Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 17, 2003
45:0103 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING June 17, 2003 The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 1. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer about labor contract negotiations — California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union Local 911 (Confidential, Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit), Arcadia Police Officer's Association, Arcadia Firefighter's Association, Management and non - represented employees (City Negotiators Tracey Hause and William W. Floyd) The Closed Session ENDED at 6:55 p.m. Following a 10 Minutes RECESS, the Regular Meeting RECONVENED at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers. INVOCATION Reverend Roger Sonnenberg, Our Saviour Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF Steve Gutierrez, Citizen of the Month ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang ABSENT: None 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None. City Attorney Deitsch announced the subject discussed at the Closed Session held earlier this evening. No reportable action was taken. 1 LASER IMAGED 6117103 1%P 4'5:0104 ORD. & RES. It was MOVED by Councilmember Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and READ BY CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be TITLE ONLY WAIVED. PRESENTATIONS 3. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Linda Colley, THE MONTH Secretary, Civitan Club of Arcadia. ( Civitan Club of Arcadia) 4. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to the Arcadia Elks THE MONTH Lodge No. 2025. (Arcadia Elks Lodge No. 2025) 5. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Jim Kuhn, President THE MONTH of the Board of Directors, Arcadia Welfare and Thrift Shop. (Arcadia Welfare & Thrift Shop) 6. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Ray Winn, Master, THE MONTH Arcadia/San Gabriel Masonic Lodge No. 2078. (Arcadia/San Gabriel Masonic Lodge No. 2078) 7. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Steve Gutierrez, past THE MONTH Vice President of the Arcadia Lion's Club and currently president of the Arcadia Chamber of (Steve Commerce. Gutierrez) 8. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Sharon Novell, First THE MONTH Vice President, Assistance League of Arcadia. (Assistance League of Arcadia) 9. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Patricia Hrstich, Vice THE MONTH President, Arcadia Coordinating Council. (Arcadia Coordinating Council) 2 6/17/03 45:0105 10. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Bob Novell, THE MONTH President, Rotary Club of Arcadia. (Rotary Club of Arcadia) 11. CITIZEN OF Mayor Chang presented the June, 2003 Citizen of the Month Award to Lisa Bae, President, THE MONTH Arcadia Korean Parents Association. (Arcadia Korean Parents Assoc.) 12. PUBLIC HEARING 12a. APPEAL OF Consideration of the report and recommendation of an appeal of the Planning Commission's PLNG. COMSN. action in denying an appeal and upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association DENIAL OF AN Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions to the front entry of a new residence APPEAL OF at 821 San Vicente Road. THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS ASSOC. (821 San Vicente Road) The applicant, Dr. Ibarhim Irawan, appealed the Planning Commission's action in denying his previous appeal and upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions to the approved architectural plans for his new home, which is under construction at 821 San Vicente Road. The appeal involves the applicant's desire to install the previously denied front entry doors and window area. The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have determined that the redesign of the front doors and matching window area are not in harmony with the surrounding homes because the entry is not in scale with the surrounding homes. Traditional homes within the Association have an understated entry with typically low or modest rooflines above the entry. The ARB is concerned about the style of homes in south Arcadia that have come under heavy criticism because of the extreme entry design and vertical appearance, which is further exaggerated by matching windows above the entry. The proposed iron and glass front doors with the matching window area above the entry are not compatible with the design of the new home nor are such design features found on any home within the Association. The original wood door design with leaded glass windows was in keeping with the design of the home and helped diminish the vertical appearance that would be created by iron and glass doors and a matching window area. The applicant's new two -story home is currently under construction with the completion of its entry pending the outcome of the appeal. The home has a maximum height of 30' -0 ", and complies with all Code requirements. The applicant indicated that he has tried to accommodate the concerns of the ARB, and believes that the subject entry with the proposed doors and matching window area would be compatible with other homes in the area. The applicant submitted letters from the adjoining property owners in favor of his appeal as well as photographs of other homes in the area which were included in the June 17, 2003 staff report. The Development Services Department concurs with the ARB's denial of the proposed iron and glass front doors and window area because the ironwork appears to be too ornate and would not complement the appearance of the home, as would the original wood door design with the leaded glass windows. 6/17/03 _ - VIIII:II Following the presentation, Mayor Chang OPENED the public hearing. Dr. Ibrahim Irawan owner, 821 San Vicente Road, presented a power point presentation of the proposed ironwork door and matching window area. He noted that it is the neighbor's opinion that the door could enhance the property values of the neighborhood. The benefit of iron and glass doors are the security they will provide, and the natural light will make the house healthy as well as the people living there. Mr. Irawan questioned how a particular door would harm the property values of the neighborhood and how this door will create a disadvantage in terms of the beautify of Arcadia. He asked the City Council for their fair judgment on this matter. Berry Shupback 605, Old Ranch Road, requested the City Council's approval of the proposed entry door. Dr. George Jung was present to voice his strong support for the applicant. Brad Irawan 821 San Vicente, felt that this door would help their house and the neighborhood look nicer. He does not think the ARB's decision is fair and hoped for a fair judgment from the City Council. Mrs. Casner 351 North Old Ranch Road, was present to support the applicant. She felt that there is absolutely no reason why any one should tell him what kind of a door he could put on his house. Dr. Bill Spuck 531 Campesina Road, President, Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association, requested that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and the ARB relative to the architectural review appeal. Dr. Spuck Introduced ARB members and noted their qualifications. He explained the recent revitalization of the association and highlighted the issues that the City Council should face when considering this appeal. He noted that the property owner decided to make alterations without consulting the City or the Architectural Review Board, despite a letter from the City, which clearly indicated that any change would require the approval of both the Architectural Review Board and the City. He felt that the ARB is in a better position and better qualified than any other group involved in the matter of judging architectural harmony. Tony Henrich 431 Altura Road, Chairman, Architectural Review Board, reported that there are 800 homes in the association which serves the area in the Lower Rancho and College Streets, north and around the Arboretum and the Race Track. The Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board for the Lower Rancho was established by Resolution No. 5287. The purpose was to promote the quality of homes, promote property values, protect the predominate character of the homes, and ensure contemporary standards of harmony and ensure that buildings, structures and landscaping were harmonious. Mr. Henrich provided a brief history of the project, stating in part that, the issues before the City Council are the entry and whether the City's rules were followed. The Architectural Review Board feels that the entry is too massive, vertical and not in harmony with the area. With regard to the City's instructions, the homeowner did not follow the City rules and procedures. With regard to the iron glass doors, the ARB felt that it creates a greater vertical look and a more massive entry. There are no iron glass doors in their Homeowners Association and the entry does not match the newly adopted City codes. 4 6117103 45:0107 Mr. Henrich requested that the City Council support the recommendations of the Homeowner's Association, Architectural Review Board, City staff and the Planning Commission and reject the appeal and require conformance with the original plans approved by the Commission and require removal of the unauthorized iron glass windows installed above the entry. -- Mike Rock homeowner and member of the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association, expressed his objection and difficulty with this particular home, stating in part that, there has been a consistent effort to undermine the Architectural Review Board as well as the City with regard to the approval process. He felt that the applicant had misled both the ARB and the City. He asked the City Council to support the local ARB and HOA as they try to maintain the harmony and dignity of the neighborhood, and deny the appeal. Dale Brown 507 Monte Vista Road, an architect, urged the City Council to deny the appeal. As a member of Homeowners Association, he would like to follow their guidelines and would like something in the area that fits in. Patty Wong 910 West Catalpa Road, urged the City Council to deny the appeal. This is a very nice area. Many of the residents have lived there for many years and would like to maintain the architectural character and charm of their neighborhood. She submitted a petition and read excerpts within it. Vince Foley 320 Cambridge Drive, stated in part that, there is no one in the Homeowners Association who wants to get Dr. Irawan. They just want to maintain the integrity of their community. He hoped that the City Council will uphold the denial of the appeal. Bob Garrett 1051 Monte Verde Drive, said they are very busy and dedicated volunteers who serve on the Homeowners Association board. If the City wants to have a meaningful Homeowner Association and a meaningful Planning Commission then Council should respect and defer to their judgment and decisions. In rebuttal, Dr. Irawan, stated in part that, as a resident of the City of Arcadia for the last six years, he and his family enjoyed the hospitality and friendliness of the people of this great City. They have been blessed by the opportunity of being able to construct their dream house in the City, and never did expect to encounter such obstacles in reaching that goal. He supports the Architectural Review Board and Homeowners Association 100 %, and fully intended to comply with all existing rules and regulations. Mayor Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing. City Attorney Deitsch noted that the findings the Council has to deal with are set forth in the June 17, 2003 staff report, attachment No. 6, Resolution No. 5287, Section 15. Those findings are essentially related to architectural appearance and compatibility between structures within the neighborhood; good architectural character; and, the external appearance of structure, wall, fences or roofs, in this case the door and the window above it. In response to a Council question, staff noted that if a homeowner in a Homeowners Association area wanted to change the door they need to first contact the associations Architectural Review Chairperson. Considerable discussion ensued. Some members felt since the original size of the door was never altered and since the applicant has the support of his neighbors, he should be able to use his desired door. A homeowner should have some rights in choosing what type of a door he would like to have on his house. Others felt, when people buy a home in an area 6/17/03 45:0108 with an Architectural Review Board, they know that there are rules that have to be obeyed. The City should have some kind of an analyses and that analysis has to be based on the subjective opinions of board members. Based on the absence of findings of gross abusive discretion, the members where in favor of upholding the appeal and supporting the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and staffs decision. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Kovacic, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that based on the testimony provided by both the applicant and his supporters and the Architectural Review Board and its supporters and the written documentation that the Council reviewed, the City Council does not think that the Architectural Review Board's actions have stifled the appellants individual initiative, the proposed front doors and matching window area do not comply with contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility; that they are excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood and as a result the City Council DENIES the appeal and UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's action in upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's DENIAL; and DIRECT staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the City Council's decision and findings in support of that decision. Councilmember Kovacic clarified that the motion was intended to include any iron glass front doors and matching window area that is visible from the outside, which is the purview of the Architectural, Review Board. AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Chang NOES: Councilmember Wuo ABSENT: None The City Council RECESSED from 9:15 to 9:25 p.m. 12b. RESOLUTION City Manager Kelly presented the staff report and recommendation to adopt RESOLUTION NO. NO. 6357 .6357 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, FY 2003 -2004 CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 AND OPERATING APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED THEREIN AS EXPENDITURES FROM THE BUDGET FUNDS INDICATED'; and, adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6358 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CAPITAL NO. 6358 IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 -2004 THROUGH 2007 - FY 2003 -2004 2008:' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT in his presentation, City Manager Kelly, stated in part, the budget for Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 & EQUIPMENT and the Capital Plan were distributed to the City Council on May 23, 2003. On June 3, 2003, a PLAN study session was held with the City Council to discuss the budget, respond to questions and (ADOPTED) receive input. During study session, 1.50 addition positions were proposed to be included in the final budget (one full -time Police Records Technician and one part-time assistant for the Business License Officer) at a cost of approximately $58,000, which will be funded by additional revenue from parking control, traffic citations and service fees. The General Fund budget is predicated this year upon some assumptions. There is a concern that the State of California's anticipated budget deficit may have a negative impact on local government. The City staff was challenged to present a flat line budget with no increases in terms of cost to the City. 6 6117/03 45:0109 The beginning fund balance this year is $1.4 million. General Fund revenues for FY 2003 -3004 are estimated to be $33 million. Expenditures in the General Fund are estimated to be $33.1 million with an ending fund balance of $1.3 million. It was noted that all the General Fund expenditures are consistent with the Citizen Advisory Committee's recommendations. The City of Arcadia is a built -out community with no new revenues to be generated. The Mall expansion will generate some new revenues. Rusnak car dealership will bring in some revenues as the sales get stronger. Absent those two, there isn't any other new development or revenue for the City. At the same time, the City is dealing with the increased cost of services. Referencing General Fund estimated revenues for FY 2003 -04, City Manager Kelly noted an estimated increase in property and sales taxes, a decrease in transient taxes. A decrease in development fees was also noted. The City is in good shape for the next two years, with a zero ending balance for 2004 -05. The City has a $6 million reserve fund that will help if other revenues don't turn around. City Manager Kelly reviewed the Capital improvement and Equipment Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2003 -04 through 2007 -08. The proposed Capital Improvement Projects reflect streets, water, sewer, storm drains, parks and buildings. The proposed projects are estimated at approximately $14.6 million. Equipment funds are approximately $2.21 million. All the funds combined for operations are approximately $142 million. Mr. Kelly reviewed various proposed five -year projects, including the citywide signage and banner program, Colorado Street rehabilitation from Colorado Boulevard to Huntington, west Huntington Drive rehabilitation, Santa Anita Corridor design, 210- freeway design work for on /off ramp improvements, Civic Center project, Fire Stations designs and improvements, annual asphalt and concrete project and citywide median improvements. City Manager Kelly expressed appreciation to, Administrative Services Director, Tracey Hause and Finance Services Manager/Treasurer, Jerry Parker for their, hard work on the budget preparation. He also thanked all the department heads and staff for putting together a flat line budget. On May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan and determined that the proposed plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. Following presentation, staff responded to questions and concerns expressed by the City Council with regard to improvement of the Fire Stations, stating in part that, the plan is to move fire department headquarters to Station 106 on Baldwin Avenue, if an agreement can be reached with Westfield Shopping Mall to provide more parking spaces. The design work for converting Fire Station 105 to a residential station will start in the 2004 -05. A discussion of various issues ensued including funding for the Gold Line Phase II construction. Mayor Chang suggested that the City put aside funds from Propositions A and C every year to be used for Gold Line grade separations on Santa Anita and Second Avenues. Mayor Chang OPENED the Public Hearing. In response to a question from Mr. Bob Hoherd, staff clarified that the expected expense will be less than the budgeted expense. Mayor Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing. 6/17103 45:0110 It was MOVED by Councilmember Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that RESOLUTION NO. 6357 and RESOLUTION NO. 6358 be and are hereby ADOPTED; and, APPROVED the existing Investment Policy. AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None 12c. RESOLUTION Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve a water rate adjustment for FY NO. 6353 2003 -2004 by adopting RESOLUTION NO. 6353 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY WATER RATE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CITY WATER RATES AND ADJUSTMENT FINDING THE RATES WILL NOT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT NECESSARY TO FY 2003 -2004 FUND OPERATION OF THE CITY WATER SYSTEM." (ADOPTED) Based upon the Public Works Services Department's proposed 2003 -04 Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, and Updates of the Water Master Plan, staff recommended that the City Council consider a 3.92% rate adjustment to the water rate from $1.17 to $1.22 per 100 cubic feet and adopt Resolution No. 6353, which sets the water rates beginning July 1, 2003. As a result, the adjustment would raise the average monthly water bill $1.43 per month or $17.16 per year. The proposed expenditures for the Water Operating Budget for 2003 -04 are $7,911,390. In preparation of this budget, staff has evaluated each account, and where possible, reduced operation and maintenance expenditures while maintaining the reliability of the water system, complying with water quality standards and retaining the existing level of service. The Operating Budget for 2003 -04 is $1,063,910, or 15.5% more than the current year's projected expenditures; this includes depreciation, which is a non -cash item. Tom Tait, Field Services Manager, explained in detail the 2003 -2004 Operation, ending Fund Balance for the next fiscal year, the total revenue that would be received after a rate adjustment and capital improvement projects and fund balances for the next seven (7) fiscal years set forth in the June 17, 2003 staff report. Mayor Chang OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the City Council. Mayor Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing. It was MOVED by Councilmember Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT Resolution No. 6353 setting City water rates and finding the rates will not exceed the estimated amount necessary to fund operation of the City Water System. AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang. NOES: None ABSENT: None 12d. RESOLUTION Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve a sewer rate adjustment for FY NO. 6355 2003 -2004 and adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 6355: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY SEWER RATES COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CITY SEWER RATES FY2003 -2004 AND FINDING THE RATES WILL NOT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT (ADOPTED) NECESSARY TO FUND OPERATION OF THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM." 6117103 45:0111 Based upon the proposed 2003 -04 Operation Budget, Capital Improvement Program and the Sewer Master Plan, staff recommended that the City Council adjust the sewer rate by 3.92 percent from $2.55 to $2.65 a month for residential property and from $7.64 to $7.94 a month for each connection on commercial property. This adjustment is based upon the March 2002 to March 2003 Consumer Price Index. The long -range Sewer Master Plan proposes over $3.8 million (in 1997 dollars) for future capital improvement projects. The 1997 Sewer Master Plan has outlined a Capital Improvement Program that establishes a Fund Balance of $5 million, predicated Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases and no changes in the CIP plan over a 20 -year period. This equates to 5% of the City's $100 million sewer system for future operations and replacement costs. The proposed Capital Improvement Program for the next two (2) years will result in capital expenditures of $810,250 in 2003 -04 and $1,092,500 in 2004 -05. Staff conducted a survey of sewer rates for ten neighboring cities. The survey indicates that, considering the proposed sewer rate adjustment, Arcadia's sewer rates are among the lowest in Los Angeles County. Mayor Chang OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the City Council. Mayor Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing. It was MOVED by Councilmember Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT Resolution No. 6355 authorizing the proposed sewer rate adjustment for fiscal year 2003 -04. AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None 12e. RESOLUTION Consideration of the report and recommendation to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6354, NO. 6354 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RESIDENTIAL CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE SERVICE RATES FOR THE COLLECTION OF REFUSE AND RESIDENTIAL REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES PURSUANT TO SECTION 5120.7 OF THE RECYCLABLES ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE ". RATE INCREASE In accordance with the Residential Refuse and Recycling Agreement between the City of (ADOPTED) Arcadia and Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc., Waste Management requested that the City Council adjust the service rates for residential refuse /recycling collection to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period of March 2002 to March 2003. The impact of this adjustment on a typical single - family household with a standard 90- gallon collection service will be a CPI adjustment of 3.05% or .37 cents per month, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $13.58, up from the previous amount of $13.21. The standard bin service rates (3 -yard bin picked up once per week) for multi - family residences will also be adjusted by 3.05% (CPI) or $2.41 a month, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $81.55, up from the previous amount of $79.14. Recently, the City of Arcadia and Waste Management have implemented additional residential programs that will help the City reduce the amount of waste being sent to local landfills. These programs include fully automated greenwaste collection for single - family homes and a refuse -to- energy program for multi - family units. As an additional service, Waste Management proposes to provide a convenient and safe way for residents to dispose 9 6/17/03 45:0112 of biohazardous "Sharps" waste, such as needles, syringes, and other contaminated sharp objects. Mayor Chang OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the City Council. Mayor Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing It was MOVED by Councilmember Marshall, seconded by Councilmember Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT Resolution No. 6354 setting the service rates for the collection of residential refuse and recyclables. AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None, 13. