract; the Contractor also performed the following work. CCO # Description Amount $3,466.00 <$1,759.36> $4,611.79 $6,318.43 1 Construction of a cable railing along the top of the wall for pedestrian safety. 2 ' Construct drainage culvert along a different alignment, provide concrete backfill and modify rip -rap layout. 3 Change order to reflect actual work quantities Total Change Orders Staff recommends that the City Council accept'all work performed'by E.C. Construction as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $42,310.97. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $416,783.76 plus three (3) contract change orders (CCO) for $6,318.43 or 1.5% above the original contract amount for a total contract amount of $423,102.19. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT On June 21, 2005, City Council authorized an appropriation of $588,600 from the Emergency Fund for this project. Federal and State funding for up to $696,345 has been approved for reimbursement for the engineering, project management, road reconstruction and contingencies costs. FEMA will reimburse 75% of the actual total project cost and OES will reimburse 75% of the remaining 25% of the .actual total project cost; thus, leaving a balance of approximately $33,838 to be paid for by the City based on the $541,406 project cost. The.following is a_ breakdown of expenditures for this project,. 1. Engineering Services previously awarded by. the City Council on April 5, 2005 without an appropriation $118,304 2. Roadway construction $423,1 02 Total $541',406 Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept all work performed by E.C: Construction for the Santa Anita Canyon Road Storm Repair project as complete. 2. Authorize final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $42,310.97. Approved by: =J UJT�k William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:LT:dw Attachment . CITY OF ARC ADIA SANTA ANITA CANYON ROAD STORM REPAIR PROJECT LOCATION MAP i E m . STORM DAMAGE LOCATION NORTH ry.Gm A% S y��pM�'., a muAwi IH310 Fm10 YRh a Muni... HNL tl pmMa � i� � T w , lape.n,u. Twwh lM� b � a N� EXHIBIT A o G2.n, IN 4. A . . . • RT Public Works Services Department December 06, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct r Prepared by: Lubomir, Tomaier, Senior Civil nJMineer r Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil SUBJECT: Award — 2005 /06 Annual Concrete Repair Project Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to: 1. Enter into a contract to the second low bidder, Damon Construction Co. in the amount of $292,000 for the concrete portion of the 2005/06 Concrete Repair Project. 2. Approve a change order with California Landscape Services, Inc: (CLS) in the amount of $30,000 for Tree Removal and Replacement 3. Relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation due to a clerical error in their bid SUMMARY As part of the City's Street Maintenance Program, the Public Works Services Department is proposing to repair damaged concrete along :residential streets in designated areas within the City. The street locations are illustrated on the attached location map. On November 15, 2005, sealed bids were opened for the Annual 2005/06 Concrete Repair Project.. Five (5),bids were received with Facility Operations Plus submitting the apparent low bid of $425,251.50. Subsequent to the bid opening, this firm formally withdrew their bid from consideration, citing a clerical, error in their bid,.tabulations, leaving Damon Construction as the low bidder at $501,571. Staff has reviewed Damon Construction's bid and found it to be satisfactory, however, their bid is substantially higher than the engineer and budget estimates. Staff met with Damon Construction and negotiated a reduction in bid quantities, which reduced the scope of work nearly in half. Based on the renegotiated bid,quantities, staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $292,000 to Damon Construction for the Annual 2005/06 Concrete Repair Project and that the City Council relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation due to the clerical error in preparation of their bid. In addition to the concrete portion of the project it will be necessary to selectively remove and replace.trees that are damaging public and private property. Selective tree removal will prevent further and reoccurring „damage to curb and gutters, pavement Mayor and City Council - December 6, 2005 Page 2 surfaces and private property. Staff recommends that the City Council also authorize a change order to.California Landscape Services, Inc. (CLS) in the amount of`$30,000 for Tree Removal and Replacement services. DISCUSSION _The Public Works Services Department is responsible for the maintenance and repair of approximately 147'miles of pavement within the community. In 1999, as part of the Pavement Management Program, staff prioritized the condition of all City streets and established a program to slurry seal or rehabilitate streets within the City based on a pavement condition index. As a parLof the work, the adjacent damaged concrete curbs; gutters and'sidewalks are scheduled for repair to correct safety and drainage problems. This project also includes, the construction of ADA sidewalk access ramps at other locations outside of the repair area. Work for this project is included in the 2005/2006 Capital Improvement'_ Program, under the .ADA Sidewalk° Access Program, Annual Asphalt and Concrete Program, and Design and Rehabilitate Streets- Program. Notices inviting,bids for concrete repairs were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were distributed to area contractor's. The following five (5) bids were received on.November15, 2005: Bidder Location Bid Amount Facility Operations Plus Monrovia $425,251.50 Damon Construction Co. Cyprus $501,571.00 E.C. Construction Co. South El Monte $509,799.00 , Alliance Street Works; Inc Anaheim $549,494.00 Nobest Incorporated Westminster $631,373.00 The apparent low bidder has rescinded their bid due to a clerical error in their bid and is no longer considered for on this project: All bids were. significantly, above the Engineer's estimate. These higher bids are due to a combination of'increased costs for raw materials, fuel, and labor rates. Also, a major contributing factor -to' the higher unit costs are associated with the increased labor required to remove °large amount of roots expected during the concrete removals. All these elements have significantly impacted bid prices and there is no expectation that a rebidding the project would generate` lower bid unit prices. Subsequent to the bid opening, Facility Operations Plus the apparent low bidder formally withdrew their bid from consideration, citing a clerical error in their bid tabulations,'Ieaving Damon'Construction as the low bidder at $501,571. Staff reviewed Damon Construction's bid and Jound it'to be satisfactory, however, their bid -is substantially , higher than the engineer and budget estimates.' Staff met with Damon Construction' and negotiated a reduction in bid quantities, which reduces the scope of work by nearly one -half. All of the concrete work was prioritized in priorities of low, medium, and high, with'high being the 'worst condition, significant damage to curb and gutters and impacting the flow of nuisance water ; the- reduced'wope,of work; the contract will'focus the high priority areas and some of the medium level areas. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the Contractor's background and recent projects for competency. 'it is staffs opinion that Damon Construction Co. can satisfactorily perform the work required and based on the renegotiated bid quantities, staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $292,000 to ,Damon Construction for the Annual 2005/06 Concrete Repair Project and that the City Council relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation due to the clerical error in preparation of their bid. In addition to the concrete portion of the project it will be necessary to selectively remove and replace trees that are damaging public and private property. Selective tree removals will focus on aging, diseased and problematic tress and will prevent further and reoccurring damage to curb and gutters, pavement surfaces and private property. These removals will remain consistent with and comply with the conditions addressed the Street Tree Master Plan. Staff recommends that the City Council also authorize a Contract Change Osier to California. Landscape Services, Inc. (CLS) in the amount of $30,000 for Tree Removal and Replacement services. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT $740,600 is included in the 2005/06 Capital Improvement Budget for ; the Annual Asphalt and Concrete Program, including concrete repairs, tree removal and replacement and slurry seal, and the ADA Sidewalk Access Program and Design and Rehabilitate Streets Program. The balance of $418,600 'is budgeted for slurry seal and asphalt overlay work as part of this year's Capital Improvement Projects. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to 1. Enter into a contract to the second low bidder, Damon Construction Co. in the amount of $292,000 for the concrete portion of the 2005/06 Concrete Repair Project. 2. Approve a change order with California Landscape Services, Inc. (CLS) in the amount of $30,000 for Tree Removal and Replacement. 3. Relieve the apparent low bidder of their bid obligation due to a clerical error in their bid. 4. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. 5. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. (� Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:MR:dw Attachment DATE: December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City ManagerU Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing & Special Projects Manager By: Yvonne Yeung, Management Aide Wh SUBJECT: AWARD A ONE (1) YEAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXTENSION TO THE FERGUSON GROUP FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 BEGINNING JANUARY 2006 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Since 1996, The Ferguson Group has been assisting the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre with funding for water infrastructure improvement projects. In 1999, the City Council approved expanding their legislative advocacy services to include other projects for which we might be eligible for federal funding. As a direct result of our relationship with The Ferguson Group, millions of dollars was secured for various City projects over the last several years. The current contract expires on December 31, 2005, and staff asks the City Council to renew our contract with The Ferguson Group for another year. DISCUSSION The expenditure of funds for legislative advocacy has proven to be very beneficial. To date, the City has been successful in obtaining millions of dollars in federal grants for various projects, such as traffic and street improvement projects, regional counter- terrorism training program for first responders, monies for the Ruth and Charles Glib Arcadia Historical Museum, and, most importantly, significant funding for joint Arcadia /Sierra Madre water infrastructure improvement projects. In fact, this year we received two rounds of wonderful news in terms of federal monies available for local water projects: Congress has authorized $20 million for the Arcadia /Sierra Madre Water Environmental Infrastructure Program and an additional $5 million for the Raymond Basin Management Board — of which the City of Arcadia is a member — for its Southern California Foothill Communities Water Supply Reliability Program. This funding will be a tremendous help for our continuing efforts toward Or Office of the City Manager Mayor and City Council December 7, 2004 Page 2. safeguarding the reliability of our water system as well as the quality and quantity of our drinking water in the case of a major seismic event. Staff believes that The Ferguson Group's tireless lobbying efforts on the City's behalf was instrumental in our receipt of this major funding; therefore, staff is confident the partnership 'with The Ferguson Group will continue to be a lucrative investment. Members of The Ferguson Group team are not only knowledgeable about the federal process, funding availability and the kind of projects that typically receive funding, they are also helpful in scheduling meetings with key legislators and their staffs in Washington, D.C. This has allowed the Arcadia /Sierra Madre team to personally make presentations about specific projects directly to the people who are responsible for allocating federal funds. FISCAL IMPACT The $65,000 annual retainer remains the same as last year. The fee includes unlimited hours of service each month and overhead expenses. As in the past, this cost will be shared among the General Fund (35 %), the Water Fund (50 %), and the redevelopment Agency (15 %). RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to award a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement extension to The Ferguson Group for federal legislative advocacy services in the amount of $65,000 beginning January 1, 2006. BK:LG:YY 4 t .Pe O Y STAFF F.EpoDrP O� f . 11St ti Devel opment p. i December 6, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director SUBJECT: Anita Mall Expansion Recommendation: Authorize City Manager to enter into an agreement SUMMARY For close to one year staff has been reviewing and processing development applications for the Santa Anita Specific Plan and EIR and for the second phase of expansion of Westfield Santa Anita Mall. The Community Development Division of the Development Services Department has served in a lead role in this process, with Community Development Administrator Donna Butler as the primary contact person on the project. After thirty-four (34) years with the City, Ms. Butler is retiring. To ensure continuity and utilize the expertise and knowledge Ms. Butler has developed on these projects as well as her overall familiarity with City requirements, it is proposed that the City contract with her to provide consulting services to the City specifically on these two projects. All costs incurred by the City as a result of this agreement would be bome by the two developers. BACKGROUND Westfield initially submitted an application for development of a second phase expansion at the Mall in December 2004. The application was incomplete and a new application for an 180,000 square foot expansion was submitted in July 2005.. An addendum to the 2000 Certified EIR on the Mall expansion was also submitted by Westfield to staff in October 2005. The addendum evaluates the environmental consequences of subsequent phased improvements in order to determine whether any additional significant environmental impacts, which were not identified in the Certified EIR, would occur or whether any previously identified significant impacts would be Mayor and City Council. December 6, 2005 Page 2 substantially more severe. The review of the Addendum by staff and City consultants is currently underway. Discussions with Caruso Affiliated Holdings and Santa Anita Park regarding the development of the southern parking lot of the Racetrack commenced in 2004. Development applications were submitted to the City in March 2005. The applications included a General Plan amendment, zone change, and specific plan. A development agreement application was subsequently submitted: The specific plan proposed 804,000 square feet of commercial space, 300 housing units and a new relocated off - track wagering facility within the existing Racetrack grandstand. It was determined that an environmental impact report was needed for the project. The City retained the services of an EIR consulting firm as well as a traffic engineering firm to prepare the draft EIR "and traffic study. DISCUSSION The Community Development Division of the Development Services Department has served in a lead role in the review and analysis of both of these projects. Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, has been the primary staff contact. Ms. Butler will be retiring at the end of December 2005 after thirty -four (34) years with the City. To ensure continuity of review on these projects, and utilize the depth of knowledge she has on these projects as well as planning in general in the City, staff is proposing to retain Ms. Butler as a consultant on the Westfield Mall expansion and the Santa Anita Specific Plan /Caruso Project. Due to the heavy workload on planning in general as well as the significant time requirements these projects have placed on staff, it would not be reasonable to have existing staff try and fill this workload demand alone. Currently, the City has reimbursement agreements with both developers to pay for costs associated with the review of their projects. In the case of the Caruso project, both environmental as well as development application related expenses are reimbursed by the developer. With Westfield, the agreement provides for all environmental related expenses to be reimbursed. The City also has a general design review program whereas should outside design review be needed on a project, a developer would be required to pay for this expense. Ms. Butler's time involved in the Westfield design review is proposed to be billed under this provision in addition to the reimbursement agreement. FISCAL Staff would propose an hourly rate of $100 for these consultant services. It is a competitive rate for the, services needed. As noted above, all costs per this agreement would"be borne by the two developers. It is difficult to know how long these services will be needed, which is dependent on when these projects go to public hearing. Imo. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City. Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Donna Butler to provide consultant services related to the Westfield Santa Anita Mall expansion and for the Santa Anita Specific Plan/Caruso Project. Approved: &n " ° y William R. Kelly, City Manager I I • STAFF REPORT 11 C] December 6, 2005. Development Services Department FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Prepared by: Rafael Fajardo, Assistant Engineer` TO: Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Accept— Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Service 1" Environmental for the Asbestos /Lead Base Paint Abatement Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention SUMMARY On September 20, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to Service 1 5 ` Environmental in the amount of $54,577.00 for the removal and disposal of asbestos - containing materials at the Fire Station 105 and the Firing Range in the City Council Chamber basement. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to staffs satisfaction for a total project cost of $54,577.00. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Service 1 51 Environmental as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $2,728.85. DISCUSSION As part of the new Fire Station 105 project, the existing building (constructed in 1958) will be demolished. Before demolition can occur, all areas contaminated with asbestos and lead based products need to be identified and removed. Staff retained the services of a qualified environmental firm to identify the contaminated areas and to determine an estimated cost for removal. In addition, staff also had the former firing range beneath the City Council Chambers tested for asbestos and lead based products. Based upon the results of the survey, it was determined that there were several contaminated areas in both the Fire Station and firing range. Mayor and City Council December 6, 2005. Page 2 With the assistance from the lead and asbestos environmental firm, staff bid the project • for removal at both facilities. The City Council awarded a contract to Service 1 Environmental on September 20, 2005 to perform the work. The asbestos and lead containing materials have now been appropriately abated abiding by all Federal and State Abatement Laws. In addition, all terms and conditions of this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to staffs satisfaction. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Service 1s Environmental as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a 5% retention of $2,728.85. FISCAL IMPACT As part of the FY 2005 -06 Capital Improvement Budget- $5.92 million ($350,000 - Redevelopment Funds and $5,570,000 - Capital Outlay Funds) was approved for the construction of Fire Station 105. This included the cost to construct the building, architectural and engineering fees, relocation costs, lead and asbestos removal. All costs associated with removing the lead and asbestos from the former firing range can be paid with funds carried over from the previous fiscal year that we earmarked for Civic Center work. • RECOMMENDATION Accept all work performed by Service 1 Environmental for the Asbestos /Lead Base Paint Abatement Project as complete. 2. Authorize final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to retention of $2,728.85. Approved: —=�► William R. Kelly, City Manager J STAFF REPORT DATE: December 6, 2005 Office of the City Manager TO: Mayor and City Council e FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager �UkA 1 By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PRIORITIES Recommendation: Determine legislative advocacy priorities for the coming year and authorize staff and The Ferguson Group to proceed as referenced in this report SUMMARY The Ferguson Group has represented the City of Arcadia for several years with regard to legislative matters and revenue opportunities. Their efforts have resulted in the receipt of millions of dollars to assist with various City projects. Every year around this time, the City Council reviews and approves projects for which The Ferguson Group will focus on in the coming legislative session. This report summarizes some of the projects staff considered for this purpose and asks the City Council to set the priorities for the coming year. BACKGROUND Since the beginning of our association with The Ferguson Group and efforts to lobby the federal government for money to pay for local projects that we would otherwise have difficulty completing, the City of Arcadia has been successful in obtaining millions of dollars. The majority of this money has been for a comprehensive water infrastructure improvement project that staff is working on in coordination with the City of Sierra Madre. In addition, significant monies have also been received for traffic and road improvement projects and smaller amounts for the Ruth and Charles Gilb Arcadia Historical Museum. When the City Council set the priorities for last year, it was decided that we should begin working to obtain funding to construct a grade separation on Santa Anita Avenue for the Gold Line. At this time staff is no longer suggesting that this be part of our lobbying effort, as the legislative calendar /timing does not work for us in that the City is required to commit to paying for the grade separation prior to such time as we could expect a decision from the federal government. In addition, the Blue Line Construction Authority is already seeking (and has obtained) some funding for the Gold Line Extension and it is unlikely that Congress would approve additional money for local jurisdictions to put toward grade separations and other city- specific improvements. Mayor and City Council - Federal Legislative Priorities December 6, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION Staff recently met with Trent Lehman of The Ferguson Group and discussed several projects and alternatives for approaching the City of Arcadia's federal funding requests this year so that they will best meet federal criteria and be favorably received with respect to the current environment in Washington, D.C. Given the billions of dollars the federal government has to come up with to pay for hurricane damage, the war, Medicare and prescription drugs, Mr. Lehman has advised us that obtaining money will be difficult, particularly for non - public safety related projects. Secondarily, although Arcadia is a municipality like all others with financial obligations and limitations, we are considered to be in better financial condition than many other cities and also have a higher income level among our residents, which limits our ability somewhat to qualify for funds. Further, funds for "bricks and mortar" projects are next to impossible to receive, except in relatively small amounts. As was the case last year, Mr. Lehman and staff believe we are best served by focusing on the highest priority projects that fall within the general guidelines and areas where there is the most discretion in terms of appropriations and the provision of funds for local programs. After a discussion of the executive team, and on the advice of Mr. Lehman, staff is recommending that the City pursue federal funding for the following projects: 1. . Water Projects Millions of dollars has already been received from the federal government for water system infrastructure improvement projects. Staff is recommending that we continue to seek funding for the joint Arcadia /Sierra Madre Water Infrastructure Restoration Program that includes the design and construction of the Orange Grove Booster Pump Station, the East Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan Phase 2, and construction of an emergency backup supply well. Completion of these projects is important to safeguard the quality and reliability of the drinking water supply for the cities of. Arcadia and Sierra Madre given the age of the current system and the potential impacts that could occur should we suffer a major seismic event. In this same arena, if the Water Resources Development Act Grant (WRDA) is approved in this legislative session; ,staff would like to seek $20 million for the East Raymond Basin Water Resource Program which involves joint projects with the City of Sierra Madre and the County of Los Angeles, as well as the Arcadia Wastewater Infrastructure Program. , (The WRDA Environmental Infrastructure Grant Program is for specific water, and wastewater programs aimed at protecting and enhancing water quality in domestic water systems.) Mayor and City Council - Federal Legislative Priorities December 6, 2005 Page 3 2. Regional Counter - Terrorism Training Program for First Responders With a $298,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, over the last several years the City of Arcadia designed and implemented a regional training program to prepare first responders in the event of an act of terrorism. Participating cities included Alhambra, Arcadia, Bakersfield, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Claremont, Glendale, La Verne, Los Angeles, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Pasadena, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, West Covina and Whittier. In addition to police, fire and public works departments, a number of school districts, social service agencies, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Bureau were involved. A total of 680 hours of training was provided to 1,245 first responders. If additional funding is obtained, the City of Arcadia will be able to continue this valuable training and also extend the project to include more jurisdictions. 3. Foothills Special Enforcement Team (FSET) The Foothills Special Enforcement Team consists of police personnel from the cities of Arcadia, Glendora, Monrovia and La Verne. This regional tactical team was established to pool manpower and resources from smaller police agencies in order to handle critical and/or large -scale events. FSET is expected to handle high -risk search and arrest warrants, hostage situations, barricaded subjects, active shooter situations, high -risk apprehensions and protection operations in the four communities. If approved by the City Council, staff would seek approximately half a million dollars to purchase equipment and a specialized vehicle for use by FSET. FISCAL IMPACT The purpose of this report is to ask the City Council to set the priorities for our legislative advocacy efforts in the coming year. There is no fiscal impact at this time, although it is worth noting that sometimes the offer of federal funds comes with a required City match, or on occasion money is offered for a program that is similar to what the City proposed, but has specific requirements that are either not achievable or applicable to the City of Arcadia. Acceptance of all funds will be based on Arcadia's needs and abilities. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to direct The Ferguson Group to work on behalf of the City of Arcadia to seek funding for the water, regional counter - terrorism training and Foothills Special Enforcement Team programs referenced in this report; and further, authorize staff to submit any documents or application forms for federal funding as may be needed for each project. °$• =49 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY December 6, 2005 Mayor and City Council Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Developnlgi` ZServices Director Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Ordinance No. 2214, an Ordinance of the City of Arcadia calling a municipal bond election for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the Recommendation: Introduce In 2000 the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Authority) and ten (10) cities, (Pasadena to Claremont) agreed to work as a unified team to secure federal funds and begin efforts for the extension of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension (Foothill Extension) light rail system through the eastern San Gabriel Valley. In 2003 the Arcadia City Council took action to join the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to actively participate in decisions affecting the Foothill Extension cities. The City Council has expressed interest in a grade separation at Santa Anita Avenue since the inception of this project and considered alternative interest to be paid thereon: making provision for the levy and collection of financing options for this project at