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS MARSAHLL Councilmember Marshall congratulated Mickey and Lee Segal, the Crystal Ball honorees. (Segal) (Award Ms. Marshall expressed congratulations to all recipients of the Citizen of the Month Awards. Recipients) (Certificates & Ms. Marshall suggested an update of the image for the certificates and proclamations that Proclamations) are being presented on behalf of the City. She would like to see an item on a future agenda. Council concurred. (Food for Councilmember Marshall shared a "food for thought" by Bill Von, an American Journalist: Thought) "America is a land where a citizen will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but he won't cross the street to vote in a National Election. SEGAL Councilmember Segal announced that the corporate headquarters of the American Premier (American Bank will soon be open in the City. The location of this new bank will be on Huntington Drive Premier Bank) where Coldwell Bankers used to be. KOVACIC Mayor Pro tem Kovacic commented that the City should remain strong on its position for a (Gold Line Joint Powers Authority agreement between the ten Gold Line Phase II cities and the existing Phase II) Blue Line Construction Authority, requesting the formation of an expanded Board to include the ten cities as voting members to the Authority. He would like to be informed of any change of policies. (Crime In response to Mr. Kovacic's request, Arcadia Police Chief, Dave Hinig, presented an Activities) overview of the 2002 Annual Report, conducting a comparison of crimes over the last five years, indicating a significant reduction in crime. He noted that gang activities have come under more control. WUO Councilmember Wuo congratulated Mickey and Lee Segal, the honorees of the Crystal Ball, (Segal) sponsored by the Methodist Hospital. 10 6117103 45:0113 (Arcadia Mr. Wuo congratulated Bee Hsu, the Arcadia Chinese Association President, and expressed Chinese appreciation to David Wang, former president, for a job well done and their continuous Association) efforts on embracing the community. (Relay For Mr. Wuo encouraged everyone to attend the Team Captain meeting for the "Relay For Life ", Life) which will be held at the Arcadia Public Library. CHANG Mayor Chang expressed congratulations to Mickey and Lee Segal, the Crystal Ball (Segal) honorees. (American Mayor Chang announced that the American Premier Bank will be starting business in Premier Arcadia this summer. It is the only bank that will have corporate headquarters in Arcadia. Bank) (Gold Line Mayor Chang attended the Joint Power Authority Gold Line Phase If meeting. He felt that Phase II) the City should have a strong voice in encouraging the Gold Line Authority to expand the Board and include all ten cities as voting members. (Relay For Mayor Chang announced that the American Cancer Society "Relay For Life" will be held on Life) July 19th and 20th at the Arcadia High School. He encouraged everyone to participate in this event. (Summer Mayor Chang encouraged everyone to attend the summer concert series, every Thursday Concerts) from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., at the City Hall west lawn (Kennedy & Mayor Chang expressed appreciation to Don Kennedy and Pat Gibson, Recreation and Park Gibson) Commissioners for their hard work during their terms. The soon to be opened skate park is the result of this commissions hard work. 14. CITY CLERK 14a. City Clerk, June Alford presented the report and recommendation to appoint members to the City's boards and commissions. ARCADIA It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Kovacic, seconded by Councilmember Segal and BEAUTIFUL CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to REAPPOINT Richard Cordano and Carmie COMSN. Falabrino to the Arcadia Beautiful Commission for full -four year terms each, ending June 30, ( Cordano & 2007; and, REAPPOINT James Hanrahan to the Human Resources Commission for a full Falabrino) four -year term ending June 30, 2007; REAPPOINT John Fung to the Library Board for a full HUMAN RES. four -year term ending June 30,2007; REAPPOINT David Olson to the Planning Commission COMSN.. and Relocation Appeals Board for a full four -year term ending June 30,2007; and, ( Hanrahan) REAPPOINT Jim Lewis and Arlene Okamoto to the Senior Citizens Commission for full two LIBRARY BD. year terms each ending June 30, 2005; APPOINT Carol Curtis, representing the Arcadia (Fung) Assistance League, to the Senior Citizens Commission to fill out the unexpired term of Joan PLANNING Leathery to June 30, 2004; APPOINT Esther Barnes, representing the Arcadia Travelers COMSN. Club, to the Senior Citizens Commission for a two -year term ending June 30, 2005; and, (Olson) APPOINT Don Milefchik, representing the Senior Men's Club, to the Senior Citizens RELOCATION Commission for a full two -year term ending June 30, 2005. APPEAL BD. (Olson) AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang SR. CITIZENS' NOES: None COMSN. ABSENT: None (Lewis, Okamoto Curtis, Barnes, 11 6117103 45:0114 Milefchik) PARKING With regard to the Parking District Commission, the City Council directed staff to meet with DISTRICT the Commissioners and decide if there is a need for the. City to continue with this COMSN. Commission. City Attorney Deitsch clarified, if the City Council takes no action tonight, the Board member By a majority vote of the Council, Michael Cook and Randall Fowler were APPOINTED to the Recreation Commission for a full -four year each ending June 30, 2007. 15. THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Agency Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 12 6117103 can continue to serve until the designation of a replacement. ARCADIA Councilmember Segal nominated Bob Hoherd to the Arcadia Beautiful Commission for a full - BEAUTIFUL four year term ending June 30, 2007. COMSN. ( Hoherd) Councilmember Marshall nominated Gino Roncelli to the Arcadia Beautiful Commission for a full -four year term ending June 30, 2007. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hoherd Roncelli Kovacic Marshall Segal Wuo Chang By a majority vote of the Council, Bob Hoherd was APPOINTED to the Arcadia Beautiful Commission for a full -four year term ending June 30, 2007. RECREATION Councilmember Kovacic nominated Michael Cook to the Recreation Commission for full -four COMSN. year term ending June 30, 2007. (Cook, Fowler) Councilmember Marshall nominated Peter Godfrey to the Recreation Commission for full- four year farm ending June 30, 2007. Councilmember Segal nominated .Randall Fowler to the Recreation Commission for full -four year term ending June 30, 2007. ROLL CALL VOTE: Cook Fowler Godfrey Kovacic Kovacic Marshall Marshall Segal Wuo Segal Chang Wuo Chang By a majority vote of the Council, Michael Cook and Randall Fowler were APPOINTED to the Recreation Commission for a full -four year each ending June 30, 2007. 15. THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Agency Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 12 6117103 45:0115 16. PUBLIC HEARING 16a. ARA RESO. Consideration of the report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. ARA -206 adopting NO. 206 a budget for Fiscal Year 2003/04, and approving the City's Investment Policy. The Arcadia FY 2003 -2004 Redevelopment Agency annually considers a budget for the spending year. The OPERATING recommended actions herein are necessary to implement the budget for the Redevelopment BUDGET AND Agency for the 2003 -2004 fiscal year. INVESTMENT POLICY Following the staff presentation, Chairperson Chang OPENED the Public Hearing. No one (ADOPTED) came forward to address the Agency. Chairperson Chang CLOSED the Public Hearing. It was MOVED by Agency Member Segal, seconded by Agency Member Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ARA -206 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED THEREIN AS EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUNDS INDICATED "; and, APPROVED the City of Arcadia Investment Policy as applicable to the Agency. AYES: Agency Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None 17. CONSENT ITEMS 17a. APPROVED the Minutes of the June 3, 2003 Regular Meeting. MINUTES (June 3, 2003) 17b ARA TAX AUTHORIZED a payment in the amount of $470,000.00 to the City of Arcadia from the INCREMENT Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Fund. FUND (City of Arcadia) THE PRECEDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT ITEMS 17a AND b APPROVED ON MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SEGAL, SECONDED BY AGENCY MEMBER MARSHALL AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Agency Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to July 1, 2003 at 4:30 p.m., Development Services Conference Room. 13 6/17103 45:0116 THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED 18. CONSENT ITEMS 18a MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the June 3, 2003 Regular Meeting. (June 3, 2003) 18b. RESOLUTION See page 17. NO. 6364 DENYING AN APPEAL OF PLNG. COMSN. APPROVAL OF C.U.P.. 2003 -003 (1108 South Baldwin Ave.) 18c AWARD AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a contract with K & S Design Construction in CONTRACT the amount of $106,500 for the Phase I interior renovation of the Library; and, (Phase I Interior APPROPRIATED an additional $82,150 from the Capital Outlay Reserve Fund for this Renovation — project. Arcadia Public Library) Mayor Pro tem Kovacic felt that the Phase II interior renovation of the Library is just as important as Phase I. He would not want to wait for another year before re- visiting the Library Phase II project. 18d. ACCEPT ACCEPTED all work performed by Damon Construction Inc. for the construction of concrete WORK bus pads at various locations as complete; and, AUTHORIZED final payment to be made in (Concrete accordance with contract documents subject to a retention of $14,752.80. Bus Pads) 18e ACCEPT ACCEPTED the dedication as set froth in Parcel Map No. 26548 at 727 West Lemon DEDICATION Avenue. (Parcel Map No. 2$548 - 727 West Lemon Ave.) 18f. PROF. SVCS. AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement in the AGREEMENT amount of $60,000.00 with Willdan for the City traffic engineering services. (Traffic Eng. Services) In response to a Council question, staff stated in part that, Willdan proposes to assign Ed Cline to be the City Traffic Engineer, Ed Cline has been appointed as the City Traffic Engineer from the first City Traffic Engineering agreement in 1996. 14 6/17/03 45:0117 18g. CONTRACT AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXTEND the City's contract with Catering Systems, Inc. EXTENSION for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, in the amount of $41,000 to provide (Senior Citizens subsidized lunch meals for senior citizens. Luncheon Meals) 18h. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6362 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6362 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR (Grant Fund GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE Application — NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 ". Clean Air & Water, Safe Neighborhood Parks & Costal Protection) 18i. REJECT REJECTED all bids;, and, DIRECTED staff to rebid for legal advertising services for Fiscal BIDS Year 2003 -2004. (Legal Advertising) 18j. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6365 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6365 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE (Workers'Comp.WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK Frog. — ICRMA) MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY'. ' In response to a Council question the City Manager noted that in June 2002, member cities of ICRMA were hit with the realities of the insurance crisis upon receipt of their workers' compensation renewal. The quotations for all ICRMA member cities were dramatically higher than the previous year. The ICRMA Board approved the exploration of a self- funded excess Workers Compensation Program (WCP). Staff has reviewed the program and recommended the participation in the WCP. 18k. AUTHORIZED a loan in the amount of $470,000.00 from the City of Arcadia to the Arcadia LOAN Redevelopment Agency Project Fund. (City to ARA) In response to a Council question the City Manager clarified that the borrowing and repayment by the Agency is an administrative procedure done in order to meet certain legal requirements. The Agency, by law, must be "in debt" in order to receive tax increment from the County. it-] 1 -YEAR AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXERCISE the option to EXTEND the contract with CONTRACT Wittman Enterprises for emergency medical services billing and collection services for one EXTENSION additional year. (Emerg. Medical Svcs. Billing & In response to a Council question staff noted that the existing agreement provides that Collection) Wittman will receive 6.3% of net collections. Staff estimated this amount to be less than $50,000. Adequate funds have been included in the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2003- 04. 15 6/17/03 4Q:Q118 , 18m. PROF. SVCS. AGREEMENT (Information System Mgmt.) 18n. RESOLUTION NO. 6363 (Fringe Benefits — Management & General Employees) 180. RESOLUTION NO. 6356 (FY 2003 -2004 Appropriations Limit) AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement in the amount of $240,000.00 for Information System Management with Knight Communications. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6363 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING ON AN INTERIM BASIS COMMENCING JULY 1, 2003, RESOLUTION NOS. 6243 AND 6244, AS IT AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 5608 ". ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6356 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII -B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ". 18p. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6356 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.6361 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE INDEPENDENT CITIES (ICRMA RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA) JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS Governing Bd. — AGREEMENT TO AUTHORIZE A MEMBER CITY TO APPOINT SPECIFIC Mayor, Primary REPRESENTATIVES TO THE GOVERNING BOARD ". Member; Hause, Alt. & Casalou, Substitute Alt.) 18q AWARD AWARDED a contract in the amount of $431,195 to Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc. for CONTRACT the construction of three (3) pressure - reducing stations; and, AUTHORIZED the City (Pressure- Manager and City Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney; Reducing and, WAIVED any informalities in the bid or bidding process. Station Const.) 18r AWARD AWARDED a contract to Wheeler Ortco, Inc. in the amount of $81,260.50 for the CONTRACT Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playground Equipment at City Parks; and, WAIVED any (Infrastructure & informalities in the bid or bidding process; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Playground Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Equip. - City Parks) 18s AWARD AWARDED a contract to EC Construction Co. in the amount of $350,190.36 for the 2002 - CONTRACT 2003 Annual Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project; WAIVED any informalities in the bid or (2002 -03 Annual bidding process; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Clerk to EXECUTE a Asphalt Concrete contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Overlay Proj.) 16 6117103 45:0119 'l . 18t REJECT REJECTED all bids and DIRECTED staff to re -bid for Communication Equipment Repair BIDS and Service. (Comm. Equip. Repair & Svc.) THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 18a, c, d, e, f, g, h, I. j, k, I, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, and t APPROVED ON MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM KOVACIC, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEBMER SEGAL AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None 18b. RESOLUTION It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Kovacic, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and NO. 6364 CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6364 entitled: "A DENYING AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPEAL OF DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE EXCLUSION OF LUNCHTIME BUSINESS HOURS AS A PLNG. COMSN. CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 2003 -003 APPROVAL OF (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1692) FOR A TWO- STORY, 4,400 C.U.P. SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DINING CAPACITY OF 82 PEOPLE AT 1038 2003 -003 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE ". (Restaurant - 1108 South Baldwin Ave.) AYES: Councilmembers Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: Mayor Chang ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro tem Kovacic adjourned the meeting in memory of Virginia Lowe Miller, his Aunt. (In Memory of "Virginia Miller, a long time resident of Arcadia, who passed away early this morning. She is Virginia L. Miller) survived by her husband Vernon Miller, a long time Manager of Arcadia National Little League; daughters, Lynn and Pam, both graduates of Arcadia High School; four grandchildren, one great granddaughter and her sister Florence Kovacic. My aunt was involved in numerous community activities including Little League, Girl Scouts, PTA, the Holliston United Methodist Church in Pasadena. Services are pending. She was a gentle, hardworking, intelligent woman, who will be missed by many family members and friends ". ADJOURNMENT At 11:19 p.m. the City Council Regular Meeting ADJOURNED to July 1, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in (July 1, 2003) the Development Services Conference Room for a Regular Meeting to conduct the business of the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment, Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of properties. hD n . ne D. Alford, City 0drk 17 6117/03 : t 0 8� STAFF REPORT Development Services Department June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: SUMMARY The property owner, Dr. Ibrahim Irawan, is appealing the Planning Commission's action in denying his previous appeal and upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions to the approved architectural plans for his new home, which is under construction at 821 San Vicente Road. At the time the Commission considered the appeal, at their February 25, 2003 meeting, the design revisions involved an as -built two -foot extension of the front entry, and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the front entry. Since such review the extension of the front entry has been removed for compliance purposes; therefore, the appeal before the City Council only involves the applicant's desire to install the previously denied front entry doors and window area. The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have determined that the redesign of the front doors and matching window area are not in harmony with the surrounding homes. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the appeal because it is staffs opinion that the ironwork on the proposed front doors and matching window area does not complement the appearance of the home. LASER IMAGED Appeal Q June 17;2 Page e 1 Recommendation: Deny the appeal BACKGROUND In November 2000,,the applicant submitted plans to the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's ARB for approval of a new 5,900 sq. ft. two -story dwelling on the subject property. There were several meetings and redesigns that followed including reducing the dwelling size to approximately 5,800 sq. ft. in an effort to bring the project into conformance with the existing architectural character of the neighborhood. However, on .August 8, 2001 the ARB denied the applicant's proposal because the ARB felt it was still not in conformance with their guidelines. On August 16, 2001, the applicant appealed the ARB's denial to the Planning Commission because he believed that the new home would be compatible with the neighboring residences. The majority of the adjoining property owners supported the appeal. The Development Services Department favored the applicant's proposal with the exception of the proposed two -story entry, which required a modification request for its height to be 20' -0" in lieu of the 14' -0" requirement. Staff felt that the proposed entry was too massive, and that granting such a mod dification would not secure.an appropriate improvement. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's appeal with the exception of the 20' -0" entry height. On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission concurred with staffs recommendation and voted 3 -0 with two members absent to approve the appeal with the condition that the front entry height shall not exceed 14' -0 ". Construction of the new home began during the summer of 2002. In October 2002 the Building Inspector informed the ARB that "as- built" changes from the approved plans had been made, which included minor design alterations in the roof, windows, balcony area, floor plan, and a two -foot extension to the front entry. The ARB determined that the changes were minor and acceptable with the exception of the extended entry, which required a full ARB review, and could not be verbally approved. Construction continued on the home with the exception of the entry, which was pending ARB approval. In November 2002 the applicant submitted revised plans to the ARB for review -and approval of the extended entry, and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the entry. The plans also showed the other changes that had taken place since the original approval from the:Planning Commission for the purpose of having all of the changes reviewed and approved by the adjacent property owners. On December 12, 2062, a formal meeting of the ARB was held at which time. the ARB voted unanimously to deny the extended front entry, and the redesign of the front doors and matching window area (see the attached ARB findings and minutes). It was the consensus of the Board that neither the entry nor the proposed iron and glass front 030hIN'! T1 3 Z3 A J Appeal June 17, 2003 Page 2 i doors with the matching window area was in harmony with the surrounding homes in their area because: • The entry is not in scale with the surrounding homes. • Traditional homes within the Association have an understated entry with, typically . low or modest rooflines above the entry. The ARB is concerned about the style of homes in south.Arcadiathat have•come under heavy criticism because of the _extreme entry design and vertical appearance, which is further exaggerated by matching swindows : above, the entry. • That the proposed iron and glass front doors with the matching window area above the entry are not compatible with the design of the new home nor are such design features found on any home within the Association. That the original wood door design with leaded glass windows were in "keeping with the design of the home and helped diminish the vertical' appearance that would be created by the iron and glass doors and matching window area. On December 17, 2002, Dr. Irawan appealed the ARB's denial, and submitted a packet of information to address the issues that were raised by the ARB (see`attached)`. The Planning Commission, at its February 25, 2003 meeting, did not fully concur with staff's recommendation i.e., to approve the extended front entry and deny the proposed redesign of the front doors with the matching window area. By a vote of 4 -1 the Commission denied the appeal due to the following findings, as set forth in`Planning Commission Resolution No. 1689 (copy attached): 1. The Homeowner was aware of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's review process, and that any ' changes to the previously approved plans for the new home would be subject to the review and approval of the Residents' Association. 