their November 15, 2005 meeting. The City Council directed staff to place a ballot measure on the April 11, 2006 election for considering a tax levy that would support the debt service for General Obligation Bonds. BACKGROUND In 2000 the Authority and ten (10) cities, (Pasadena to Claremont) agreed to work as a unified team to secure federal funds and begin efforts for the extension of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension (Foothill Extension) light rail system through the eastern San Gabriel Valley. The City of Arcadia has actively supported the effort to extend the Foothill Extension light rail system through the eastern cities of the San Gabriel Valley. In 2003 the Arcadia City Council took action to join the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to actively participate in decisions affecting the Foothill Extension cities. The City then became involved in determining among other factors, the need for a grade separation(s). The Foothill Extension alignment currently crosses two City streets at —grade, Santa Anita Avenue and the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara_ Street. The Authority has determined that these two grade crossings do. not meet MTA policy criteria for grade separations. Nevertheless, the City Council has been concerned with future traffic impacts on Santa Anita Avenue and in the past has expressed interest in a grade separation at that location proposing the possible use of local funds. DISCUSSION Staff has been directed to look at financing options for constructing the grade separation. It is estimated the total cost of the project will be $13 million (in 2007 dollars). Currently the City has set aside approximately $5 million in transportation related funding in Proposition A & C reserves. As a result, the City needs to consider approximately $8 million in debt issuance proceeds to fund this project. If the City were to raise the funds to construct the grade crossing, the Construction Authority would construct the improvement. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) would ultimately own and maintain the structure when construction is complete. As a result of City Council direction of November 15, 2005, the City may offer to the voters on a ballot measure the levy of a General Obligation Bond Override (property) tax. A two- thirds (2/3) majority vote would be required for approval. The property tax would be added to the property tax rolls of all homeowners and commercial property owners within the City of Arcadia. This action is exactly the same process taken to fund one - half ('' /:) of the $16 million for the construction of the Police facility. This "ad valorem" tax, based upon assessed property value, would be set at a rate sufficient to raise revenues to pay the debt service on the General Obligation bonds. The rate can be increased without limit, in order to meet the debt service obligation on 2 the bonds. Preliminary calculations indicate that an annual property tax for this type of debt would be approximately $7.08 per $100,000 assessed valuation. In order to begin the process of placing this measure on the April 2006 ballot, it is necessary the City Council adopt a Resolution determining public interest. Also, introduction of an Ordinance is necessary on December 6, 2005 calling an election. If acted upon, staff will then be recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance January 3, 2006. Direct arguments for or against the ballot measure and an impartial analysis by the City Attorney must be completed by January 17, 2006. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to the City to put this measure on the April 2006 ballot is estimated to be $5,000 - $10,000. If the measure was approved and General Obligation Bonds were issued, cost related to issuance would be included in the total debt financing. It is recommended the City Council adopt:: Resolution No. 6506, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, determining that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction, repair and replacement of certain municipal improvements and making findings relating thereto, and introduce Ordinance No. 2214, an Ordinance of the City of Arcadia calling a municipal bond election for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Arcadia a measure providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City for the acquisition, construction, installation and improvement of a grade separation for Santa Anita Avenue; declaring the estimated cost of the municipal improvements, the amount of the principal of the indebtedness to be incurred therefore, and the maximum rate of interest to be paid thereon; making provision for the levy and collection of taxes; fixing the date of the election as April 11, 2006 and the manner of holding the same; and providing for notice thereof. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 6506 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST ANP NECESSITY DEMAND THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, Metropolitan Transit Authority (the "MTA ") is proposing to extend the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension through the City of Arcadia (the "Gold Line Extension "); and WHEREAS, the Gold Line Extension as currently proposed would cross Santa Anita Avenue at street grade; and WHEREAS in order to improve public safety and traffic circulation and ease congestion on Santa Anita Avenue, which is a critical north/south arterial for the City, the City desires to cause the construction, installation, acquisition and improvement of a grade separation at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and the Gold Line Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and.Determinations A. The City Council finds that the public interest and necessity demand the construction, installation, acquisition and improvement by the City of the certain public safety and traffic circulation related municipal improvements identified as follows: Construct, install, acquire and improve a grade separation for Santa Anita Avenue at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Gold Line Foothill extension to improve public safety and traffic circulation and ease congestion. B. The estimated cost of the municipal improvements set forth in Section IA is Eight Million ($8,000,000) Dollars, which will be provided through a general obligation bond. The acquisition, construction and completion of the municipal improvements require an expenditure greater than available in the City's current budget and will require the issuance of bonds therefor, and such issuance is necessary and convenient to. carry out the objects, purposes and powers of the City. SECTION 2. No Administrator Salaries Proceeds from the sale of the bonds authorized by the City's Santa Anita Avenue Public Safety/Traffic Improvement Measure shall be used only to construct, repair and replace the public improvements specified in the Measure, and not for any other purpose, including administrators' salaries or other operating expenses. By law, all funds can only be spent on municipal improvements. 2 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6th day of December , 2005. M Ia11A 1R011� Mayor of the City o Arc dia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney c STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6506 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 6th day of December, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JAMES Ho BARROWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia El ,r ORDINANCE NO. 2214 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING A MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A MEASURE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF A GRADE SEPARATION FOR SANTA ANITA AVENUE; DECLARING THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE INDEBTEDNESS TO BE INCURRED THEREFOR, AND THE MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST TO BE PAID THEREON; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES; FIXING THE DATE OF THE ELECTION AS APRIL 11, 2006 AND THE MANNER OF HOLDING THE SAME; AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREOF WHEREAS, the City Council (the "City Council') of the City of Arcadia, California (the "City') has determined that, in order to improve public safety and traffic circulation and ease congestion on Santa Anita Avenue, which is a critical north/south arterial for the City, the City desires to cause the construction, installation, acquisition and improvement of a grade separation at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and the proposed Foothill Extension of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Gold Line; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction, installation and improvement by the City of the certain public safety and traffic circulation related municipal improvements identified as follows: i . A y Construct, install, acquire and improve a grade separation for Santa Anita Avenue at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Gold Line extension to improve public safety and traffic circulation and ease congestion. WHEREAS, after study of alternatives, the City Council has determined that it is advisable to provide the funding for the acquisition and construction of the above - referenced improvements by means of general obligation bonds; and WHEREAS, Section 1(b) of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution excepts from the general one percent (1 %) of full cash value limitation those ad valorem taxes used to pay for debt service of any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two- thirds (2/3) of the votes cast by voters on the proposition; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the City Council, it is advisable to call an election on the question of whether bonds shall be issued and sold and ad valorem taxes be levied for the object and purpose set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals The above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. Ordering Election A municipal bond election shall be and is hereby ordered and will be held in the City on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at which election shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City the question of incurring a bonded indebtedness of the City for the object and purpose set forth in the following proposition: 2 PROPOSITION (_): Santa Anita Avenue Public Safety/Traffic Improvement Measure. To improve public safety, vehicular and pedestrian traffic and ease congestion on Santa Anita Avenue, shall the City of Arcadia cause to be constructed or acquired a grade separation at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and the Metropolitan Transit Authority Gold Line Foothill Extension by issuing up to Eight Million ($8,000,000) Dollars of bonds, at legal rates, with citizens' oversight, independent financial audits, and no money for administrator's salaries? The estimated cost of the municipal improvements set forth in the measure is Thirteen Million ($13,000,000) Dollars including costs authorized pursuant to California Government Code Section 43610.1(a) and (b), which may be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds. SECTION 3. Submission to Oualified Electors The City Council does hereby submit to the qualified electors of the City at the municipal bond election the measure set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance, and designates and refers to the measure in the form of ballot hereinafter prescribed for use at the election. (a) The municipal bond election shall be held and conducted, and the votes thereof canvassed, and the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined, as herein provided; and in all particulars not prescribed by this Ordinance, the election shall be held as provided by law for the holding of municipal elections in the City. (b) All persons qualified to vote at municipal elections in the City upon the date of the election herein provided for shall be qualified to vote upon the measure submitted at the municipal bond election. K (c) The polls at the polling places hereinafter designated shall be opened at 7:00 o'clock A.M. of election day and shall be kept open continuously thereafter until 8:00 o'clock P.M. of election day, when the polls shall be closed (except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code), and the election officers shall thereupon proceed to canvass the ballots cast thereat. (d) The municipal bond election hereby called shall be consolidated with any other elections to be held in the City on April 11, 2006, all as required by and pursuant to law; and the election precincts, polling places and officers of election within the City for the municipal bond election hereby called shall be set forth in the notice of election officers and polling places for the election to be published by the City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, as required by law, to which notice reference is hereby specifically made for a designation of the precincts, polling places and election officers of the municipal bond election hereby called. Only qualified voters of the City shall be permitted to vote at the municipal bond election. (e) On the ballots to be used at the municipal bond election, in addition to all other matters required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear the measure set forth in Section 2 hereof. (f) The City Council shall confirm the canvass of the municipal bond election and shall cause to be spread upon its minutes a statement of the results of the bond election as ascertained by the canvass at the first available City Council meeting following receipt thereof. SECTION 2. Bonds The City Council proposes to issue and sell bonds of the City, in one or more series, for the object and purpose, but not exceeding the amount, specified in the measure, if two- thirds of the qualified electors voting on 4 +.. V � tF such measure at the municipal bond election shall vote in favor of the measure. The maximum principal amount of the bonds shall be Eight Million ($8,000,000) Dollars. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed the maximum legal rate per annum, payable semiannually (except that interest for the first year after the date of the bonds may be made payable at the end of said year), except as may otherwise be permitted by law. The proceeds of the bonds shall be applied only to the specific purpose identified in the measure set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance and shall be deposited into an account created for such purpose pursuant to Government Code Section 53410. The City Manager shall cause the chief fiscal officer of the City to file with the City Council annually a report complying with .the provisions of Government Code Section 53411. SECTION 5. Publication The City Clerk of the City is hereby directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to publish the same once a week for _two (2) weeks in the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper published less than six (6) days a week in the City. No other notice of the election hereby called need be given. SECTION 6. Effective Immediately This Ordinance shall be forthwith entered upon the minutes of the City Council and in the Ordinance Book of the City. This Ordinance, being an ordinance calling and ordering an election, shall take effect from and after its final passage and approval. SECTION 7. Certification The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance. 5 Passed, approved and adopted this day of 9 2005. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney to� STAFF REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2005 TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Sery s Director Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator. s SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution No 6493 establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan and Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan relating to compliance with the Transportation Master Plan as it relates to consistency with the General Plan Recommendation: 1. Approve Addendum 1 to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan; and 2. Adoption of Resolution No. 6493 a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan. SUMMARY During the City's recent review of the 1996 General Plan it was noted that several strategies involving traffic circulation goals were identified that relate to maintaining "roadway operations at or better than LOS (Level of Service) D during the non - racing season along all roadway links under control of the City of Arcadia." The City is updating its Transportation Master Plan and during the process of the update several existing intersections were identified that currently exceed LOS D. As a result of this recent study, the Development Services Department felt it would be appropriate to clarify the intent and purpose of the General Plan strategies as set forth in attached Exhibit A, Addendum No. 1 to the EIR for the General Plan. The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6493 a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California e. , GP Page 1 December 6, 2005 establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan. BACKGROUND The 1996 General Plan adopted several strategies that refer to maintaining roadway operations at or better than LOS D during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City. These strategies are outlined in Exhibit A. LOS D at a signalized intersection is defined as "Fair Operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long- standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods ". LOS E and LOS F indicate poor operations at intersections, including long standing vehicular queues, delays of up to several minutes, forced flow and potential traffic jams. Because of increasing traffic demands on the City's street system as a result of several proposed major development projects under review by the City, as well as the regional growth in the San Gabriel Valley and areas east of the San Gabriel Valley, the City has undertaken a Transportation Master Plan to develop transportation infrastructure improvements that will reduce future congestion and maintain a reasonable level of mobility for the citizens of Arcadia. The Master Plan analysis focused on 27 key intersections in the City. For each intersection, traffic counts were taken and the current LOS determined. It was discovered that seven (7) intersections currently exceed LOS D. The analysis then projected growth out to' 2030 and estimated the future LOS at each intersection. Where the future traffic levels exceed LOS D, improvements have been identified to return the intersections to an acceptable level of service. Because of the strategies set forth in the 1996 General Plan, the Development Services Department felt that the meaning of these strategies should be clarified as they relate to the traffic goals in the City's General Plan. DISCUSSION Exhibit A discusses the traffic strategies set forth in the General Plan that address the LOS D. Further the exhibit explains the City's past policies in terms of level of commitment versus establishing a mandatory requirement or obligation to "maintain" a LOS D. It is noted that "Several intersections in the City currently exceed LOS D and it is the established practice of the City to approve development approvals [projects] that may result in incremental decreases in the LOS so long as the development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan." GP Page 2 December 6, 2005 The modification to the GP proposes to supplement the definitions in the General Plan by "further defining the intent of the City in establishing Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS- 3." The modification proposed clarifies that these strategies establish non - mandatory elements of the GP and there is no mandatory obligation to undertake the actions identified in these strategies. The modification is made based on the definitions contained in the existing GP and on the City's existing practices and procedures. The proposed modification does not change the General Plan in any way. The 1996 certified EIR thoroughly analyzed potential traffic impacts and anticipated that some intersections would exceed LOS D at buildout. The proposed modification provides a supplemental definition to facilitate interpretation and application of the strategies identified in Exhibit A. Based on the substantive evidence set forth in Exhibit A, staff and legal counsel determined that the clarification regarding the non- mandatory nature of Strategies FS- 1, FS -2 and FS -3 is properly addressed and identified in this addendum to the Final General Plan EIR certified in September, 1996. As part of the 2005 Transportation Master Plan, it has been noted that where roadway performance goals have already been exceeded and /or where new development may contribute to a decline in the existing LOS, the strategies in the General Plan will be adequately addressed by adherence to the approved Transportation Master Plan. The Transportation Master Plan identifies existing intersections and intersections expected to operate at a deficient LOS in the future. The improvements identified in the Master Plan would bring the operations at the deficient intersections back to acceptable levels of service. It is important to note that consideration of the addendum and adoption of Resolution No. 6493, does not contradict the importance of the strategies set forth in the General Plan. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission at its November 8, 2005 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the proposed Resolution and addendum. Chairman Lucas did express concern that the inference of this resolution might be to downgrade the significance of how roadway congestion or LOS when confronted with developmental proposals. He thought they might be sending the wrong message to those who seek to develop in this Community that they have little interest in the issue of LOS in the streets and highways in the City. Historically, the City has required larger or more intense projects to analyze traffic impacts to determine the level of significance. If it is determined that there are significant impacts, these impacts must be mitigated as part of the project approval. GP Page 3 December 6, 2005 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve Exhibit A — Addendum No. 1 to the EIR for the General Plan and adopt City Council Resolution No. 6493, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California establishing that compliance with the Transportation Master Plan ensures consistency with the General Plan. Approved by: Wr4 William R. Kelly, City Manager cc: Exhibit A - Addendum No. 1 to the EIR for the General Plan City Council Resolution No. 6493 GP Page 4 December 6, 2005 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ARCADIA ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN A. 1. 2. 3. ADDENDUM INFORMATION Title: City of Arcadia, Addendum No. 1 to General Plan EIR Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Numbers 4. Location: 5. Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. Description of Modification: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Dr. P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 (626) 574 -5400 Donna Butler City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Dr. P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 (626) 574 -5400 Within the Jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia City of Arcadia On September 3, 1996, the Arcadia City Council approved the General Plan for the City pursuant to a certified Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") (State Clearinghouse Number 95121059. The following Strategies in the General Plan, among others, relate to traffic circulation goals: FS -1 Maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia. During racing season, wherever feasible, maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "E" during peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry race - related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better (LOS C on local residential streets) at all other times and on all other City roadways. EXHIBIT A FS -2 Limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects to that which is consistent with maintaining roadway performance objectives through General Plan build out. FS -3 Maintain a balance between land development and circulation operations by requiring that new development be phased, if necessary, such that adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets). The General Plan defines "maintain" as establishing a level of policy commitment. (General Plan, Appn. B, p. 13-1.) Maintain is further "ranked" by the General Plan as establishing a moderate level of commitment, but not as establishing a mandatory requirement or establishing a legal right on the part of the City to compel other parties. Specifically, "maintain" is defined as: "Action will be taken to continue ongoing City programs or services. The expectation is that active means may be employed to continue such programs or services." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. 13-2.) The term "may" in the definition of "maintain" is identified by the General Plan as a Policy Modifier and means "the action referred to will be allowed, but there is no moral obligation to undertake the action." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. 13-4.) Accordingly, by referring to the definitions in the General Plan, Strategy FS -1 is appropriately interpreted as establishing the expectation that roadways in the City will operate at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia but, not as mandating an obligation to ensure roadways operate at LOS D at all times. Similarly, Strategy FS -2 does not mandate an obligation to limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects but rather, establishes as expectation that new development projects will be allowed that are consistent with roadway performance objectives through General Plan build out. Finally, Strategy FS -3 continues to balance between land development and circulation operations by phasing new development, such that adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential. streets). Active means may be employed to maintain this balance, but there is no moral obligation to undertake the action. Several intersections in the City currently exceed LOS D and it is the, established practice of the City to approve development approvals that may result in incremental decreases in the LOS so long as the development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan. This modification proposes to supplement the definitions in the General Plan by further defining the intent of the City in establishing Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3. Specifically, 2 EXHIBIT A this modification clarifies that Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3 establish non - mandatory elements of the General Plan and there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions identified in Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3. This modification is made based on the definitions contained in the existing General Plan and on the City's existing practices and procedures. This supplemental information is a minor technical addition and merely summarizes information that was previously contemplated in the EIR. The purpose of this addendum is to address any potential changes that may potentially result from the clarification, as contemplated by Section 15164(b) of the State California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines. B. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b).) When only minor technical changes or additions to the Negative Declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration has occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(b).) State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 is not triggered by the proposed modifications to the General Plan and therefore preparation of a subsequent negative declaration is not required, pursuant to the following analysis: (1) "Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." The proposed modification includes the clarification of the non - mandatory nature of specific Strategies in the General Plan. It does not amend or otherwise change any element of the General Plan. The proposed modification does not result in any land use entitlements or changes in the environment. Future development in the City will continue as currently described in the certified EIR. (2) "Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition for the implementation of General Plan Strategies. It does not change any element of the General Plan. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. Q EXHIBIT A (3) "New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition._ It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new. significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. In addition, the following conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (b) are met by the proposed modifications, and therefore preparation of an addendum to the certified EIR is appropriate: "An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15161 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does 4 EXHIBIT A not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. C. ANALYSIS OF THE MODIFICATION The proposed modification clarifies the existing General Plan and does not change the General Plan in any way. The certified EIR thoroughly analyzed potential traffic impacts associated with the General Plan; however, the analysis in the EIR did not establish LOS as a mandatory element of the General Plan. The General Plan itself anticipated that some intersections would exceed LOS D at buildout. This occurrence was considered potentially significant, however, it was not found to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Accordingly, this modification does not meet any of the criteria requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration. The proposed modification merely provides a supplemental definition to facilitate interpretation and application of FS -1, FS -2, and FS -3. As demonstrated by the plain language of the General Plan these Strategies were never intended to impose mandatory requirements on development. In fact, the General Plan specifically states that there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions identified in these Strategies. Furthermore, these Strategies have never been interpreted as creating mandatory prerequisites to development. In 2000, the City prepared a Transportation Master Plan to analyze future traffic growth on the City's roadways and intersections and determine future needs to maintain LOS D. At that time the Transportation Master Plan did not identify any roadways that exceeded an LOS D. However, the Transportation Master Plan has recently been updated and has identified several intersections that now exceed LOS D. It is the established practice of the City to approve development proposals that may result in incremental decreases in the LOS or may add traffic to these intersections and others and the development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan and Zoning. Compliance with the Transportation Master Plan provides adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts. In addition, the City has historically required larger or more intense projects to analyze traffic impacts to determine the level of significance. If it is determined that there are significant impacts, these impacts must be mitigated. The City recognizes that there will be periods where a roadway or intersection may exceed LOS D. The City is exploring funding alternatives to improve these intersections utilizing developer fees, grants and City road maintenance funds and it is the City's intention to take measures to make the necessary improvements as funding is available. Therefore, the modification does not include any significant new information that would require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. D. CONCLUSION 5 EXHIBIT A The proposed modification merely clarifies the definitions of certain Strategies and will not result in any substantial changes to the General Plan that would implicate new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. There has not been any substantial change in circumstances or any discovery of any substantial new information regarding the Project's environmental effects or mitigation measures. Accordingly, the clarification regarding the non- mandatory nature of Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3 is properly addressed and identified through this Addendum. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 6493 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THAT COMPKIANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ENSURES CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia (the "City") wishes to clarify the meaning of the strategies related to traffic goals in the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, interpretation of the General Plan is the responsibility of the staff, Planning Commission, and City Council; and WHEREAS, the strategies in the General Plan are intended to provide goals for future development; however, in and of themselves, the strategies do not constitute development approvals or land use regulatory controls; and WHEREAS, no single goal, policy or strategy is intended to prevent development that is otherwise in harmony with and in furtherance of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to measure the efficient operation of the City's circulation system and gauge the desired level of mobility, the City has identified level of service ( "LOS ") goals; and WHEREAS, the General Plan establishes a goal that the City shall maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 during non - racing season along roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia and during racing season, wherever feasible, maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS `B" during peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry race - related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better; and WHEREAS, under current conditions several intersections in the City currently exceed the LOS goals; and WHEREAS, the City has established the Transportation Master Plan to alleviate existing and future traffic concerns and to maintain LOS D or better throughout the City; and WHEREAS, compliance with the Transportation Master Plan furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and ensures long -term maintenance of the City's circulation goals; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City that an action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct the eventual attainment of LOS D; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to clarify and help with interpreting the General Plan. _Z_ 6493 RvruB \MKS\703227.1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the goal of the General Plan to maintain adequate circulation in the City. It is also the goal of the City to encourage new development where appropriate. The following strategies in the General Plan,, among others, relate to traffic circulation goals: FS -1 Maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia. During racing season, wherever feasible, maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "E" during peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry race - related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better (LOS C on local residential streets) at all other times and on all other City roadways. FS -2 Limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects to that which is consistent with maintaining roadway performance objectives through General Plan build out. FS -3 Maintain a balance between land development and circulation operations by requiring that new development be phased, if necessary, such that _3_ 6493 RVPU13\MKSV03227.1 adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets). SECTION 2. That the policy term "maintain" is defined by the General Plan as an expectation that active means may be employed to continue ongoing City programs or services. The term "maintain" does not include any mandatory elements. Instead, the General Plan specifically recognizes that there is no moral obligation to undertake the action. SECTION 3. That the strategies in the General Plan are intended to provide roadway performance objectives for future development and are not intended to prevent development where such roadway performance objectives have already been exceeded or where implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to achieve performance objectives have been required. To this end, the City Council declares that the strategies in the General Plan related to roadway performance objectives are not, and never have been, intended to create mandatory prerequisites to development. Rather, the City has always interpreted these strategies as desirable roadway performance goals. SECTION 4. That where such roadway performance goals have already been exceeded or where new development •may contribute to a decline in the -4- 6493 xvruev,ixsv03227.1 existing LOS, the strategies in the General Plan will be adequately addressed by adherence to the Transportation Master Plan. SECTION 5. That based on the Transportation Master Plan, the City Council has determined, in Resolution No. 6495 that a Traffic Impact Fee is needed in order to finance certain capital improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the acquisition and improvement construction costs and other costs necessary or convenient to insure that adequate facilities are available to support future development with a LOS D or better on City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets). That in establishing the fee, the City Council found in Resolution No. 6495 that the fee was consistent with the General Plan and further found that development that contributes to the Traffic Impact Fee is consistent with the goals, policies and strategies identified in the General Plan relating to LOS conditions. SECTION 6. That an action, program, or project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and assist in maintaining a LOS D by complying with the Transportation Master Plan. Private development projects may be required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee along with other mitigation. SECTION 7. That all potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the General Plan were thoroughly addressed in the Environmental Impact _5_ 6493 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 Report (` "EIR ") prepared for the General Plan (SCH # 95121059) and certified on September 3, 1996 This Resolution regarding the interpretation of the LOS goals is merely an interpretation of existing policy and does not cause or constitute any change to the environment. Accordingly, the City Council finds, based on all evidence before the City Council, including but not limited to, the certified EIR, the staff report and all oral and written testimony, that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration would occur from the adoption of the Resolution and that preparation of an addendum to the certified EIR is appropriate. SECTIONS. That the City Council hereby approves and adopts an addendum to the EIR for the General Plan, attached as Exhibit "A," and directs staff to file a Notice of Determination within five (5) days. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. (SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE) _6_ 6493 RVPUB\MKS \703227.1 Passed, approved and adopted this of, 2005. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: k tu4' -' P. 44�v Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney _7. 