2. The Homeowner did not present compelling evidence that he would. in any way be prevented from enjoying his property by adhering to the Architectural Review Board's prescribed ruling. 3. The Homeowner's testimony did not clearly present an adequate reason why the as -built extension to the entry was made. 4. The extended front entry and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the entry are design features that are not compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. Appeal June 17, 2003 Page 3 In March of 2003, the applicant submitted a plan to the ARB to build the entry. as originally approved by the Planning Commission with minor modifications, which included a semi - clear, dual glazed window to be installed above the entry. On March 18, 2003, the ARB approved the plan with the condition that any further changes to the home shall be subject to the approval of the neighbors and the ARB. Currently, the as- build two -foot extension'of the entry has been removed; and the construction of the home is being completed in accordance with the approved plans. On March 18i 2003,'the' applicant filed an appeal to the City Council regarding the Planning Commission's denial of the iron and glass front doors and matching window area: The applicant.requested that the public hearing date for the appeal be scheduled for the Council's June 17 meeting. DISCUSSION The applicant's new two -story home is currently under construction with. the completion of its entry. pending the outcome of this appeal. The home has a maximum height of 30` -0' and complies with all Code requirements. There is an existing oak tree with a trunk diameter of approximately 35 inches in the front -yard area of the site, which partially screens the front entry.. A certified arborist, prior to the construction-of the new home, evaluated the tree to address a potential building encroachment into the tree's drip line. Based on a recent site inspection by staff no encroachment has occurred, since the new home only extends to the edge of the tree's drip line, as shown on the submitted site plan. Dr. Irawan has indicated that he has tried to accommodate the concerns of the ARB, and believes that the subject entry with the proposed doors and matching window area would be compatible with other homes in the area. He has submitted attached letters from the .adjoining property owners in favor of his appeal as well as, photographs of other:homes'in the area that have enhanced entries. The Development Services Department concurs with the ARB's denial of the proposed iron and glass front doors and window area because the ironwork appears to be too ornate and would not complement the appearance of the home, as would the original wood door design with the leaded glass windows (see the previously approved building elevations). REVIEW CRITERIA Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas that are subject to Design Overlay Zones. City Council Resolution No. 5287 sets forth the design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association (Lower Rancho). Said resolution requires compatibility with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. . Appeal June 17, 2003 Page 4 i a -! The Architectural review Board's jurisdiction, and subsequent review of the Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance (Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of Resolution 5287). Section 3.15 of the Resolution sets forth the following standards that shall guide the ARB and any body (Planning Commission and /or City Council) hearing an appeal of the ARB's decision: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of. external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board of the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. Based on the above, the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council) is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. Approval or denial of this appeal should be based on the issue of. compatibility with reasons that explain the decision. These "reasons" will constitute the "findings" upon which the decision is rendered. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Architectural Review decisions will not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. , RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed redesign of the front doors and matching window area. As previously mentioned, it is staffs opinion that the ironwork on the Appeal June 17, 2003 Page 5 proposed front doors and matching window area would not complement the appearance of the home. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the City Council intends to approve the appeal, the Council should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission's action in upholding the Rancho Santa` Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial, and direct staff to' prepare an appropriate' resolution incorporating the City Council's decision and findings In support of that decision. Denial If the City Council intends to deny the appeal, •the'Council should find that the proposed project is not architecturally harmonious or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action in upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution Incorporating the City Council's decision and findings in support of that decision. Approved by William R Kelly, City Manager Attachments: 1. Applicant's letter of appeal 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1689 3. Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2003 4. Applicant's previous letter of appeal and response packet 5. ARB's December 12, 2002 findings, action, minutes, and meeting notice 6. Resolution No. 5287 7. Land Use and Zoning Map 8. Letters'in favor of the proposal . 9. Response letter from the City's Building Official 10. Response letter and project history from the ARB 11. Entry elevations - revised and previously approved entry doors and window areas The Planning Commission, at its February 25, 2003 meeting received a 156 -page petition in favor of the ARB, which will be available for review at the appeal hearing. Appeal June 17, 2003 Page 6 � 4 April 7, 2003 Development Services Depa rtment 240 West Hmrthrgton Drive Arcadia. i REC APR 0 8 2003 VYGIIMII }r1.`::... Re: Appeal the decision of P lanni ng Commission on Feb 25, 2003, case of 821 Sao Vice Road Dear W Nicholson. (Planning Services IVlanager), Herewith we request an appeal before the City Council regarding the decision of Planning Commission on the above. There were 2 items disapproved by Planning Commission; 1) 2 feet extension of the porch. 2) Iron glass door with the matching window. Now we are appealing only item #2 (Iron Door with the matching window. We have to accept the item #1 in order to continue our (5 months) delayed construction, but it does not mean we have satisfied with item #1. The date we prefer to have the appeal is June 17, 2003. Requested by, Irawan's Family. PA 42� ALLIpW1� �,+�t 3 l6�03.1� iii �� a RESOLUTION NO. 1689 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANNTA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF DESIGN REVISIONS TO THE FRONT ENTRY ON ANEW TWO -STORY HOME AT 821 SAN VICENTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on December 17, 2002, an appeal was filed by Dr. Ibrahim Irawan - ( "Homeowner'), appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of an as -built two -foot extension to the front entry, and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the front entry on a new 5,788 sq..ft. two -story residence, which includes. an attached 925 sq. ft. three -car garage at 821 San Vicente Road; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February. 25, 2003, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that: 1. The Homeowner was aware of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's review process, and that any changes to the previously approved plans for the new home would be subject to the review and approval of the Residents' Association. 2. Compelling evidence was not presented by the Homeowner that he would in any way be prevented from enjoying his property by adhering to the Architectural Review Board's prescribed ruling. 3. The Homeowner's testimony did not clearly present an adequate reason why the as -built extension to the entry was made. 4. The extended front entry and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the entry are design features that are not compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. 1. 1689 SECTION 3. That for the foregoing.reasons this Commission denies the applicant's appeal, of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents, Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of the as -built extension to the front entry, and the proposed redesign of the front doors and matching window area on the new two -story residence at 821 San Vicente Road. SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commiss'ion's action of February 25, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson NOES: Hsu ABSENT`. None SECTION 5: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting'of the Planning Commission held on March 11, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: I Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson NOES: Hsu ABSENT: None — Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FPORMM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia 2 1689 City of Arcadia 3. PUBLIC HEARING 821 San Vicente Rd.. Dr. Ibrahim Irawan Consideration of an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of an as- built expansion of the front entry, and a redesign of the front door and window area for a new two -story home that is currently under construction. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Chairman Olson reminded everyone that there is a 5 minute limit for each speaker. He asked that if a point has been made, not to reiterate to avoid redundancy. In Favor Colin Greene, attorney for the applicant, said that this has been a long process. ' The Architectural Review Board does not like the design of the house. There were many people that spoke in favor of the house during the Architectural Review Board meetings, yet no one spoke against it. The front entrance, located in the front of the house, is shielded by the oak tree and has an 80' setback. They are not attempting to grandize the entrance. He explained that the reason for the 2' extension was because the stairs, as proposed on the plans, are too close to the door. The size of the doors has not increased. There is nothing in the Homeowners Association resolution that states that they cannot have that type of a door. The style of the door is subjective: He indicated that creativity should not be stifled The photos of the door clearly show that it is not flashy or made of polished iron. In fact, there are number of similar type doors with glass and polished iron in the area. Dr. and Mrs. George Jung, 531 N. Old Ranch Rd., said they live in the immediate area and are in close proximity to the subject house. They wanted to voice their strong supporf for the applicant. They felt that the extension of the porch would further enhance the home and that this house would increase property values in the area The 2' addition is in scale with the house and the property.. They did not think that the house was too massive, ostentatious or conspicuous. In fact, when, viewed from the street, the change in the size of the entry doesn't seem to be noticeable to the eye. . They were disturbed that this issue has impeded construction and has inconvenienced the immediate neighbors, especially, since the homeowner was going to meet City's requirements. The decision of the Architectural Review Board does not take into consideration the feeling of the neighbors who live in the immediate area who are in favor of this design and home. They have seen the front door and do not feel that it is in bad taste and feel that it is architecturally compatible. While the wrought Jron may be different in its material and overall style and appearance it is.very similar to other leaded and beveled glass and wooden framed doors in the area and is equally appealing and superior. It would definitely not be an eye sore, nor would it be extreme. or unusual in its design. They felt that, while not everyone has the same door; who would want to have the same door as their neighbor? Mr. Jung went on to say that harmony could still be accomplished while maintaining individuality. There are a variety of designs in their neighborhood and that was what attracted them to this area. They felt that it is diversity of architectural styles that gives richness of character and distinctiveness to the area. Harmony does not mean sameness or uniformity and living in this Homeowners Association does Arcadia City Naming Commission 3 225/03 not mean that they have to be relegated to traditional or ranch style homes or the Homeowners Association's architectural elements. They felt that the variety and diversity in this area are vital to the growth and continued pride of ownership in the Lower Rancho. The alternative would be stagnation in home prices and interest in home renovation and rebuilding. It is important to have standards of quality control in the construction of the homes, but if it becomes too restrictive as to impede individuality and personal style preferences of the'homeowner,'it would. create discord,, not. harmony for the residents of the area. And; it appears that the constraints and difficulties that have been placed on the Irawans have done just exactly that: ' Fred Fedal, 600 N. Old Ranch Rd., concurred with the comments made by the previous speakers. He cited a home in Diamond Bar that has this type of a door and in his opinion, the door is beautiful. Martha Moore, 876 San Simeon, said that she has seen many changes in Arcadia and most have been an improvement. She took the time to go and see the door which she thought was beautiful. In fact, the _oak tree blocks the door so it would not be visible from the street. She said that a Mr. Snow was going around their neighborhood and seeking signatures for a petition against this applicant. She read a letter from Mrs: Elizabeth Ingoldsby, who resides at 868 San Simeon, who could not be present at tonight's meeting. Mrs. Ingoldsby signed the petition but wanted to withdraw her signature from the petition because after she signed the petition she discovered that` the home would , detract from the neighborhood. She felt that the home is in good taste and would increase proper values. Be* Schupback, 605 Old Ranch Rd., said his property isadjacent to the subject property. This house has been under construction for over a year and it should have been finished already. There have been a number of issues with the Architectural Review Board, who did not like the house from the very beginning. The design if the door is a personal issue. "• It is starting to get pretty dangerous, when the Architectural Review Board is dictating the 'type of a door that a homeowner can have. Brad Irawan;''821 San Vicente, son of Dr. Irawan, said that this has been very difficult on his family. They had hoped that they would'be able to hold his sister's birthday in their new home but they could not because of all the problems. They attendeda meeting at Mn Henrich's home and there was no one there that was against the design of their home. He wanted their home to be finished, so they could move in and hopefully be able to celebrate his mom's birthday in their new home. In Oonosition Dr. Bill Spuck, 531 Campesina, president of the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association, asked the Planning Commission to uphold the Architectural Review Board's decision. - He distributed a list of the membership and explained that each ofthose- members are qualified professionals who are skilled to serve on this Architectural Review Board. The Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, Tony Henrich, is a civil engineer. Among their membership they have an architect, a landscape architect, a building construction manager, and an attorney. They are in good standing and abide by the resolution thatwas set by the City. The tenure of their Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board members ranges from one year to 20 years of service on their board. So, their board is qualified to determine harmony. He explained that a few years ago' their Homeowners Association was virtually doormat and did very little but they have revitalized their Homeowners Association and now they are very active in reviewing projects. During the short period where the Architectural Review Board was doormat, a few homes Arcadia City Planning Coaanission 4 225/03 were able to slip in and were constructed which were incompatible with their area. The residents did not want their neighborhood to turn in to S. Arcadia and felt that it was time to revitalize their Homeowners Association before it was too late. They changed the composition of the Homeowners Association so there would be more qualified members. He believed that -they are representing the majority of their residents. The property owner and builder' decided to make alterations without consulting the City or the Architectural Review Board, despite a letter from the City, which clearly indicated that any change would require the approval of both the Architectural Review Board and the City. Are there consequences for these types of actions or does the City want to establish a policy that a homeowner could ask for forgiveness rather than for permission? If the Architectural. Review Board is to. be affective, the Planning Commission should deny the appeal and send a loud message. The Homeowners Association believes in harmony, not only in their homes but also in the members of the community. He was bothered that their action seems adversary. He wanted to welcome the Irawans to their community. They have established a procedure to look at developments so they are harmonious in the fairest way. Tony Henrich, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, 431 N. Altura Rd., had a Power Point presentation. He 'said that the Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board for the Lower Rancho were established by Resolution No. 5287. The purpose was too assure that designs are not garish or unrelated to the area. They are'to promote and maintain the quality of homes, protect property values, protect predominate character of homes, assure contemporary standards of harmony and assure that buildings, structures and landscapes are harmonious. Good architecture is based upon harmony, proportions and that the architecture relates to other structures in the neighborhood and relationship between front yards. He indicated that there are 800 homes in the Lower Rancho. He provided a brief history of the project. He said that the Architectural Review Board feels that the entry is too massive, vertical and not in harmony: The issues before the Planning Commission are the entry and whether the City's rules were followed. With regard to the City's instructions, the homeowner did not follow the City rules In a letter from the City dated November 2002, it was clearly stated that any changes would need to be approved by the Architectural Review Board. The owner made changes without this approval and the City inspector issued a stop work order. The minor changes involved the windows, roof design and that the rear was enlarged by 18 ". The major changes included extending the entry 2' forward or 33% and the new "iron - glass" doors and windows. The Architectural Review Board denied the 2' extension because they did not feel that the area is needed for the stairs. The porch was extended without any approvals. It makes the porch area more massive and vertical looking. This extension encroaches upon the oak tree, which is not healthy. He also wanted to send 'a loud message to builders that they need to follow City rules. He pointed out that the architect did not require the 2' extension. The door location is the same as the approved plans, revised plans and as it is constructed. This extension is not needed for the stairs because the doors are located at the same location as originally approved. With regard to the iron glass doors, he said that it creates a greater vertical look and a more massive entry. There are no iron glass doors in their Homeowners Association. He noted that both the City and the Homeowners Association' have recommended denial on this issue. The entry does not match the newly adopted City codes. He said that it is the Architectural Review Board's goal to adhere to the City Resolution. They want to make certain that improvements proposed in neighborhoods conform to the majority of the homes in the Nadia City Plaming Commission 5 2/25/03 area and maintain harmony and protect property values. They also want to maintain the character of the area and "elements of style ". He asked that the Planning Commission uphold their denial. Dale Brown, 507 Monte Vista Rd., an architect said that variety is indeed good when it is appropriate and there is harmony in scale, mass and level of detail Change is good but at the same, time it needs to be within context. Their guidelines deal with scale and mass and it is their desire to •follow those guidelines. They want something in their area that fits in. Bob Erikson; 400 Vaquero Rd., said that he has been an Architectural Review Board member for 25 ye.ars.:< During the construction, he became concerned of the health of t1woak tree and had it examined by two qualified`arborists Both reported that the tree was in deep distress: Naturally; the Homeowners Association is concerned and does not want it harmed. The arborists suggested an extensive remedy plan to bring the tree back to its original healthy condition. . Patty Wong 910 W. Catalpa, said their area is a very nice. Many of the residents have lived there for many years. The Architectural, Review Board is there for a reason. It is because the residents of their area would like to maintain the architectural character 'and charm of their neighborhood. She submitted a petition and read excerpts of the petition, which discussed the residerns' satisfaction with the job that the Architectural Review Board is doing, their dislike of mansionization and their desire to protect their neighborhood from homes that are incompatible and are over sized. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the appeal Steve Matheson, 900 Paloma, said that it was encouraging to see so many homeowners concerned that showed up to the meeting. He commented that all the members.of the Homeowners Association and the Architectural Review Board are volunteers.; They want a community of homes that are harmonious, with one another. Every neighbor that the Architectural Review Board contacted had strong opinions and wasinsupport of the Architectural Review Board's position. They are requesting that =the front.porch be brought back to what was originally approved. Suzanne Thomkins, 432 N. Old Ranch Rd. was in support of the Architectural Review Board and felt that without the service that they are providing to their community their area would, lose its charm. Most of the residents in their area have moved there because of its charm and character and they are concerned that they will be losing it. She strongly believed that the extension of the porch and its mass are not in harmony with the other 800 homes in the Lower Rancho area;and that the front entry door should be what was approved originally. Vince Foley, 320 Cambridge said that there is no -one in the , Homeowners Association that bears a grudge toward rrawans. They just want to maintain the integrity of their community. The pristine of the community was what I has drawn them to the Lower Rancho and they just want to maintain that. They are not out to get anyone. He hoped that the Planning Commission would support the Architectural Review Board's action and uphold the City Council's action when. they set up their Homeowners Association and gave them authority to oversee their. area. He thought that the entire City should have architectural review so that the integrity and the quality of the homes are maintained. He asked the Planning Commission to support the Architectural Review Board, Bob Garrett, 1051 Monte Verde, said they have skilled volunteers who donate countless hours and serve on their Homeowners Association. If the City wants the Homeowners Association to have any meaning then their actions and their judgments should have great respect. Unless the Planning Commission Arcadia City Plaming Commission 6 2115/03 concludes that the Homeowners Association is flatly abusing its discretion and is completely arbitrary then they should respect and defer to their judgment and their decision. The record reflects that:the property owner did not go through the normal process. He built the home as he saw fit and it was almost as if he was saying "catch me if you can": If they reward this type of a behavior, then the existence of the Homeowners Association and city staff are irrelevant. If they approve this appeal, in essence the Planning Commission would be making all of the hard work of these skilled people and the countless hours that they spend on projects completely irrelevant He urged the Planning Commission to give respect to both the'Homeowners Association and the Architectural Review Board. In rebuttal, Mr. Green, said the homeowner would be happy to do whatever is necessary to save the tree. They were unaware that the tree was in distress. This is not about whether the people who are serving on the Architectural Review Board are qualified or not, it is about their judgment and how that should be adhered to. It is about property rights and how the homeowner would like to develop it. The home is not garish., In the "IetEers that were read, there was no mention of the home only that the people, in general, Were in support of their Homeowners Association: No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. In reply to a question by Chairman Olson, Mr. Nicholson stated that the owner could change the color of the door any time without seeking Architectural Review Board approval Commissioner Baderian was concerned that the criterion that has been established by the City Council was no followed. Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to look at it very carefully because this project deviated from that criterion. The homeowner was aware of the process, which was that any alterations would require approval. He was unsure that the proper channels were followed: Commissioner Hsu felt that the changes were made during_ construction to make the project possible. He felt that the location of the entry, which is behind the oak treed is shielded by the tree and would not have an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. He did not think that this would, devaluate the adjacent properties. He did not think the door was aesthetically unpleasing and did not feel that this would be an ostentatious home. Commissioner Lucas said he reviewed the Homeowners Association actions and looked at the home owner's intent. He congratulated the home owner for making a commitment to the community. It is obvious that homes in the area are going through renovations. The City Council has established areas in the city to have architectural design review and they have been given a system to review projects with limits. They are not to be abusive when exercising that discretion. The question in his mind is did the Architectural Review Board abuse its discretion? Another issue, which he wanted to hear about but he did not, was why did the homeowner pursue these changes? He did not see or hear any compelling evidence that the homeowner would in any way be prevented from enjoying his property by adhering to the Architectural Review Board's prescribed ruling. Commissioner Wen said that he has served on the Homeowners Association in his area and respects their efforts on this issue. He was impressed with the Architectural Review Board's preparation for this meeting and their presentation. He has never seen a house built without any changes from the construction plans. He could sense a lack of communication between the homeowner and the Arcadia city Planning Comadssion 7 2115103 Architectural Review Board. - He wondered if the door was also moved forward with the 2' extension? If the door moved forward with the porch 'then the change is insignificant because the physical dunension of the entry is the same: Chairman Olson 'was disappointed that he did not hear anything in,the testimony regarding the need for the alteration, other than a statement that the door is too close to the stairs. In looking at the slides, it did not appear to him that there would be a change and that was- one of the reasons why. the Architectural Review Board denied their' request and the applicant did not respond to that issue in their rebuttaL He was troubled that they did not respond to'that issue, He is fully aware that changes will.occur. The Architectural Review•Board has: already: approved, the other changes including the windows and the roofing. He was also troubled by the 18" extension in the rear, which in essence enlarges, the house. The applicant's testimonydid not present clear reasons why the changes were made. With regard to the door, he indicated that he was troubled that the door: color could be changed. He there were some comments that the applicant attempted to sneak these changes; through, but he did not think that was the case. The city through normal process discovered these changes and informed the applicant and the Homeowners Association. He was troubled by this application because he did not feel that he has seen enough evidence to support the changes. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian seconded by Commissioner Lucas to deny the appeal at 821 San Vicente RdAnding that the project is not architecturally harmonious and compatible and uphold the Architectural Review Board's denial. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson NOES: Commissioner Hsu Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period afte the adoption of the,resolution. The resolution will be adopted on March 1.Ph. Appeals are to be filed by March 18" . Amedi&City Planning Commission 8 2/25/03 0 c /7— 0 02• IP' 21 J4"7v Ui C�7 •� �!, d.2ru /� �e 7D • �,e: k -fA 1c,44t a�4— Pte ,",j 14-p- Au e LZ -�7 -o 2Ec6r�f: Sq�48 —^ To: The Development Services Department Planning Commission City of Arcadia Calfomia From: Dr: Irawan & Family 821 San Vicente Road Arcadia, California January 2° 2003 RE: Motion and Vote by ARB (see attached) rejecting the entry extension and iron/glass door and matching windows above. Dear Sir%Madam: With reference to the above, I am herewith submitting this communication to express our and our supporting neighbors' deep disappointment and regret at the final decision rendered by the ARB/Rancho Santa Anita HOA on December IP 2002. (See attached). We hope that it does not reflect an antagonistic and uncooperative stance adapted by the ARB (Architectural Review Board) to hinder the completion of the construction at 821 'San Vicente; We are appalled that such small matters as a 2 porch extension ( See attached Foto/Erdbit 1 , 2 ) and the freedom of choice of an wrought iron and glass front door ( See attached foto/Exhrbit 3 ) would impede the completion of the construction of our house at San Vicente for the last 8 months — since March 2002. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that a previous rejection by the ARB of the building construction was subsequently approved (after two years and changing architects since 1999) by City of Arcadia, Development Services Department. (See P lanning Commission- Resolution: 1665 — November 28, 2001 /Exhibit4).- Furthermore, it appears that the rejection had aheady been decided upon prior to the meeting of December 12 as the voices of the people; that included prominent members of the community of the City of Arcadia, who attended the meeting was totally ignored. The ARB did not listen to any of them! So, who does the ARB really represent? Comments and Statements made by neighbors in this matter: denoted by S= Signature /Agreed, L= Support Letter, M= Audio Visual Media available, A= Physically attended meeting. 1) Ms. Lynda Beckstrom of 615 N. Old Ranch Rd, (adjacent neighbor) found no problem with the 2' Porch extension and door and window. She stated " It's beautiful and bringsiup the property's value in the community." (S, � 2) Mr.Batry Schupbach, of 605 N. Old ranch Rd, (adjacent neighbor) wondered about the definition of the often mentioned word harmony, as for him the house with the porch and the door will be in harmony with the neighborhood:'" Mr Schupbach also spoke in favor of Dr. Irawan at the last Public Hearing back in November 2001. (S A) 3) Ms.Heidi Elder, of 831 San Vicente Rd (adjacent neighbor) hoped that the construction would be completed soon. (S) 4) Robert Lum, an architect and former ARB President of Pasadena, of 588 N. Old Ranch Rd stated that as an architect, his opinion favored the door and extended porch to be in harmony with the neighborhood: (S, A) 5) Mr.Y. Takata, an across the-street neighbor of 820 San Vicente Rd, had no objection what so ever, to the 2'extended porch and door and window. He is looking at the construction everyday, and said "why are they (ARB) making it so hard". (S, M) 6) Dr. Victor Luu, and Dr._Nicole Pham of 878 San Vicente Rd, as residents who have grown up in this area saw these variations as reflecting the true freedom of choice that we have here in this great democratic country (see Exhibit Al thm Al l) The plans meet city requirements and the proposed changes to the front entry do not change the impression of the house. (S, L) (see attached copy/Exhibit 5) 7) Dr. George Jung & Mrs. Judy Jung, of 531 Old Ranch Rd are the neighbors who cannot wait to see the new house' completed and •who were concemedabout the excessive authority of the ARB., They are wondering about the ARB's representation of Home Owners. They too do not have any objection after physically seeing the porch and the door. (S, A) 8) Ms. Angela Nim, of 830 San Vicente Rd, also agreed with the 2' porch extension of the door and window. She was surprised at why this matter was so bard to resolve, for her she did not even see anything different from across the street (S, M) 9) Ms.Eva M Casner; of 351 N. Old Ranch Rd., owner of the most fabulous Mediterranean type house in the neighborhood, did not, see why the 7'8" depth of the porch would hurt the neighborhood;, She thought it to be ridiculous to object to the door's design and color. Later in the meeting Ms Casner inquired as to the way the ARB was elected by the home owners, as it was evident that the ARB could vote without considering the voices and opinions of the attending home owners. (S, A). 10) Mr. Robert TrMoore & Mrs. Martha L Moore, of 876 San Simeon Rd, one of the most respected families in the recent Christmas open house event in the neighborhood, through their latter they expressed their feeling that we, home owners, should have the right to. build a beautiful home - we live in a democratic country . Mrs. Moore personally saw the so called extended porch and the door. and window, she was just amazed at the rejection of ARB She was also wondering why she never bad been invited to any of the ARB/HOA meetings since. she had lived in the neighborhood for more than 20 years.(See Exhibit 6) (S, L). 11) Mr. Fred Fidail, of 600 N. Old Ranch Rd graphically expressed his bold statement to the ARB and urged to approve.the porch and the door and window. (S, M) 12) W. & Mrs. Rudolph M.Rodriguez, of 850 San Vicente Rd They have always shown their support since the beginning and they did not want to see the construction remain unfinished just because of the porch and door, further more they said the foliage of the tree hid the door anyway. (S) 13) Dr. Ted lafranchi, of 855 San Vicente Rd As the owner of the most `horizontal looks' house in the neighborhood he did not object to a different type of house as long as it complied with city requirements. Dr. Lafranchi personally also spent time to inspect the porch and door, and found no reason to object to such porch and door: (SA) 14) Mrs. Nora Ma rtinez, of 351 N. Old Ranch Rd She asked why the ARB had so much power. to control home owner freedom - who then is the ARB actually representing 7 Then it needs to be changed! (A).. 15) Don Crenshaw the architect, of 126 St Joseph St. He stated; that adding the depth of the porch by 2' did not change the elevation; the house still had 14'6" leeway from the front setback line. The door looked not much different with the leaded glass door from more then 90' away from the street. There are some wrought iron gates in the neighborhood, what would be the difference. The door design is proportional, and architecturally conforms with the style of the house, after all it is shaded by the foliage of the tree in front.(See Exhibit') (A) 16) Mr. Colin Greene, thelawyer representing us (Dr. Irawan), of 215 N. Marengo Ave, Pasadena. He did not convey comment at this time, but anticipates that the Planning Commission to be able to deliver good judgment in the next public hearing. We take this opportunity to question the rationale and regulatory background of the ARB's rejection as the porch extension was necessitated by esthetic and proportional preferences, especially as compared to numerous other porches in the neighborhood (see exhibit Al — Al 1). The extension was said to be in violation by 2 feet, while the front edge of the porch is 84 feet from the street curb In other words, the porch can be extended forwards by another 14 feet and 6 inches and still meet building code stipulated setback requirements. This house has no violation of building code, including zoning, set back, building coverage just 16.4% while the max coverage by code is said 35 %, neither any variant has to be requested Furthermore the porch is well concealed by tree foliage. (See attached artistic rendering of House) We have been residents of the City of Arcadia for the last six years and have enjoyed the hospitality and friendliness of the people of this great City. We have been blessed by this opportunity of being able to construct our dream house in the City of Arcadia, but we never did expect to encounter such obstacles in reaching that goal. We fully intend to comply with all existing rules, regulations, building codes, laws and, requirements as set forth by the City of Arcadia and we, our family and neighbors, look forward to a speedy resolution of this issue. Our neighbors (see attached copy of signatures/see exhibit 9) are very surprised and rather annoyed at the ARB decision to reject the extended porch and the door, as there has been detrimental fall out caused by this issue already. Some of our neighbor's intentions to invest or buy property in this neighborhood have been thwarted and set aback, many of them have backed off from investing, as they could reasonably expect similar obstacles thrown in their way as they invested, rebuild or renovated buildings in this beautiful City of Arcadia. A neighbor, originally from overseas, had intended to transfer some of his family assets to this neighborhood and upon learning of the Imwan family plight, decided otherwise. This is an economic loss to our community and State, just to say the least! A Resident's Association to preserve the city's current appearance is wholeheartedly supported and lauded, but when instead of the often mentioned "HARMONY"- their good intentions instead "HARM MANY". We hope that the Planning Commission will consider, scrutinize and evaluate all the relevant factors in this issue and we thank the planning commission for their kind attention. Thanking you in anticipation of a most favorable decision, I remain yours sincerely, xoo Dr Irawan and Family Arcadia, Date: December 14, 2002 Re: Architectural Review Board Meeting — Regarding 821 San Vicente Road (Dr. & Mrs. Irawan) Meeting'Date: December 12, 2002 Meeting Time: 7pm to 9pm Location: Home of Tony Henrich 432 North Altura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Attendees: Dr. & Mrs. Irawan Colin Greene Don Crenshaw Tony Henrich Bob Eriksson Dale Brown Steve Mathison Neighbors & others (9) Owners Owner's Attorney Owner's Architect ARB Chairman ARB Board ARB Board ARB Board See attached sign in sheet Purpose & Backeround A formal meeting of the ARB was held with the ARB, homeowners, adjacent neighbors, and interested parties. The purpose on the meeting was to review changes to the home which differed from the plans previously, approved by the City of Arcadia's Planning Commission on November 28, 2001. Last year, the ARB rejected the plans primarily because of the front entry design. The owner appealed to the Planning Department and won. The ARB elected to not appeal the decision to the City Council and allow construction tq begin in accordance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The City of Arcadia in its letter of November 28' 2001 (from Donna Butler to Dr. Irawan) confirmed approval of the plans by the Commission and advised that any changes to the design would be subject to the review and approval of the homeowners association, as required by the City. The City inspector discovered the changes and called the ARB chairman, Tony*.,, ' t Henrich. Mr. Henrich considered most of the changes as minor and verbally approved all changes, except J the front entry expansion. The entry design was the main issue of the previous ARB. During 2002 numerous changes were made during construction which were not preapproved by the ARB JfFCCryHSN j Construction was allowed to continue except for the entry which was "Red Tagged" by the City. Mr. Henrich immediately met with.the city, the architect and the owner after the red tag. Mr. Hemich and the City advised that the owner could either construct the entry per the approved plans, submit an alternate design for consideration by the ARB, or request a formal meeting with the ARB and adjacent neighbors. No such request was made or were alternate plans submitted. Construction continued until the city stopped work on the roof advising the owner that the adjacent owners must approve the revised roof design even though it was verbally approved by the ARB. JVF CdPJVrAIT 4- 2) A meeting with the City, attorney, City staff and ARB was held to determine appropriate action. The City attomey ruled that in fact the adjacent owners must review and approve all changes and that the owner must provide plans showing the original design and the revised plan (with a list of all changes). The new plans for the first time showed a change in the design of the entry doors (and window above). The doors and windows were changed from wood.doors and leaded glass windows to sculptured iron doors and windows with glass behind. The ARB considered the iron doors as not in harmony with other Association homes. The owner obtained the approval and signatures of the adjacent homeowners as directed by the City. A formal meeting of the ARB, neighbors and owners was held on December 12' to discuss the main issue AFE 61MlV(zru r regarding entry expansion and proposed iron/glass doors and windows: The doors and windows were purchased in October 2002 without the approval of theAARB or the knowledge of the owner's architect, 31 Don Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw advised Mr. Henrich in a prior meeting that he was aware of the owner's interest in the iron/glass doors but he was surprised to learn that the doors had actually been purchased and delivered. Heidi Elder, the next door neighbor, advised Tony Henrich, that she had not seen the brochures of the ft"6(6 0.7 iron/glass doors prior to approving (signing) the new changes in December 2002. The owner said that he had shown the brochures. Mrs. Elder also advised that she did not.like the iron doors or matching windows. Mr. Henrich also asked the owner if the city saw the iron/glass door brochures. The owner said 4 that he had shown the brochure to Corky Nicholson who thought that they were beautiful. Mr. Nicholson advised Mr. Henrich that he had no recall of seeing the brochure. The owner gave the brochure to Mr. Henrich when he was questioned on the design of the iron/glass doors and windows. The Association Board (which governs the ARB) recently reviewed the entry expansion and the brochure of the iron/glass doors and windows at their December meeting. The Association Board voted unaniously to reject the entry expansion and iron/glass doors. The Board felt that neither was in harmony. December 12"' Meeting Discussion: The meeting of December 12, 2002 began with an overview of the issues and history by the ARB chairman, Tony Henrich. Also presented was -a review of the ARB's goals and responsibilities as stipulated in the City's Resolution No. 5287, which established' the ARB and the Homeowners Association. The attending neighbors then voiced their opinion. Each of the nine attending neighbors were'in support of the owner. Each felt that the entry extension'and imm/glass doors looked good and were in their opinion in harmony. Dr. and Mrs. Irawan both express their belief that they felt that the entry was in good taste and asked for the ARB's approval. One neighbor felt that any home design, should be acceptable if it met City code. Dale Brown (ARB board) advised that the ARB's charter under the City's resolution mandated that the ARB act as an advisor to the City in determining harmony within a neighborhood and entire Association. Henrich advised that the Association had developed an Architectural Guideline for the ARB to help determine harmony. A copy had been given to the City Planning Department and City attorney for comments in 1999 — no comments were received. Bob Eriksson, prior ARB Chairman, gave a copy of the Guideline to the owner's architect, Don Crenshaw, at the beginning of design work in 2001. At the meeting the owner also gave a copy of a letter from neighbors supporting the entry and iron/glass doors. A video of two other supporting neighbors was also shown. One attending neighbor felt that harmony should only be considered within the home and neighborhood - and that exterior Harmony was not important. Another asked if an ulna- modern home would be accepted. Mr. Henrich stated that 50's modem homes are within the Association and are considered in harmony. Dale Brown further stated that an ultra modem home in good taste might be considered in harmony. _ Bob Lunt, a neighbor and registered architect, felt that the entry and iron/glass doors were in harmony., Mr. Henrich also gave Mr. Lum a copy of the Guidelines for his review and comments. Dr. Bill Spuck, President of the Association, said the Association Board voted to reject approval of entry expansion and iron/glass doors. Mel Dan& Association. Vice President, also expressed the Association's concerns regarding the harmony of the entry. The owner's attorney was asked to comment. He said that he had intended to speak but thought it would not make a difference. Each ARB board members then summarized their belief that the entry scale was not in harmony with other homes in the area. 'Primary reason for rejection was that traditional homes within the Association had,an understated entry with typically low or modest rooflines above the.entry. ARB members also discussed concern about the style of homes in South Arcadia that have come under heavy criticism because of the extreme entry design and vertical took which is further exaggerated by matching windows above the entry. It was pointed out that the city is likewise concerned with this extended look by designers trying to get CO/11tfLcNT around the 14 -foot entry height limitation. ARB members were even more critical of the iron/glass doors, which are not in keeping with the design of the home, nor are iron/glass doors found on any homes within J the Association. Bob Eriksson felt that the original wood door design (with the leaded glass windows) looked good and helped diminish the extent of light and vertical look that would be created by the iron/glass doors. Steve Mathison felt likewise that the original entry doors and window above were in keeping with the design of the home and that the iron/glass doors and window were not in harmony with the owner's home or any . home within the neighborhood or the Association. Motion and Vote by ARB: Dale Brown moved that the ARB reject the entry extension and iron/glass door and matching window above. Bob Eriksson 2nd the motion. Henrich, Eriksson, Brown and Mathison voted for the motion. Board member Lou Pappas could not attend the meeting but previously advised Mr. Henrich that the doors and windows were not acceptable because they were not in harmony. Follow up: Henrich promised to contract the City to determine if there is any hold up on other changes to the home which were previously approved by the ARB in their letter to the City dated November 17, 2002. The owner was advised that the decision of the ARB could be appealed to the Planning Commission as before. These minutes are subject to the review and comments by all parties. The minutes are intended to cover the main points made at meeting and do not necessarily cover all comments made during the meeting. Any additions or corrections are appreciated. No recording was made of the meeting by the ARB or advised of by others. We thank all that attended the meeting. We appreciate their time and interest. The ARB hopes to represent the interest and opinions of all 800 homeowner within the Association. Sincerely, � l Tony Henrich Architectural Review Board Chairman 431 Ahura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Ph 626446 -3543 Fx 626 -447 -6271 )6F (apnea p A- 6) Re Motion by ARB Dec 14, 2002 Comments: 1) The extension of 2' of the front porch was requested by the Architect (Mr. Don Crenshaw ) before the final plan was submitted to the city of Arcadia. The owner assumed that since the front door was positioned about 2' in front of the "1" beam frame, the, 2' porch extension would proportionally improve its appearance. There was no objection from the architect about this change, since this was not going to change the appearance from the outside, and that it also would not be in violation of the front set back. (According to the Architect the set back line was still 14' 6" away). However, the process of finalization of the plan took 7 months and for some reason the Architect did not make that 2' extension change. In the end the City stamped its approval of the plan without that change having been made. The owner questioned the Architect about the 2' extension, but the Architect said that it was not a big deal. Upon concrete pouring of the foundation, DD (the concrete contractor) was advised by the owner about the 2' extension and also to consult the architect about this and any other questions about the blueprint. 2) The architect required time to redraw all those changes, and the structural engineer also needed time to revise his calculations.. The changes not only covered the 2' extension of the porch, but they also included the entire structure of the house: This was due to correction of the height of the house, a part of the roof that was changed to flat, and a 1'6" second floor cantilever to the back of house. The ARB however did not object to those changes. 3) ' The door and matched transom window was ordered about August 2002 after the Home and Garden show in Anaheim. Before the owner made the order and paid the down payment, the owner had already asked for information regarding the door's building code at the counter of the building department, and found that there were no specific building code restrictions for the door. The brochure of the doors had also been shown to Mr. Corkran Nicholson (Corky), the Planning Services Department and he said: "It's beautiful ". Don Crenshaw the architect said that the door is not included in the code, and many home owners decide to buy the door they like after the exterior is almost done. Mr. Crenshaw also inquired regarding the structure specifications of the steel frame of the door. Mr. Ron Hubbard, the door manufacture was rather upset when the owner (Dr. Irawan) still felt the need for more time to decide to buy the door. Mr. Hubbard tried to convince the owner that those doors had been installed throughout the country and that they never had a problem. . According to him; he had installed those types of doors in Arcadia, Pasadena, and other places, subsequently the owner had paid the down payment.. (Note: None of the doors in the brochure are similar to the one the owner ordered; they are simpler in looks) 4) The owner has never said that he had shown the door's brochure to Heidi Elder since the said door is not similar to those in the brochure. The owner definitely came to Heidi Elder's house spent around 90 minutes to explain in detail, each item of those changes, including the door and transom changes which also appeared in the revised plan. Heidi signed to approve (see exhibit 9), she even requested a copy of the text revisions which included the door changes (Exhibit 8) Item per item changes were also explained to all of the 13 neighbor signatories who found no problems with the said revisions (copy attached/Exhibit 9). 5) The Plan already meets the original requirement of the 14' entry since it was first drawn. 6) It appears that the rejection had already been decided upon prior to the meeting of December le 2002, as the voices of the people, that included prominent members of the community of the City of Arcadia, who attended the meeting was totally ignored. The ARB did not listen to any of them! So, who does the ARB really represent? I a. N�c /�QV- � �GW�u�' ►J o ,titian `v.15 r -4 ta/t 5n ✓ cfr �Y� 1210 /v - G� cj I�LGca �• r X46 q-54 2t 5 N I�nrGnC @0:.5 aas w cJ C,, C67-4�� Sa' 5 -,roo5 I- p, FS ta/t 5n ✓ cfr �Y� 1210 /v - G� cj I�LGca �• r X46 q-54 2t 5 N I�nrGnC @0:.5 aas w cJ C,, C67-4�� Sa' 5 -,roo5 I- Y V�.'� l r . ... _rtln .. .. W'etY_' fIRi90.gi ^ate r:. '. ..'.. ... 1 .'�: '. 4f�� T'l3 +a. L��,.0 �iF�� � � v� h.t.._�S t - .. -4 v 14i ��, 1 qq fl, � 1 I ' rS._3.... �Gi IC { 1 i v`� i� JP`A 1: rF 1� I l • 1 I� �,1, 1 �fk' .1 1�`�p� s 1' {�41 ��, "' fl ' hV." al PII' I� I }� J S .::k;`1 .�d�`� c- C) O r O O r) L W O L H ElW817 3 a ca 0 U C/] RESOLUTION NO. 1665 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPEAL OF THE OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL OF A TWO STORY DWELLING AT 821 SAN VICENTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, an appeal was filed by Ibrahim Irawan, appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial for a proposed 5,800 sq. ft. two -story dwelling with an attached 926 sq. ft. three car garage at 821 San Vicente Road; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 13, 2001, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that: 1. The design, material and external appearance of the dwelling is compatible with other two story dwellings in the neighborhood; 2. That the multiple eave lines enrich the appearance of the structure; 3. The dwelling is in proportion and harmony with the other houses in the neighborhood; 4. That the house is designed to preserve a very.large oak tree in the front yard area further enhancing the overall appearance of the dwelling and property; 5. That the house represents the changes that the City.Council has made in the code, and that the overall design is what people are looking for in a dwelling; 6. That with the exception of one neighbor who changed their mind -the people that would be most impacted by this new dwelling are in favor of the dwelling and think it will improve their neighborhood; 7. That the front setback ranges from 61' -0" to 81' -0" feet from the front property line which is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood; and 8. That the lot coverage is 16.4 %, which is substantially less than the 35% allowed by code. -1- 1665 SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the applicant's appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Architectural Review Board's denial of the proposed 5,800 sq. ft. home subject to the condition that the front entry shall not exceed 14' -0" in height. SECTION 4. 'The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of November 13, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Huang, Olson, Kalemkiarian NOES: None ABSENT: Baderian and Murphy SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 27, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Baderian, Huang, Olson NOES: None ABSENT: Kelemkianan ABSTAIN: Murphy /s/ David Olson Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Is/ Donna L. Butler Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia, APPROVED AS TO FORM: /sl Stephen P. Deitsch Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia -2- 1665 December 12, 2002 rmtoB r f Mr. Tony Henrich ARB Chairman Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association 431 North Altura Arcadia, CA 91007 RE: New Home Construction 821 San Vicente Dear Mr. Henrich: Due to the short notice of your recent letter regarding the special meeting on December 12, 2002, we are unable to attend the meeting, however, we would like to express our opinion through this letter in support of our neighbor, Dr. & Mrs. Irawan, for their new home construction. The reasons for our support are base on the following: a) the construction plans meet the city requirements regarding set back, height, living area to lot ratio, etc. b) the proposed changes to the Front Entry do not change the overall structure /impression of the house c) once completed, the new house will add more value to the neighborhood. While we do understand from your letter that "the purpose of the ARB is to assure that buildings, structures and landscaping within the area will be harmonious with each other ", as we look around our neighborhood, we see houses of various sizes, shapes, elevations. There are new dwellings among older ones. There is even a house on OId Ranch (Old Ranch x Murietta) that looks like a rectangular box with a tiny front entry. Our point is that these variations reflect the true freedom of choice that we have here in this great democratic country, the United States of America. As long as our neighbor's plans follow the city requirements, we have no objection, but total support. Afterall, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The sooner the construction is completed, the better the neighborhood -will become. We would rather have a completed new structure than have an empty lot in the neighborhood (as is the case currently at the end of Old Ranch Rd.) Sincer , Victor Luu & Nicole Pham 878 San Vicente Road cc: Dr. Irawan . "WIJ_ ) 4 +� o ltj a i Q ed O w d a d � i � x+r�8rr 8 November 7, 2002 To: Lower Rancho I -LO.A. (president, Mr.Tony Heinrich) City of Arcadia Planning.Dept. (Ms.Donna Butler) And all parties who may concern. Note: this Letter is updated/revised from the letter of October 26, 2002 Some minor changes on the plan of new construction at 821 San Vicente Rd Arcadia. 1. Depth of the porch: from per approved cross section, September 30, 2001, originally was 6'6" to 7'8" (1'2" step forward). Note: distance to the street curb still 84'. (see sheet 2 #1) 2. First Floor: Kitchen: at the radius window, previously was planned for 3 windows, but due to the size availability now become 5 windows with the same width of openning.(see sheet 2 #2) Kitchen (wok room) added 2 x 4 window at west wall, for swimming pool watch.(see sheet 2 #3) Master bedroom: instead of one window 4' x7', now changed to 2 smaller (transom) windows 4' x 18 ".(see sheet 10 41) Second Floor: Bedroom #3 added 6" toward South, ( 9 sqF addition).(see sheet 3 #1) Bedroom #4,5, &music room added 18" toward North, (75 sqF addition).(see sheet 3 #2) Also header of those room become 8' instead of 7'6 ", and windows heights become 5' from previously 4'. (see sheet 9 #1) 3. Portion of roof flattened due to meet the height limitation. (sheet 9 #2) 4. Garage floor lowered by 8" to match the driveway height. (sheet 9 #3) Radius window from 6' + 6' to 8' + 4' due to manufacture suggestion (see sheet 9 #4) Balcony door use the existing old house entrance (see sheet 9 #5) Entrance door and upper picture window changed (see sheet 9 #6) Bay window at study use the existing old house beveled glass (see sheet 9 #7) Location of AC condensor as shown (see sheet 1 # 1) We hope we can have an approval for these changes, and continue our project, due to the winning season is coming. With our fully respect to all, Irawan's Family. wi W'E, THE UNDERSIGNED (SIGNATURES) OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, CERTIFY THAT WT HAVE READ THE FOREGOING APPLICATION, AND HAVE SEEN THE PROPOSED PLAN'S, AND REREBY GRANT OUR CONSENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. • 0 N &A r I ,NATURE OF OWNER ADDRt } 2 , l�5 - n1 0 ewe 3. 0 G, l 7. ADJACE PROPERTT akRPSHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE ALL PROPERTIES WHOSE BOUNDARIES ARE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, CO- TERMINUS WITH THE SUBJECT "ROPERTY: E %AXPLE• S ✓ .I 8 s��atd� a6i E2 SUBJECT PROPERTY V 1. 5av� - V v o , C u�� l i I WIN". t II` i 7 4 A ; t II` 7 4 A ; � L 4 � M /V e Y RR 1 1 I 1 � 1 I r _ all l u.v r� r �dl Ir 1 It lI r, s r o a ski l"' —.,7 -; s •V,. f tFli ] j 1 I IiJ4 1 �I . 4 J( W I . I i i� I ! ) '" I r Ir 'h x 3 1 g t �a 2a y � ✓a .r- �.rac 34Y`v- 2 k[ r ( 1 i it t r , , r lt �I� ,�� h , •1 t 1 � i� �� j I {{ '�''S ' �r v t T ° .+.� ' '� 'Gr , ) ` I. r• it � t)�r 1 I t f ln 1 ..y C, i' J .R1a It C , r: 3 3, '- a I f 1'' � U � I , I t , I fl' t l r P I tt t i l 1 1 l i I I r # f N , W I . I i i� I ! ) '" I r Ir 'h x 3 1 g t �a 2a y � ✓a .r- �.rac 34Y`v- 2 k[ r ( 1 i it t r , , r lt �I� ,�� h , •1 t 1 � i� �� j I {{ '�''S ' �r v t T ° .+.� ' '� 'Gr , ) ` I. r• it � t)�r 1 I t f ln 1 ..y C, i' J .R1a It C , r: 3 3, '- a I f 1'' tl U � , I W I . I i i� I ! ) '" I r Ir 'h x 3 1 g t �a 2a y � ✓a .r- �.rac 34Y`v- 2 k[ r ( 1 i it t r , , r lt �I� ,�� h , •1 t 1 � i� �� j I {{ '�''S ' �r v t T ° .+.� ' '� 'Gr , ) ` I. r• it � t)�r 1 I t f ln 1 ..y C, i' J .R1a It 3 3, '- a I i•r 4 , U � t , I t l r P I tt t W I . I i i� I ! ) '" I r Ir 'h x 3 1 g t �a 2a y � ✓a .r- �.rac 34Y`v- 2 k[ r ( 1 i it t r , , r lt �I� ,�� h , •1 t 1 � i� �� j I {{ '�''S ' �r v t T ° .+.� ' '� 'Gr , ) ` I. r• it � t)�r 1 I t f ln 1 ..y C, i' J .R1a It I I 'i M P r ! w .r. r f � r C 4 j i �t u,7 i t • �il # � fl 1 6666 Qi3 �k q ! Y j A li } t ! J y �� g { ( ��'fl�l Ij b )y ) 1. u 5 ` vp i r $ i p i !) f l i r t r f 1 y � xa ;5 i4 ' I 1 1 i i,. r �a ,I Y z -z r i( � 1 lI vw <� lei 1 � 4 � �•p Il I 'i M P r ! w .r. r f � r C 4 j i �t u,7 i t • �il # � fl 1 6666 Qi3 �k q ! Y j A li } t ! J y �� g { ( ��'fl�l Ij b )y ) 1. u 5 ` vp i r $ i p i !) f l i r t r f 1 y � xa ;5 i4 ' I 1 1 i i,. r �a ,I Y 3 7 ATTACHMENT 5 ,..• ,4 . _ ,.,iV .. k Lry,s ',�" ", L_ ,yfi..:'..ix ... Ir. J. � i y'a ,�Y' i k+ wr i...'T a f.'S e, a,rtlU .. �, . ARB File No. 44 - 2*02- Date Submitted N A&WENNI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: B. PROPERTY OWNER: _Do, Mlles. ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT: C. ARCHITECT (v6 / CONTRACTOR( D. PROPOSED PROJECT (describe in detail) E. check those that apply and 1. The elements of the structure design ( ) ARE, buildings design because 3�$ 1o►TC Phone &J& � 4�tS- � 4o 3e a written explanation for each check.) M ARE NOT consistent with the existing 2. The proposed construction materials () ARE, (V� ARE NOT compatible with the existing Materials because 3. The proposed I visible from the 4. The proposed project (VI IS () IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because '3Z'E ,oBcV r 5. The proposed project( ) IS ( IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because Ism A71TNC lwolD 1MuuJ S 6. The location of the proposed project ( ) WILL ( ) WILL NOT be acceptable to the use, enjoyment and value of the adjoining properties because 7. The proposed project's setbacks (VrDO O DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because S. OTHER FINDINGS: E. ACTION (.) APPROVAL PENDING SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): w( DEN IAL - .STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAi Fa r H. REPRESENTING THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION. I. APPEALS. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures: Said appeal must be made in writing within seven (7) working days of the Board's,(Conmtittee's).decision and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, J. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL project for which fans have been If for the period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any p ro j P approved by the Board (C ittee) has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become t anc o no effect. SIGNED. e " DATE: �/ l k�OZ PRINT: 2 fG TITLE: � PHONE: &140. ADDRESS: 'Lt�P FAX: _ 0 • - *4'9 • RAM DATE OF ARB REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN O OR COMMITTEE V4CTION %% BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBERS(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING Rancho Sanita Anita Resident's Association Arcadia; California Date: December 14, 2002 Re: Architectural Review Board Meeting — Regarding 821 San Vicente Road (Dr. & Mrs. Irawan) Meeting Date: December 12, 2002 Meeting Time: 7pm to 9pm Location: Home of Tony Henrich 432 North Altura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Attendees: Dr. & Mrs. Irawan Owners Colin Greene Owner's Attorney Dort Crenshaw Owner's Architect Tony Henrich ARB Chairman Bob Eriksson ARB Board Dale Brown ARB Board Steve Mathison ARB Board Neighbors & others (9) See.attached sign in sheet Purpose & Backeround A formal meeting of the ARB was held with the ARB, homeowners, adjacent neighbors, and interested parties. The propose on the meeting was to review changes to the home which differed from the plans previously approved by the City of Arcadia's Planning Commission on November 28, 2001. Last year, the ARB rejected the plans primarily because of the from entry design. The owner appealed to the Planning Department and won. The ARB elected to not appeal the decision to the City Council and allow construction to begin in accordance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The City of Arcadia in its letter of November 281, 2001 (from Donna Butler to Dr. Irawan) confirmed approval of the plans by the Commission and advised that any changes to the design would be subject to the review and approval of the homeowners association. During 2002, numerous changes were made during construction, which were not preapproved by the ARB as required by the City. The City inspector discovered the changes and called the ARB chairman, Tony Henrich. Mr. Henrich considered most of the changes as minor and verbally approved all changes, except the front entry expansion. The entry design was the main issue of the previous ARB. Construction was allowed to continue except for the entry which was "Red Tagged" by the City. Mr. Henrich immediately met with the city, the architect and the owner after the red tag. Mr. Henrich and the City advised that the owner could ,either construct the entry per the plans, submit an alternate design, for consideration by the ARB, or request a formal meeting with the ARB and adjacent neighbors. No such request was made or were alternate plans submitted. Construction continued,until the city stopped work on the roof advising the owner that the adjacent owners must approve the revised roof design even though it was verbally approved by the ARB. A meeting with the City attorney,. City staff and ARB was held to determine appropriate action. The City attorney ruled that in fact the adjacent owners must review and approve all changes and that the owner must provide plans showing the original design and the revised plan (with a list of all changes). The new plans for the first time showed a change in the design of the entry doors (and window above), The doors and windows were changed from wood doors and leaded glass windows to sculptured iron doors and windows with glass behind. The ARB considered the iron doors as not in harmony with other Association homes. The owner obtained the approval and signatures of the adjacent homeowners as directed by the City. �.'.. a.�.:Y': ......1 ':h "l':'� r .f 3U. ':: d 1�Y. ..� u �5'i ��• . t .:iTP ���4, ` . sa r A formal meeting of the ARB, neighbors and.owoers was,held on December 12"' to discuss..the main issue regarding entry expansion and proposed iron/glass doors and windows. The doors and windows were purchased in October 2002 without the approval of the ARB or the knowledge of the owner's architect, Don Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw advised Mr, Henrich in a prior meeting that he was aware of the owner's interest in the iron/glass doors but be was surprised to learn that the doors had actually been purchased and delivered. Heidi Elder, the next door neighbor, advised Tony Herrick that she had not seen the brochures of the iron/glass doors prior to approving (signing) the new changes in December 2002. the owner said that he had shown the brochures. Mrs. Elder also advised that she did not like the iron doors or matching windows. Mr. Henrich also asked the owner if the city saw the iron/glass door brochures. The owner said that he had shown the brochure to Corky Nicholson who thought that they'were beautiful. Mr. Nicholson advised Mr. Henrich that he had no recall of seeing the brochure. The owner gave the brochure to Mr. Henrich when he was questioned on the design of the iron/glass doors and windows. The Association Board (which governs the ARB) recently reviewed the entry expansion and the brochure of the iron/glass doors and windows at their December meeting. The Association Board voted unaniously to reject the entry expansion and iron/glass doors. The Board felt that neither was in- harmony. December 12 Meeting Discussion: The meeting of December 12, 2002 began with an overview of the issues and history by the ARB chairman, Tony Henrich. Also presented was a review of the ARB's goals and responsibilities as stipulated in the City's Resolution No. 520, which established the ARB and the Homeowners Association. The attending neighbors then voiced their opinion. Each of the nine attending neighbors were in support of the owner., Each felt that the entry extension and iron/glass doors looked good and were in their opinion in harmony. Dr. and Mrs. Irawan'both express their belief that they felt that the entry was in good taste and asked for the ARB's approval: One neighbor felt that any home design should be acceptable if it met City code. Dale Brown (ARB board) advised that the ARB's charter under the City's resolution mandated that the ARB act as an advisor to the City in determining harmony within a neighborhood and entire Association. Henrich advised that the Association had developed an Architectural Guideline for the ARB to help determine harmony. A copy had been given to the City Planning Department and City attorney for comments in 1999 — no comments were received. Bob Eriksson, prior ARB Chairman, gave a copy of the Guideline to the owner's architect, Don Crenshaw, at the beginning of design work in 2001. At the meeting the owner"also gave a copy of a letter from neighbors supporting the entry and iron/glass doors. A video of two other supporting neighbors was also shown. One attending neighbor felt that harmony should only be considered within the home and neighborhood — and that exterior harmony was not important. Another asked if an ultra -modem home would be accepted. Mr. Henrich 'stated 'that 50's modem homes are within the Association and are considered in harmony. Dale Brown further stated that an ultra modern home in good taste alight be considered in harmony. Bob Lum, a neighbor and registered architect, felt that the entry and iron/glass doors were in harmony. Mr. Henrich also gave Mr. Lum a copy of the Guidelines for his review and comments Dr. Bill Spuck, President.of the Association, said the Association Board voted to reject approval of entry expansion and iron/glass doors: Mel Dan& Association Vice President, also expressed the Association's concerns regarding the harmony of the entry. The owner's attorney was asked to comment. He said that he had intended to speak but thought it would not make a difference Each ARB board members then summarized their belief that the entry scale was not in harmony`with other homes in the area. Primary reason for rejection "was that traditional homes within the Association had an understated entry with typically low or modest rooflines above the entry. ARB members also discussed concern about the style of homes in South Arcadia that have come under heavy criticism because of the extreme entry design and vertical look which is further exaggerated by matching windows above the entry. It was pointed out that the city is likewise concerned with this extended look by designers trying to get around the 14 -foot entry height limitation. ARB members were even more critical of the iron/glass doors, which are not in keeping with the design of the home, nor are iron/glass doors found on any homes within the Association. Bob Eriksson felt that the original wood door design (with the leaded glass windows) looked good and helped diminish the extent of light and vertical look that would be created by the iron/glass doors. Steve Mathison felt likewise that the original entry doors and window above were in keeping with the design of the home and that the iron/glass doors and window were not in harmony with the owner's home or any home within the neighborhood or the Association. Motion and Vote by ARB: Dale Brown moved that the ARB reject the entry extension and iron/glass door and matching window above. Bob Eriksson 2nd the motion. Henrich, Erikson, Brown and Mathison voted for the motion. Board member Lou Pappas could not attend the meeting but previously advised Mr. Henrich that the doors and windows were not acceptable because they were not in harmony. Follow up: Henrich promised to contract the City to determine if there is any hold up on other changes to the home which were previously approved by the ARB in their letter to the City dated November 17, 2002. The owner was advised that the decision of the ARB could be appealed to the Planning Commission as before. These minutes are subject to the review and comments by all parties. The minutes are intended to cover the main points made at meeting and do not necessarily cover all comments made during the meeting. Any additions or corrections are appreciated. No recording was made of the meeting by the ARB or advised of by others. We thank all that attended the meeting. We appreciate their time and interest. The ARB hopes to represent the interest and opinions of all 800 homeowner within the Association. Comment: This entire problem could have been avoided if the owner had followed the directions of the City as outlined in their letter dated November 28, 2001. Sincerely, 1 � i Tony Henrich Architectural Review Board Chairman 431 Altura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Ph 626 - 446 -3543 Fk 626- 447 -6271 SS SAU �I Canc- 2n , ,d1 �c M�� 0'3 / 5� ✓cam. -�T c- � eA 4�C 7 °7 L4 4 6, q-T4 Sys -Fro-T& 5�4�7 -v3�r� Bas 0.a.,,. cA `�ctot 4- i � . -AQ-- tLkA_ 9W , C67--c� s y 5 -.koo S &UP +47 <lv� 157 �� � �,� ;� .