6493 RVPUB%MKS \703227.1 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ARCADIA ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN A. ADDENDUM INFORMATION 1. Title: City of Arcadia, Addendum No. 1 to General Plan EIR 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Dr. P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 (626) 574 -5400 3. Contact Person and Phone Donna Butler Numbers City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Dr. P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 (626) 574 -5400 4. Location: 5. Sponsor's Name and Address: Within the Jurisdiction of the City of Arcadia City of Arcadia 6. Description of Modification: On September 3, 1996, the Arcadia City Council approved the General Plan for the City pursuant to a certified Environmental, Impact Report ("EIFn (State Clearinghouse Number 95121059. The following Strategies in the General Plan, among others, relate to traffic circulation goals: FS -1 Maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia. During racing season, wherever feasible, maintain roadway operations at or better than LOS "E" during peak hours on all roadway links intended to carry race - related traffic, maintaining LOS "D" or better (LOS C on local residential streets) at all other times and on all other City roadways. EXHIBIT A FS -2 Limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects to that which is consistent with maintaining roadway performance objectives through General Plan build out. FS -3 Maintain a balance between land development and circulation operations by requiring that new development be phased, if necessary, such that adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets). The General Plan defines "maintain" as establishing a level of policy commitment. (General Plan, Appn. B, p. B -1.) Maintain is further "ranked" by the General Plan as establishing a moderate level of commitment, but not as establishing a mandatory requirement or establishing a legal right on the part of the City to compel other parties. Specifically, "maintain" is defined as: "Action will be taken to continue ongoing City programs or services. The expectation is that active means may be employed to continue such programs or services." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. B -2.) The term "may" in the definition of "maintain" is identified by the General Plan as a Policy Modifier and means "the action referred to will be allowed, but there is no moral obligation to undertake the action." (General Plan, Appn. B, p. B -4.) Accordingly, by referring to the definitions in the General Plan, Strategy FS -1 is appropriately interpreted as establishing the expectation that roadways in the City will operate at or better than LOS "D" (LOS C on local residential streets) during non - racing season along all roadway links under the control of the City of Arcadia but, not as mandating an obligation to ensure roadways operate at LOS D at all times. Similarly, Strategy FS -2 does not mandate an obligation to limit the intensity and traffic generation of new development projects but rather, establishes as expectation that new development projects will be allowed that are consistent with roadway performance objectives through General Plan build out. Finally, Strategy FS -3 continues to balance between land .development and circulation operations by phasing new development, such that adequate facilities are available to support each phase of development with a LOS D or better on all City roadways (LOS C on local residential streets). Active means may be employed to maintain this balance, but there is no moral obligation to undertake the action. Several intersections in the City currently exceed LOS D and it is the established practice of the City to approve development approvals that may result in incremental decreases in the LOS so long as the development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan. This modification proposes to supplement the definitions in the General Plan by further defining the intent of the City in establishing Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3. ' Specifically, Fa EXHIBIT A this modification clarifies that Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3 establish non - mandatory elements of the General Plan and there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions identified in Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3. This modification is made based on the definitions contained in the existing General Plan and on the City's existing practices and procedures. This supplemental information is a minor technical addition and merely summarizes information that was previously contemplated in the EIR. The purpose of this addendum is to address any potential changes that may potentially result from the clarification, as contemplated by ; Section 15164(b) of the State California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines. B. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b).) When only minor technical changes or additions to the Negative Declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration has occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(b).) State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 is not triggered by the proposed modifications to the General Plan and therefore preparation of a subsequent negative declaration is not required, pursuant to the following analysis: (1) "Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. " The proposed modification includes the clarification of the non - mandatory nature of specific Strategies in the General Plan. It does not amend or otherwise change any element of the General Plan. The proposed modification does not result in any land use entitlements ovchanges in the environment. Future development in the City will continue as currently described in the certified EIR. (2) "Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition for the implementation of General Plan Strategies. It does not change any element of the General Plan. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in anypreviously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. 3 EXHIBIT A (3) "New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the.exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. "(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. In addition, the following conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 (b) are met by the proposed modifications, and therefore preparation of an addendum to the certified EIR is appropriate: "An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred." As stated above, the modification merely clarifies an existing definition. It does 4 EXHIBIT A not establish any new land use policies or provide any entitlements. Therefore, there will be no new significant environmental effects nor any increase in any previously identified significant effects and no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required. C. ANALYSIS OF THE MODIFICATION The proposed modification clarifies the existing. General Plan and does not change the General Plan in any way. The certified EIR' thoroughly analyzed potential traffic impacts associated with the General Plan; however, the analysis in the EIR did not establish LOS as a mandatory element of the General Plan. The'General Plan itself anticipated that some intersections would exceed LOS D at buildout. This occurrence was considered potentially significant, however, it was not found to be inconsistent with the General Plan. Accordingly, this modification does not meet any of the criteria requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration. The proposed modification merely provides a supplemental definition to facilitate interpretation and application of FS -1, FS -2, and FS -3. As demonstrated by the plain language of the General Plan these Strategies were never intended to impose mandatory requirements on development. In fact, the General Plan specifically states that there is no moral obligation to undertake the actions identified in these Strategies. Furthermore, these Strategies have never been interpreted as creating mandatory prerequisites to development. In 2000, the City prepared a Transportation Master Plan to analyze future traffic growth on the City's roadways and intersections and determine future needs to maintain LOS D. At that time the Transportation Master Plan did not identify any roadways that exceeded an LOS D. However, the Transportation Master Plan has recently been updated and has identified several intersections that now exceed LOS D. It is the established practice of the City to approve development proposals that may result in incremental decreases in the LOS or may add traffic to these intersections and others and the development is otherwise in harmony with the General Plan and Zoning. Compliance with the Transportation Master Plan provides adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts. In addition, the City has historically required larger or more intense projects to analyze traffic impacts to determine the .level of significance. If it is determined that there are significant impacts, these impacts must be mitigated. The City recognizes that there will be periods where a roadway or intersection may exceed LOS D. The City is exploring funding alternatives to improve these intersections utilizing developer fees, grants and City road maintenance funds and it is the City's intention to take measures to make the necessary improvements as funding is available. Therefore, the modification does not include any significant new information that would require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. D. CONCLUSION EXHIBIT A The proposed modification merely clarifies the definitions of certain Strategies and will not result in any substantial changes to the General Plan that would implicate new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. There has not been any substantial change in circumstances or any discovery of any substantial new information regarding the Project's environmental effects or mitigation measures. Accordingly, the clarification regarding the non - mandatory nature of Strategies FS -1, FS -2 and FS -3 is properly addressed and identified through this Addendum. 0