�i � �I 5� ��� J _ 7 3 r J { 1 { ) a�d � 1� i 3� 4 5 ��� j ,1 -3-1 3 �0. �3 � , y � 3 �c tlt p } ] � y >d T�'� ,� h. d •� � 'i � i J �t �� �y E l� �' ac3 }`3 �� d y 6�� 7'f� '' t d 31" 4 -g j a .t. December 12, 2002 Mr. Tony Henrich ARB Chairman Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association 431 North Altura Arcadia CA 91007 RE: New Home Construction 821 San Vicente Dear Mr. Henrich: Due to the short notice of your recent letter regarding the special meeting on December 12, 2002, we are unable to attend the meeting, however, we would lice to express our opinion through this letter in support of our neighbor, Dr & Mrs. Irawan, for their new home construction. The reasons for our support are base on the following: a) the construction plans meet the city requirements regarding set back, height, living area to lot ratio, etc. b) the proposed changes to the Front Entry do not change the overall structure /impression of the house • c) once completed, the new house will add more value to the neighborhood. While we do understand from your letter that "the purpose of the ARB is to assure that buildings, structures and landscaping within the area will be harmonious with each other ", as we look around our neighborhood, we see houses of various sizes, shapes, elevations. There are new dwellings among older ones. There is even a house on Old Ranch (Old Ranch x Murietta) that looks like a rectangular box with a tiny front entry. Our point is that these variations reflect the true freedom of choice that we have here in this great democratic country, the United States of America. As long as our neighbor's plans follow the city requirements, we have no objection, but total support. Afterall, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The sooner the construction is .completed, the better the neighborhood will become. We would rather have a completed new structure than have an empty lot in the neighborhood (as is the case currently at the end of OId Ranch Rd.) Sj4cerply, Victor Luu & Nicole Pham 878 San Vicente Road cc; D �'� ' 1 "'fir r'h J4� / V . Rancho Santa Anita ra Nov 29, 2002 Re: New Home Construction 821 San Vicente — Change Order Meeting (Thursday December 12 i Dear Association Resident, Your 1>eighbor, Di. & Mrs. Irawan, have requested various changes to their new home which is currently under Onstruction. Your Architectural Review Board (ARB), has approved all requested changes -- except for two. These non - approved changes are: i * Front Entry Expansion The entry was expanded 2 feet forward without pre - approval j * Front Entry Door & Window Owner proposes heavy sculptured iron bronze doors with glass Attach for your information is a brochure copy showing the proposed "Affordable Iron Doors ". These glass ors have a thick/sculptured metal design. This same metal design would be incorporated into the large window above the extended entry. The effect would be a two-story entry design of glass and bronze colored metal -- as shown in the attached drawing (elevation) provided by Dr. Irawan. In add ion, the front entry was expanded two feet during framing. The City of Arcadia stopped further constrL ction of the entry pending the review and approval of the adjacent homeowners and the ARB. The ARB Neves that the enlarged entry, coupled with the sculptured -metal glass doors, are not in harmony with architecture of the homes within the association. Previously, the ARB rejected the home design becaus of the large entry design — but was overruled by City's Planning Commission. However the City in then attached letter stated that any changes to the design would be subjectto review by the ARB. We aslq your attendance on December 12 to discuss the entry design. The time and place is: ARB Special Meetin Date: Thursday December 12, 2002 Location> Home of ARB Chairman — Tony Henrich 431 North Altura (Altura Rd Q Monte Verde) Phone 626 -446 -3543 Fax 626 -447 -6271 Time 7 pm to 8 pm As you may know, the purpose of the ARB (as defined in the City Resolution) is to assure that "buildings, strum es and landscaping within the area will be harmonious with each other ". The Resolution also states that " ood architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the tincture as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood." Your ARB believes that neither the expanded entry or sculptured metal doors and windaTs are in harmony with the home within the Association. Hopefully you can attend the meeting and share your ideas. If you cannot attend, please call or write. 4 ° '� °`� CC: City of Arcadia: Association — ARB Board Don Crenshaw Dr. Irawan (Owner) Association — HOA President i i .D. HUPBARTJS FF-O"�"A A I ON DoORS 1 .. r I : T y J 1 r ar k , i v �� i {{ P dM { �� �� a �' >, � r� � l�i {�'Y 1 ♦ � _ v,F ��4 �S •f a' it I? � iit 11 Miss {r � 14 � 7py�1 I I h ell i t P I t � i, ; P i r ; V p IF 1 �( I 11 =I IIIi' I� 1Q JU 9 1 � ✓� t 3 :YY 1 J 1 p Vil '.✓ � �r A= ,. 1 , - h U y illy , II I , fi r ,, � - lij )r `� ii t c� ,� i1i� 11 it � �t I Al Ilk A f 44.' � .., r .. 4 p ' .. -.0 . A �,� ._. a4 � � i•• n (- � y k � � ��t'� i a Rancho Sanita Anita; Resident 's Association ; Dr. & Mrs. Lavvan. November 7, 2003` 821 San Vicente Road ' Arcadia, CA 91007 i Re: Planning Commission Resolution 1665 — and Changes to Design Dear Drr & Mrs: Irawan: As you know, Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, City of Arcadia, in her letter of j November ,28, 2001 stated . that the Planning Commission approved your home desigm Her letter also stated that — " Any chances to the design would be`subjeet to review and approval of the homeowners Association ". Changes have occurred as noted in part in your, letter of October 26, 2002 The City Attorney and City staff advised on November 5th that the adjacent homeowners must first review and approve any and all changes before the Association can review these changes. Further, each and all of these changes should be noted,('i.e. circled & or marked) on an original copy of the planato clearly show each and every change — not just the major changes: A review of the marked plan submitted to date' - well as the changes described in your letter dated October 26; indicates that the changes noted inay not be complete or are in error. For example, the plans are not clearly marked to show such changes as the. ' • Roof flattening to meet the height limitations • Garage floor lowering to match the driveway height • Location of air conditioning units Also, your letter states that the "Depth of the porch fr cti om the approved cross seon, September 30, 2001, originally was 6'6' to 7'8; (1'2" step forward). Our review of the original plans (provided by the City of Arcadia) and your revised plans shows that the original the front entry porch has bee.n'extended from 5' 8" to 7' 8" — a 2 foot extension. Like you and your family, we wish to expedite this matter as quickly as possible in accordance with city regulations and procedures. We ask that you meet with the city to determine the steps and forms required for their approval. The city should also advise on the homeowners that must be notified for their review and the exact documentation ([narked plans) needed to clearly show all of the changes made. As discussed in our meeting today, our review of the information submitted to date is incomplete. It does not list all changes, nor does the marked plans submitted to the Association clearly show all changes, noted in your letter. We ask that you provided a completed Short Form and signatures from your adjacent home- . owners in accordance with the attached letter from the City Attorney (Stephen Deitsch) dated November 5, 2002. Please return the completed form (and signatures) for our review together with a copy of the originally approved plans and the revised plans showing all changes. If anyone refuses to sign, then the Architectural Review Board must hold a regular review with proper notification to all interested parties in accordance with City regulations. If you have any questions, please call me at 626-446 -3543. j Sincerely, L Tony Henric Review Board Chairman CC: City Attorney City Planning Department Architectural Review Board t amity of Arcadia )evelopmen1t ervices )epartment i, m Pcnmvn tirtant City 1lnnn,,Jn/ wlofmcnt smica I,"" November 28, 2001 Ibrahim Irawan 821 San Vicente Road Arcadia, CA 91006 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolution 1665 Dear Mr. Irawan: The Planning Commission at its November 28, 2001 meeting voted 3 -0 with one member absent and one member abstaining to adopt Resolution 1665.approving the appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's denial of a two -story dwelling at 821 San Vicente Road. As noted in our November 14 letter, approval is based on the design presented to the Planning Commission with the condition that the front entry height shall not exceed 14' -0" as illustrated in the cross section submitted by Colin Greene in his letter dated October 2, 2001. Any changes to the design would be subject to � review and approval of the homeowners association. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council may be made in writing by any interested party, accompanied by an appeal fee of $500 within five (5) working days after adoption of Resolution 1665 (no later than Wednesday. December 5). If you have any questions regarding the process, please contact me at (626) 574 -5442. Since onna L. utler Community Development Administrator Enclosure: Resolution 1665 cc: Tony Heinrich, President ARB A Nut Hunringcnn Dri« i tm Ofh P= 60021 c-d-. CA 91066 - 6021 261 3 -4 - 341 36ti.44- - 3309 Fu C RESOLUTION NO. 5287 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA AREA AND IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TURF CLUB AND COLORADO STREET "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That! the City; Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4020, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No: -1389, for the property ' described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto. . To implement . .the regulations applicable to the real property within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter "referred to as the "Board ". The governing body of the Board, is the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association. SECTION 2. In order to . promote and maintain the quality' single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization' of said. property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said „area pursuantto' the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Munici al Code and " all those iri control of property.- within: said area, are' to F � _ .. � P PertY� )e this R_esolution.and,Ordinance Nov 1832 I. FLOOR. ARW� No, one - family dwelling :shall be erected or permitted which :contains less.tha t 1A&§quare feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half of two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. 2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard* on the lot to be improved; including A setback up to a ; size 'as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building-or any ".part thereof, occupying the front one hundred (100) feet, or any part thereof; of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet. 4. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees; cows;" horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be pernmitted or kept. 5. EXTERIOR - BUILDING MATERIALS: Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with` materials..of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE'. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall " or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the.neighborhood: 7. APPROVAL OF- BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved.by the Board: Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence,.showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the ,Board: No structure, roof, wall or-fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. =, 4 If; necessary to properly consider any = application, the Board' may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. ..,...,,The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the r project consists only of work;inside a. building which does not siubstantally i change `the external . appearance -of the building. 8.- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board shall be empowered to transact % ,business and .exercise, powers herein conferred;'oniy if'thi3 following requirements exist. -2- 5287 a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Board. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by- laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. . f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable, request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's, decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance, with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 9. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance. are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 5 & 6 of Section 3. 1 ' ti c grading plan 4 required,for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require 'such plan t he submitted along with the.building plans., d Any of � the - conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of-:Secdon 3, may Iii made I restnctive b the Boar d if the Board determines that such .action will ah foster the developmenB of t lot and will not adversely ,affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacentlots d the' gerteral neighborhood and would, not be inconsistent ,VIA with the provisions d 'of this resolution: - .Y �q'y''3 f f Y v e The Boar shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its r dutiess, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules be kept on file with the Secretary etary of the Association and the City Clerk. -3- 3787 10." SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short'Review Process maybe used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their' awareness and approval of the application: _ b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a'Short Review Process Application: c The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board,- failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10)' working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Board may 'determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Conditions. I Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short Review Process.shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning: 11. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES.' a. The Regular Review'Process shall be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions l through 4 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant fails to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, which the Board has' determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. r- * The�Board�' is ° r "equired to hold' a` nodded; scheduled meeting for the consideration of Regular Review Process' App a lication. d. Notice of Board's meetmg shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all'pioperty owners within"`"one hundred feet'(100') of. the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the data of�sucli meeting. 4 . The applicant shall - also provide the Board with the last known name and address,' of such owners as shown' upon the "asses'sment rolls of the 'City or of the County. -4- 5287 The applicant shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said,envelopes. , e. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership' of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board,- to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 12. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a, period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null " and void and of no effect. 13. I= ON BOARD'S POWERS.. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 14. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) 'working days of the Board's .decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with. the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 15: STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and Y hearmg an appeal from ,the Boards decision shall be guided by the 41 " 1 `°-i »'8!f.«�9''J ,o L ., � :, follow g principles: r Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exeresed #list mdividual uutiative is' ttiifledrin creating the appearance of external u fea'fi�es '" y particular stru a ct ie building, fence, ,*all or zoof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or'the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid i fhat w`lud is excessive, garish, arid unrelated to the neighborhood. -3- 5287 (pertains'to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance).. b. Good architectural "'character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship, of such principles to adjacent "structures and other structures in the neighborhood.' (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of,Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good'relationsh p between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. .(Pertains to Condition No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front yards). SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help ,maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative. impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means td maintain the City's land `use, environmental, and economic goals and to . assure perpetuation -of both the' psychological benefits and 'e-conom%c interests concomitant r , to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All' findings and statements of purpose in related, Resolutions which pre- existed 6 Resolution or'prior covenants, conditions, . and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution "is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of -6- 5287 the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. /s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5287 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 1st day of April, 1986, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia -7- 5287 EXHIBIT "A" Area 41 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection - with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary, of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection .with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly 'line of Lot 17 of Tract 'No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line Of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to. its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; .thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly, line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928: EXHIBIT "A" cont'd - 8 - 5287 4W EXHIBIT "A" Area #2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo' Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786; Area #3 All properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. EXHIBIT "A° -9- 5287 W IZ R ECEIVED FQ 19 2003 Feb 13, 2003 °oq ���� " To: Planning Services Subject: Support for Dr. & Mrs. irawan's appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Boards denial of an as-bulk expansion ofthe:front entry and a "redesign of the front door and window area My wife and 1 have, lived in this lovely area for just over nine years. When we bought here we Were struck by the architectural diversity that existed. We were also Impressed by the diversity that exists with the people who reside in the area. It Is a lovely area and anyone who lives here - should be rightly proud of their surroundings. Therefore, It came as a surprise when I recently learned that one of our fine neighbor's home construction was stopped' because of our area's Architectural, Review Board's disapproval, of a minor front entry expansion and their redesign of the front door and window area. Here we have a couple that is investing significant amounts of money to create the home of their dreams and at the same time, In my opinion, enhancing the property values of all of their neighbors. My wife and I have personally reviewed material related to this Issue and feel the changes made by the Irawan's are not inconsistent with the diversity that exists in the area today. While i understand that some level of architectural. oversite Is good, 1 believe that in this case it is misplaced. Our Immediate area tends to be more similar to the Upper Rancho area, and as such we mlght be better off looking to that area for architectural compliance. 1 think most would agree that the Upper Rancho is one of the most beautiful and desireable areas within our city. As such, does It not serve our area to take small steps to move in their direction. Our Immediate area Is blessed In having large lots that can accommodate larger homes. The new home being built by the Irawan's Is beautiful and 1 believe will be enhanced by the entry they have planned. 1 have also recently learned that a neighbor of the Irawan's has canceled plans for a major remodel of their existing home. Their decision was principally driven by the difficulties experienced by their neighbor. I am perplexed to learn this because that means that the ARWs decision now has possibly negatively Impacted my property value. Is It clear that what seems like a minor request by the board can snowball Into something probably unintended? It seems to me that most, if not all, of the Irawan's neighbors are in support of their appeal. Therefore, as a fellow neighbor 1 would like to officially place on the record my support for their appeal. This issue has already cost them more money and pain than should have been necessary. Let's not drag this out any longer. Please support their appeal. s December 20, 2002 ° P °sissy Dr. and Mrs. Ibrahim Irawan 821 San Vicente Rd. C ity of Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia Subject: New Single Family Dwelling at 821 San Vicente Road Development Dear Dr. and Mrs. Irawan: 3erV1CeS The front entry and the front door and window area of the subject building are Department not in compliance with the building permit previously issued, or with the plans approved by the Rancho Santa Anita Residence's Association and the City's Planning Commission. Since the building is close to receiving its rough approvals, I want you to be aware of the following: ' nn N nn'an 1. As you know the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association has Irt;nt..t Cit Mff^as�/ approved all revisions to the construction plans made by you since you Nvel"nat smicer obtained the building permit except for the extension of the front entry Neectee area and the redesign of the front door and window area (which as of now are disapproved and, thus, do not comply with the previously issued building permit). Unless another design is approved through the appeals process, the front entry area, door and window area must conform to the design approved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2001 as well as comply with the City's approved plans. 2. The City will not approve the final inspection of the new single- family dwelling nor issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the entire building is complete, including the entry area and the front door and window area, which must be in accordance with the final plans that have received approval by the City in all respects. As an extra ordinary accommodation for your benefit, and otherwise without any obligation of the City to do so, the City will allow you to continue with the construction of the main dwelling, excluding the entry area, door and window area while you proceed with your recently filed appeal to the Planning Commission. Please note that the construction of the main dwelling must comply with the latest plans approved by both the Residents Association and the Planning Commission, as well as comply with City and state building, fire and zoning codes. For informational purposes I have included a list of general requirements needed for you to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 40 Wes[ Hunongron Drive M of MX 60021 . mclia, CA 91066 - 6021 i26) 574 - 5414 i26) 447 - 3309 rax I am requesting that you acknowledge receipt and understanding of this letter by signing one copy and returning it to me. I have included two copies of the letter, one for your records and one that you can return to me. Should you have any, questions, please call Building Inspector John Zurick at (626) 574- 5417, Corkran Nicholson at (626) 574 -5422 or me at (626) 574- 5418. Sin ereG ly, Greg Gerlach Building Official I hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter and certify that I understand its contents. Dr.and Mrs. Irawan Date c: John Zurick, Building Inspector Corkran Nicholson, Planning Services Manager Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Ref: Notice 9' Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association Donna L. Butler February 20, 2003 Development Services Department City of Arcadia Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Re: Dr. Irawan Appeal to Planning Commission — 821 San Vicente Dear Ms Butler, As promised, this letter, with attachments, provides an overview of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Associations position on the subject appeal by the owner. We respectfully 'request the Planning Commission reject the owner's appeal based on the information presented herein. The attachment lists the key events regarding the proposed new home at 821 San Vicente and the changes to,the home during construction. These changes were not pre approved by the ARB as specifically required by the City in writing (copy attached). The key issue with the home has always been the entry. It is considered too massive and too vertical — and not in harmony with homes in the area or throughout the Association. The home itself is acceptable to the ARB. As you know, the Planning Commission in November 2001 approved the proposed home for construction. This approval however required that any changes to the proposed home would be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. Numerous changes were made without approval as required by the City. The first key change during construction was a 2 -foot extension of the entry — a 33% increase. This non - approved increase creates a more massive look. More important, this type of unauthorized change, if approved, sets a dangerous precedent and message to builders that basically says "Catch me if you can". This precedent would create more work for City inspector's and staff to find changes and determine remedial actions. Because the owner made unauthorized change, significant time has already been spent by the City, including the City attorney. The second major change requested by the owner is the installation of heavy iron -glass doors with matching side windows and a large (and matching) iron -glass window above. This change would again create a more massive and vertical look. We like the City have been concerned with entries that are massive and vertical. This massive look is not in harmony with the homes within the Association — and today would not be allowed under the new City code just adopted. The Association has worked hard to expedite the review of the changes made during construction as summarized in the attached list. To expedite completion of the home all changes were approved by the ARB in accordance with the City's requirements - except the extension of the entry porch and the use of heavy iron -glass doors and windows. We resPectfully ask that the Planning Department and Planning Commission reject the appeal and require that the entry meet the design previously approved by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Bill Spuck Tony Henric� e� r President Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association 531 Campesina Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Ph (626) 446 -9349 Chairman' Architectural Review Board 431 North Altura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Ph (626)'446 -3543 Re: New Home Construction — 821 San Vicente,(Irawan Home) The following lists the key events regarding the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of the Irawan home since November 2001 when the Planning Commission approved the home for construction. The, ARB had previously voted not to approve the new home primarily because of the mass and scale of the entry. On appeal, the Planning Commission approved the plans as submitted by the owner. In its letter of approval, the City advised the owner, in writing, that the home may be constructed as approved by the Planning Commission, but stated (in bold print) that any changes to the home would be subject to the review and approval of the ARB. Numerous changes were made by the owner during construction. None of the changes were pre - approved by the ARB (as required by the City, in their letter, dated November 28, 2001). The ARB thought that most of the changes were minor, and on December 12, 2001 the ARB formally accepted all changes to the home at 821 San Vicente -- except for the 2 -foot extension of the front entry porch and the proposed substitution of heavy iron -glass doors and windows. The owner in mid January 2003 submitted a formal appeal of the ARB's rulings to the Planning Commission. The hearing date is now set for Tuesday, February 25 at 7 PM. The primary reason that the ARB voted to not approve the owner's home in November 2001 was the entry. The size and mass of the entry was considered not in harmony with others in the immediate area and also throughout the Association's (approximately 860 homes). The Association had increasing concerns regarding the mass and scale of some new homes — in particular their entries. These entries typically project out from the home and have a vertical look. The building materials, design details, outside lighting, and design elements above the entry, especially large windows that extend the entry, accentuate this vertical look. The City of Arcadia appears equally concerned regarding the mass, scale and vertical look of entries. As evidence, the City Planning Department issued Text Amendment T.A 02 -004 for consideration by the Council and Planning Commission, This Text Amendment stated that: "These shall be no vertical or architectural elements located above the entry that emphasize the scale and massing of the structure. No architectural features shall be allowed in the required set back,with the exception of an entry as defined in Seetion 9251.2.1 (and 9252.2.1), a gable roof not exceeding a maximum height of 14 feet and roof eaves." The key question for the ARB is, "Does the new home design at 821 San Vicente reflect the architectural character of the neighborhood and ,Association." The answer is no — simply because of the mass and scale of the entry. The entry design has always been the problem - not the home. The proposed entry extends in mass from the front of the home and has elements and a large window above the entry that creates a vertical look. A second question broadens the ARB's. It is, "1)6 the proposed entry revisions meet the new Text Amendment T.A 02 -004, which has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council." Again, the answer is no. The 2 -foot extension of the entry creates a more massive look and the proposed use of heavy, iron/glass doors with a large matching iron/glass window above creates an even greater vertical look. No home within the Association has heavy iron/glass doors and windows of this type — they are of a commercial nature and not in harmony with the home itself or any home within the Association The A" is also concerned procedurally, Allowing an owner to make non - approved changes to a home sets a precedent that forces City inspectors and staff to catch and evaluate such changes. Builders would be encouraged to make changes that the inspector would have to find and document. It creates a "catch me if you can" environment. Non - authorized changes also create more work for both the volunteer ARB and Association members, who have to fight installed conditions they consider not in harmony. By denying the appeal, the City Planning Commission and Council can discourage non- authorized changes and set a precedent (and message to builders) that non - authorized changes will not be tolerated.. The ARB and HOA for the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association respectfully request that the City Planning Commission reject the appeal and require the owner to build the home as originally approved. The key events (as best recalled) are as follows: Nov 2001 ARB Disapproves proposed plans. Reason — Entry scale not in harmony Nov 2001 Owner appeals ARB decision to Planning Commission Nov 28, 2001 Nov 28, 2001 Dec 2001 2002 Summer 2002 October 2002 October Planning Commission approves ARB- rejected plans (vote 3 -0) City of Arcadia (Donna Butler's letter of November 28, 2001) confirms approval and advises " Any Changes to the design would be subject to review and approval of the homeowner's association". ARB elects not to app! eat the Planning Commission decision. Construction begins City inspector advises ARB that "Changes" have been made without approval ARB representative (' department represents to the home. ARB RE Don Crenshaw. Base charges were minor a modifications, windo home size. ARB Repi were acceptable and c completion of the too met with the Planning liscuss non- approved changes rwards with owner's architec esentative believed that most changes include roof urge and slight increase in xtor that the minor changes nay continue — including the enlargement/extension of the a formal review by the AR13 and the adjacent homeowners. (At tn!s point no mention was made of the substitution of itonand glass doors and windows for those on the approved plan — even though the owner stated that they had been purchased in August.) The City inspector "Red Tagged" the entry only and allowed all remaining construction to continue as suggested and approved by the ARB. The next day (Friday), the Owner called the ARB representative and asked for an onsite meeting. The owner suggested the following week — rather than the weekend. The owned was very thoughtful and said that he did not want to interfere with Representative's weekend. Representative thought the meeting was,very important and agreed to meet with owner on the weekend and did. Representative met onsite with owner and reviewed changes. Representative advised owner that:the ARB approved continuance of all construction — except entry extension. Representative advised the owner that he could either construct the entry as approved by the Planning Commission -- or offer modifications for ARB review and approval. Owner attributes the entry porch extension to his architect,(Don Crenshaw), saying that the.entry door had to be moved forward so doors would not interfere with staircase and entry, closet.: However, the position of the entry doors was constructed by the owns exactly as shown in the plans.already approved by the Planning' Commission. Therefore no extension was apparently needed. Owner also said to the ARB representative that he wanted a bigger entry so he and his wife could sit under the entry in their wrought iron chairs. The weekend meeting was very cordial, although the owner was disappointed that the ARB would not immediately approve the 2 -foot extension. In the weeks that followed no, plans for modifications to the entry were submitted to the ARB by the owner -- nor did the owner request a formal meeting with the ARB or adjacent homeowners to discuss the issue. The ARB representative met with the owner at various times during this period. Construction continued on the entire home except the entry framing. The ARB Representative met with architect to determine cost to owner to bring back framing to location approved by the Planning Commission. Architect advised that the cost should be minor — possibly, about $1,500 + / -. When asked directly by the ARB Representative, the architect said that he did not recommend extension of the entry and was surprised that it was extended. The architect agreed thaf the position of the entry door was the same as the plans approved by the Planning; Commission. Architect said that the owner met with him almost daily on the project status and various changes. Architect also confirmed that the owner wanted the 2 -foot entry extension so that he and his wife could sit undenthe entry in their wrought iron chairs. 2002 October In late October construction stopped, and the ARB Representative called city to determine why construction on the modified roof had stopped. City advised that they halted installation of the roofing because the adjacent homeowners did not approve the roof modification - even though the ARB Representative had approved the roof modification and materials to expedite installation work before the winter. City advised that the adjacent homeowners must approve not only the roof changes but also each and every change to the home. ARB Representative requested a meeting with city attorney, Steve Deitsch and City staff to review all options to expedite the review process required by the City. 2002 Nov 5 ARB Representative met with city attorney (Mr. Dietsch) and Corky Nicholson to determine proper steps for review and approval of changes: Mr. Dietrich agreed that the adjacent homeowners must approve all changes before the City would allow construction. The attorney's ruling was confirmed in his letter dated November 5 to the ARB. 2002 Nov 7 ARB Representative wrote owner advising of city attorney's letter and requested . a copy of the original plans and revised plan marked to show all changes as now required by the city for review by the ARB and adjacent homeowners. The ARB Representative also asked each of the ARB board members for permission to use the City's "ShortForm" to help expedite the approval process — rather than a formal reviews that could last over 30 days. Purpose of using the Short Form was to again expedite the review process so construction could resume before the winter season. Permission to use the Short Form review by the ARB representative was given by each ARB board member. 2002 November ARB Representative received copies of the original plans approved by the Planning Commission' and also a copies of the revised plans which the owner had rnarked'to show all changes: TIowever, the ARB and'City felt that the marked plans were not clear enodgh for review by the adjacent homeowner and the ARB Owner met with'City (Corky Nicholson) to determine how the plans must be marked to clearly show the changes for the benefit of the ARB's review and the adjacent homeowner; 2002 November A few days later the ARB Representative received a "revised" set of plans marked to show'all of the changes made during construction. The revised plans " now showed the new "Iron Doors" with glass backing for the first time. During an interview with the ARB Representative at this time, the architect (Don Crenshaw) expressed surprise to the ARB Representative that the doors had actually been ordered and therefore he had not shown the doors on the marked plans initially submitted the toARB. 2002 Nov 29 The ARB Representative wrote each of the adjacent homeowners advising of a Dec 12* meeting to review and comment on the changes as required by the City. The letter included' attachments showing the changes and expressing ARB's concern with the entry expansion and new iron/glassdoors. 2002 Dee 12 A formal meeting with the owner,' his attorney '(Colin Greene) and many of the adjacent homeowners was held' on December 12 in accordance with the City's requirements. All adjacent homeowners that attended the meeting supported the architectural harmony, the ARB voted 4 to 0 to not approve the owner's 2 -foot extension of the entry porch nor the iron glass entry doors with matching side windows and the window above the entry. During this same time period it was teamed that construction was hafted again by the City inspector. According to the city, the problem was with numerous changes to the framing, which had nothing to do with the ARB. 2002 Dec 17 On or about December 17, the owner submitted a formal appeal of the ARB's rejection decision to the Planning Commission. ' The City reviewed the appeal submittals and ruled the submittals as incomplete. The City confirmed this rejection in a letter to the owner. 2003 Jan The owner in mid January submitted a revised appeal to the City. The City accepted the revised appeal and submittals. The hearing date for the appeal by the Planning Commission was set for February 25 at 7 PM The above summary covers only the key meeting and events from about September 2002 to February 2003. It does not cover every meeting between the Representative and the owner and his architect. The ARB file and correspondence on this matter is extensive. The time spent on this matter by the volunteer ARB far exceeds all reviews by the ARB in 2002. Had the owner followed the City's instmetions, this matter could have beer resolved far faster saving the City and the Association a significant amount and of time and trouble.' i It is important to note that not only did the ARB act proactively to keep this construction project moving forward expeditiously, but also never once did the ARB exceed its allocated time.for review. In fact, it has been consistently the applicant, not the ARB, who has drawn out the process — either by delaying his response or by responding only partially to the ARB'.s request for information or design changes. The Architectural Review Board and the Association Board asks that Planning Commission reject the owners appeal and require the owner to build the entry as previously approved by the Commission J a r3 ri 1 r f I I irk LLI x C'Zu o4. /O'wowc. /r M is* a !fb .. . ...... 7)ooe zj;o �—z 3 Y, Revised/proposed front doors and matching window areas �. . �.�.� V���...� Syr .. .... .. .� •�� .�.. •..�..�� ..��..�T� .. �...... � �. RECEWED Z yo MAR 18 2003 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK Pe: A-,0,13"r I aol 2-1 r a le4-� Aw 1/, e-,-..%, 7-c— P4 MfCi�, 0 : li.11fi.iM k If LASER IMAGED City of Arcadia Development Services Department Don Penman Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574 -5414 (626) 447 -3309 Fax February 26, 2003 Dr. Ibrahim Irawan 821 San Vicente Arcadia, Ca 91007 D PAR 1 8 2 003 Gerald A. Parkas Treasurer Arcadia. Subject: An appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of revisions to the design of the main dwelling's front entry at 821 San Vicente Road. Dear Dr. Irawan: The Planning Commission at its February 25, 2003 meeting, denied your appeal and upheld the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions to the previously approved architectural plans for your new home, which is currently being constructed at 821 San Vicente Road. The revisions specifically involve the as -built two -foot extension of the front entry, and the proposed installation of iron and glass front doors with a matching window area above the front entry. Staff is preparing an appropriate resolution that incorporates the Commission's decision and findings in support of their decision, which will be adopted at the Commission's next regular meeting on March 11 An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council may be made in writing by any interested party, accompanied by an appeal fee of $210, within five (5) working days after the adoption of the resolution (no later than Tuesday, March 18 If you have any questions, please contact me at (626) 574 -5423. DN ERV_IQ, MERTMENT Corkran W. Nicholson Planning Services Manager cc: Bill Spuck, President of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association Tony Henrich, ARB Chairperson FAX HID. : 52E4475271 Ha.r. 36 2003 09:59PPI P1 ARB File No. =_- ? r o1 !:w. Date Submitted ARCHiTECTUiu.L DESIGN REVIEW BO,` I) (CONIM.1'I "I'EE) FINDINGS AND ACTION q C. D. F. PROJECT ADDRESS: �Z;._ ..-� __Phonz. PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS IF DIFFERFNT:� -- ARCHITLCT ( V J CONTRACTOR ( ) 4�t. N ��`✓ Phone! -e s - PROPOSED PR( ?SECT (describe in detail) —e J,, (Only check those that apply and provide a wri ten explanation for each 1. The elements of the structure design ( ) :ARE, ( ) ARE NOT consistent with the existing buildings design because 2. The proposed construction raterials ( ) ARE, () ARE NOT compatible with the existing Materials because The proposed project O ISO IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because - 4. The proposed project ( ) IS ( ) IS NOT highly visible frorn adjoining properties because 5. The proposed project ( ) IS ( } IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because .. _ 6. The location of the proposed project ( ) WILL ( ) WILL NOT be acceptable to the use, enjoyment and value of the adjoining properties because 7. The proposed project's setbacks ( ) DO ( ) DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because! FFOM FAX N0. 7 6264476271 Mar. 062003 1 9:JOF_M__F2_ s. O'D [t 1' lNDiNO ACTT iN ( _AP('1t0� "r�L 1'1rN�C)It�JLt `:±t'f3.3liC "1' !'0 Tlit; FciT_L(_�1� "It���r CUNll1�f1UCr:�: ( OVAl SUBJECT TO TTlI? + CILLOW'1NC} C(3N S): �.•._�_��? - �5 i3y �� a: z _.., � � - r. 1 � . ��"* �--- ''y`-` • r ' r '� ,t ' G '"� ' � '"CL ?.. i i- �VPL P Cl ©r°- Irs� =.� 0c�? C v Cktl tt3J DENIM. - STAT SPECIFIC REASONS b'(YR,DEN AL: i b "T'"•rr^�la�` s�e_`.� G.u�Jl(5 _.w+ °:r te , w ._^."� .,,7,� —��L.� --.... F, DATE OF A B REVIEW BY CFiAIRNLAN () OR CUNIMITIEE ACTION , ?+�• o - tea_ G. BOARD (CONIMIT -I'EE) MEIviBER.S(S) PRESENT AT THE ARf3 MEETING AND R INDERJNG THE ABOVF DECISION: A tue'VA ` � tA�,✓:r�� -- II. MpRESLNT12 T14 RAN C'IIO SANTA ANITA RF,SIDENI ASSOCIA'IION- 1. APPEALS. Appeais horn the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made m the !l ' dia 4'lann -r Commission. Anyonc desiring to make such all appeal should contact the Planning f)epartinent to det r1nhle the requircnlenls, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing within Seven (7) working days of the Board's (Con decision and delivored to the Platuuna Departattent at 240 Nest liuntingtor. Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. J. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for the period of one (1) year fsori the data of applroval, any project for which plans have been approved b�, the [3oar� (Committee) has Ueen unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval Sha hecoire null and void . d ofro effect. DATE: 3 Z 3 .. PPJNT: TITLE: PHONE: \DDRESS: 4?)t_ t1• t1 � FAX: _ FRr I FHX t10. E2E447E271 Mar. 0E 20 10:01 P3 i2 2 it I Y 1✓ i 1 � s _ t s �.F 1 .. I(tt iif r 111 I ! r � t , 1 rr �.... :- <. •�. �.... .; t , �: .. ~ f Y v v Y i t f t qL 6 j pF if H J 1 1; r f� .. Al Y C{ 1 , 11 J Al 4 l.. i S �' - ., sYw�'fb^..*s'✓"'°�°'° .. d'.''sx+"�u, i t j C [ 1 f rj fir ffl } �V CJt 10, , l a 1 �1A t { ♦ 1/ 4i ° q I' � � f , I'� � I —••- t ; �.� I I 1 � �� l r i 71 lit d a ! 3 , � 1� � ` 1 � 1 — t k t� i i i i t � � i ' t F — . j t• �^.. .•+. �, + t � C �1 t S �g to ;`�� {�. 7° t S __. :! '' �� t s � t 4d = ' r Yt `t r Ij- ii 111 � 1J I rt EY 1111{ ; +j�` � � — '' ✓ �'.. e YY� S Al FRFll FAX 1 6264476271 Mar. 06 2002 10:02PM P4 ;Or 'IS a 921 777 0 1 PCO'd �;UPO'A Un i Z6 iq�TA u0s M iy Isugio uoa r W.'Fell aliql Ui - SIT 4 A�� Z - L3' E)S �W . o. �v rf.!Fio. f As f A - 1 4 Tri w O J I _ 14i on N A. t .02 I MD.- NOTICE OF 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 to the decision of the PLANNING COMMISSION should be approved, conditionally approved or denied. LOCATION: 821 San Vicente Road APPELLANT: Dr. Ibrahim Irawan (property owner) APPEAL: Appealing the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association denial of design revisions to the front entry on a new two -story home at 821 San Vicente Road. TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF City Council Chambers at Arcadia City Hall HEARING: 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007 The appeal file and proposed plans are available for review at City Hall in the Planning Services Office. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide 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 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 June 17th Public Hearing or by delivering written comments to Planning Services prior to 5:30 p.m. on the day of the Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter, please contact Corkran W. Nicholson in Planning Services at the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, or telephone him at (626) 574 -5422. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Public Hearing, please contact Planning Services at (626) 574 -5423 at lease three (3) working days before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to 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 op�Friday May 16th and 30th and June 13, 2003. J eeDD. Alford Arcadia City Ck Dated: May 1, 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL JUNE D. ALFORD, being first duly sworn, does hereby certify: That she is now and at all times herein mentioned was the duly elected and Acting City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, California, That on 1 st, day of May 20 , she caused a copy of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING on Appealin th Plann Commission's denial of an appeal of th Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association denial of design revisions to the front entry on a new two -story home at 821 S an Vicente Rd. to be placed in an envelope addressed to each of the persons shown on the attached list and is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States Post Office at Arcadia, California. THAT there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed; and that there is regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the place so addressed. EXECUTED AT THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIS 13th DAY OF May 20 I HEREBY CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. J�dfi D. Alfo City Clerk r Arcadia, California YOR TAKATA HARRIET ELDER GEORGE JUNG Slat SAN VICENTE ROAD 831 SAN VICENTE ROAD 531 N OLD RANCH ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 BARRYSCHUPBACK 605 N OLD RANCH ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 RUDOLF RODRIGUZZ 850 SAN VICENTE ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 ANGELA NIM 830 SAN VICENTE ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 LYNDA BECKSTROM 615 N OLD RANCH ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 TONY HENRICH 431 N ALTURA ROAD ARCADIA CA 91007 D-I.. Tsp,"i ► ! PA-w A-w / 921 4C,41kt- + r- O fu V 0 (!) 0 co N 0. ol. ■ s ro f V C Q fo W � O� V M N fu LZ 0 co i Q N c 00 + O N +--� U') O r- a- L a) Q oO 06- v � c C Ln cu Ca) L O cu Z3 () a fu Q W (n U a) fo V O V c fa < � Q U Q c c U) U 0 V) c 3 ro n a U O L Q w m a �L a) > c r� � a) � Z 1- U m 0 L 0 Recommendation Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Background Information and Issues regarding 821 San Vicente Background Information • Association Homes....... 800 Residences • Areas Served .............. Lower Rancho & College Streets • City Resolution............ No. 5287 (1986) What are the Issues? It is the entry -- It has always been the miry - Not in harmony. Too massive. Too vertical 1. I ., Not following the City rules -- Owner has not tdhiw `ed City rules -- Owner has avoided tlia mks -- Owner has delayed a" project, not ARB - Ow. appears m hiive iniC to mislead everyone -- from the "i-) of events • We recommend that the City Council follow the recommendations of the HOA, ARB, Staff and the Planning Commission and reject the appeal Key Resolution Guidelines • Promote quality of homes • Promote property values • Protect predominate character of homes • Assure buildings, structures and landscapes are harmonious Initial History -- 2001 2001 -- ARB mjeuted owners plans mainly due to the size & mass of entry. ARB bad worked with owner &. arohim A to bring enty into harmony with Association homes 2001 - Owner appeals ARB decision to Planning Commission. Commission approves plans. • 2001- ARBdme mtappeal Commission'sdecision • 2001 -City left" confirms plans approved but says that "Any changes require the approval of the HOP." 9 City letter approving home stated that Anv changes are subject to HOA review Formal Review — Nov 2002 • City requires plans marked to show changes • Owner submits poorly marked plans. Plans still show "wood doors & windows" • City rejects plans — requires more detail. • Owner resubmits plans -- I week later • Revised plans show "Iron -glass doors & window" -- purchased in August 2002. Typical 1 -Story & Entry History — 2002 • Aug Construction begins • Sept Owner immediatelv increases entry foundation 33% (2 feet) • Oct City stops job due to entry increase any many other changes • Oct ARB allows changes except entry • Nov City again stops job — determines that the changes requires "formal' ARB review Typical 2 -Story & Entry 2 San Vicente -- I Story San Vicente -- 2 Story Formal ARB Review -- Dec 02 • Formal ARB review held in Dec 2002 • ARB rejects -- entry expansion • ARB rejects — Iron -glass doors & windows Owner appeals to Planning Commission Commission Appeal — Feb 03 • Owner appeals ARB denial in Jan 03 • Appeal set for Feb 03 • City staff recommends denial of appeal Planning Commission denies appeal New Change — March 2003 After Planning Commission denies use of Iron -Glass doors & windows in Feb 2003, (Tarter asks ARB to approve a "Frosted Glass Window above entrv. ARB approves Frosted Glass Window • Owner installs frosted- window -- and then installs the Iron -glass window behind (the same window rejected by the Planning Commission) Recommendations • Support Planning Commission's decision • Support Staff recommendations • Deny appeal entirely • Require conformance with plans originally approved by Planning Commission • Require removal of the unauthorized Iron - Glass windows installed above entry Planning Commission Ruling • Build entry /home as previously submitted • Entry extension not approved • Iron -glass doors & windows not approved Any further changes still requires ARB approval Matching Iron- GlassWindows • Out of ha inorw with owners home • Out of harmony with neighborhood homes • Out of harmony with Association homes -- 800 • Increases apparent mass of entry • No Iron -Glass doors and windows in HOA We Thank You • Questions and Answers 4 6_ -7_0 i MEMORANDUM August 12, 2003 TO FROM: SUBJECT: HOA Architectural Design Review SUMMARY Don Pen, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator The following information addresses the City Council's recent action in June regarding denial of an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Homeowner Association's denial to allow ironwork design to be located on the interior of a window at 821 San Vicente Road. It is the Development Services Department's opinion that based on the authority established in the homeowner associations' resolutions, the Associations as well as any appealing authority (Planning Commission and /or City Council) should be reviewing only the exterior design of dwellings. DISCUSSION On June 17, 2003, the City Council upheld the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's denial of design revisions to the front entry on a new residence at 821 San Vicente Road. The architectural denial included the interior installation of an iron design on the window frame above the door. The City Attorney at said meeting noted that the iron design work located on the interior of the window was subject to design review, because it affected the external appearance of the structure. There are five homeowner associations within the City of Arcadia. The purpose of the Homeowner Association Architectural Review Boards is to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City and to protect the property values and architectural character of residential areas in LASER IMAGED August 12, 2003 Arcadia City Council Development Services Department 0, which have a homeowners association. Each association is governed by a resolution setting forth regulations applicable to properties within that association. In order that buildings and structures on'property within the associations will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, specific conditions are imposed and all properties in these areas are subject to the regulations set forth in the resolutions. Typically these conditions include: Floor Area Establishing a minimum floor area Front Yard In some association areas there are special front yard setback requirements that exceed the City's regulations. Side Yard In some association areas there are special front yard setback requirements that exceed the City's regulations. Animals Some of the associations restrict the types of animals that may be maintained on the property. Trees Some associations list specific types of trees that may not be removed without the association approval. Exterior Building Materials All associations have the same wording regarding exterior building materials which reads: "Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood." Exterior Building Appearance All associations have the same wording which reads: "The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood." Approval of Board Required "Approval of Board Required ", specifically states in each resolution that "The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building." While staff acknowledges that there is some room for interpretation regarding interior features visible from the street, based on staff's experience, fixtures such as shutters, ironwork and bars affixed to the inside of a window or window frame have never been part of a homeowner association's design review. The Development Services Department contacted the cities of San Marino and South Pasadena regarding their architectural design review procedures for single - family dwellings. Both cities indicated that they do not regulate anything 2 August 12, 2003 within the interior of a building, including anything attached to the inside of a window area, including but not limited to bars, shutters or wrought -iron type of design elements. Each city restricts their design review to the exterior of a building, not what can be seen from the exterior. RECOMMENDATIO The Development Services Department recommends that the authority of each association be limited to "external building materials" only as set forth in the text of the design resolutions. Approved by: I'�'"� `� William R. Kelly, City Manager 3 August 12, 2003 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPEAL OF HOA ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR 821 SAN VICENTE ROAD (12) LARGE BLUEPRINTS IN FOLDER (not scanned) LASER IMAGED _ ..� STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Keily, City Manager Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6357 authorizing a budget for fiscal year 2003 -04: Resolution No. 6358 outlinina a capital improvement and r equipment plan for fiscal years 2003 -04 through 2007 -08: and approving the existing investment policy Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY 's By Charter, the City Council must annually give notice and hold a public hearing for consideration of the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Program for the ensuing fiscal year, and consider Resolutions adopting an Operating Budget and Capital Plan. The recommended actions herein are necessary to implement the budget for the 2003- 2004 fiscal year. BACKGROUND Sections 1204 and 1205 of the Arcadia City Charter require a public notice and a public hearing for the consideration of the proposed Operating Budget and the five year Capital Program. Staff is recommending adoption of the fiscal year 2003 -2004 operating budget. The five -year capital improvement and equipment plan is also presented for approval. This document is not a budget, but rather a general financial plan for improvements and acquisitions, and the proposed means of financing them. a LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION The Budget for the fiscal year 2003 -2004 and the Capital Plan were distributed to the City Council on May 23, 2003. On June 3, 2003, a study session was held with the City Council to discuss the Budget, respond to questions, and receive input. During this study session, 1.50 additional positions were proposed to be included in the final budget (one full -time Police Records Technician and one part-time assistant for the Business License Officer) at a cost of approximately $58,000, which will be funded by additional revenue from parking control, traffic citations, and service fees. The Police Records Technician is needed due to the volume of activity and report handling in the Records Bureau surpassing the ability of the existing staff to process paperwork in a timely fashion. This results in the delay of report availability, in some cases for several weeks, and has caused mandated reports to the State and Federal Government to lag behind as much as two to three months. This additional position will allow for timelier processing, data entry of reports, and will help reduce the backlog of document and information processing. ._ The part -time assistant for the Business License Officer will enable the Business License Officer to perform necessary weekly field work to track businesses in the City that are operating without a license which could increase business license revenue. The position will also provide coverage when the Business License Officer is out of the office for training, vacation, sick, etc. Currently a Code Services Officer must provide the coverage removing him /her from their necessary daily fieldwork. Attachment "A" is a General Fund Department Summary. Attachment "B" summarizes the proposed five -year Capital Plan. Attachment "C" is the City of Arcadia's Statement of Investment Policy. There are no proposed changes. The City's independent auditors have requested formal action on the Investment Policy annually. Since the City has historically included it as part of the budget document, action at this time is recommended. In accordance with Section 65403 (c) of the Government Code, the Planning Commission reviewed the Plan on May 27, 2003 and determined that the proposed Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. 1 03L"A; I MI 932A] Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 6357, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, adopting a budget for fiscal year 2003 -2004 and appropriating the amounts specified therein as expenditures from the funds indicated. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 6358, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, adopting a Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan for the fiscal years 2003 -2004 through 2007 -2008, and finds that the Capital Improvement Program adoption is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code). 3. Adopt the existing Investment Policy. Approved: wo William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: Attachment "A" GENERALFUND DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 01.02 02.03 02 -03 03 -04 04 -05 Expenditure Actual Budget Estimated Budget Budget City Council City Manager City Clerk City Attorney General City Administrative Services Police Fire Public Works Services Development Services Recreation & Community Services Library & Museum Services Total 161,640 168,030 ' 161,700 162,120 172,450 567,543 745,220 701,960 726,120 776,520 201,098 230,710 236,890 233,990 250,050 262,611 300,430 299,550 303,880 309,230 727,975 883,938 941,510 782,185 655,595 1,783,635 1,946,318 - 1,929,000 1,757,350 1,851,360 9,359,243 10,240,511 9,519,820 10,707,530 11,840,290 7,464,118 8,086,817 7,982,340 8,251,695 9,212,635 3,653,281 3,734,980 3,745,340 3,767,490 3,990,740 1,808,001 2,147,845 2,142,770 1,973,975 2,095,040 1,264,169 1,539,379 1,530,610 1,598,580 1,682,420 2,004,315 2,136,122 2,143,130 2,259,380 2,386,900 29,257,629 32,160,300 31,334,6 32,524,295 35,223,230 Attachment `B" CITY OF ARCADIA SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2003 -04 THROUGH 2007 -08 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROPOSED NET TRANSFER ESTIMATED FUNDS FIVE -YEAR FIVE -YEAR BETWEEN FUNDS 7/1/2003 REVENUE EXPENDITURE FUNDS 7/1/2008 CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 4,120,000 19,459,780 (20,568,775) 3,011,005 GAS TAX FUND 1,180,000 5,864,000 (6,090,398) 953,602 SEWER FUND 1,667,000 4,176,000 (4,524,300) 1,318,700 PARKS & RECREATION (62,000) 1,308,982 1,236,162 10,820 FACILITIES FUND EQUIPMENT FUND 8,342,000 1,548,700 (4,838,800) 5,051,900 WATER FAC. RESERVE 7,400,000 20,675,000 (23,207,320) 4,867,680 WATER EQUIP.RESERVE 875,000 275,000 (708,986) 441,014 SYR CIPSUMM W 2003TMRU 2009 Attachment "C" CITY OF ARCADIA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FY 2003 - 2004 PURPOSE This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's Funds and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The ultimate goal is, to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its funds. OBJECTIVE The City's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expen- ditures and revenues, thus enabling the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City Treasurer attempts to obtain the.highest yield obtainable as long as investments meet the criteria established for.safety and liquidity. POLIC A. The City Treasurer operates the City's cash,drivestment under the prudent man rule." This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment opportunities as long as the invest- ment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the State of California and.other imposed legal restrictions. B. City investments may be made in, but not limited to, the following instruments: Certificates of Deposit purchased from banks or savings and loan institutions. - Banker Acceptance - Treasury Bill. and Notes - Government Agency Securities (e.g. Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National Mortgage Association, Federal Farm Credits) - Commercial Paper - Repurchase Agreements State Local Agency Investment Funds Passbook Savings Account `The prudent man rule states, in essence, that "in investing ... property for the benefit of another, a trustee shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then pre- vailing, which men of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs" 223 C. Criteria for selecting investments and the order of priority are: 1. Safety The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of principal, interest or a combination of these amounts. The City Treasurer only places City funds in those investments that are considered very safe. 2. Liquidity. This refers to the ability to "cash in" at any moment in time with a minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. Liquidity is an important investment quality especially when the need for unexpected funds occurs occasionally. 3. Yield. Yield is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide, and some- times is described as the rate of return. D. Safekeeping Securities purchased from broker /dealers shall be held in a third party safekeeping by the trust department of the bank or other designated third party trustee of the local agency, and shall be under the agency's name and control whenever possible. The treasurer shall render a monthly report to the Administrative Services Director, the City Manager and the City Council within two weeks following the end of the month covered by the report. The report shall provide the following information: A. Breakdown of portfolio by type of investment, showing dollar amount and percent of portfolio invested in each. B. Weighted average maturity and monthly weighted yield of the portfolio. C. Detailed listing of current holdings. 1. Shows book values, market value (with source of valuation) and par value as of the date of the report. 2. Shows coupon or discount rate, yield to maturity and total return. 3. Shows type, issuer, seller. 4. Shows purchase date and maturity date. D. Comparison of projected receipts, and expenditures for the next month and next six months demonstrating the adequacy of projected revenue and proceeds from maturing investments to meet expected expenditures. E. Treasurer's compliance statement. 224 QUALIFICATIONS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH SELL THE CITY INVESTMENTS The Treasurer will obtain information from qualified financial institutions to determine if the institution makes markets in securities appropriate to the City's needs and can assign qual- ified sales representatives. The Treasurer will recommend to the Administrative Services Director and City Manager three to six institutions for inclusion on the City's approved list. Investment accounts with all financial institutions will be standard non- discretionary accounts and may not be margin accounts. QUALIFICATIONS FOR SAFEKEEPING INSTITUTION The City will safekeep investments only with institutions that demonstrate financial sound- ness and are ranked AA or Aa by Standard and Poor's and Moody's. In addition, they shall be a trust company or state or national bank located within this state or with the Federal Reserve Bank or with any state or national bank located in any city designated as a reserve city by the Board of governors of the Federal Reserve System, INVESTMENT CONTROLS The Treasurer, (with review and direction by the Administrative Services Director) will implement and maintain a system of internal investment controls and segregated responsibilities of the investment function in order to assist in the prevention of fraud, theft, loss of principal, loss of control, and inaccurate reporting. POLICY REVIEW This policy shall be reviewed annually by the City Council, at a public meeting to ensure it meets the changing needs of the City, is consistent with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return and to ensure that the City's ongoing investment practices and procedures are consistent with the Policy. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY As assigned by the Director of Administrative Services, the Financial Services Manager/Treasurer is responsible for the investment of the City's idle cash subject to review and approval by the Administrative Services Director and City Manager. In his/her absence, or incapacity, the Administrative Services Director will assume the duties and responsibility, for investment of City funds. In his/her absence, or incapacity, the City Manager will assume the duties and responsibility, for investment of funds. The City Council's primary responsibilities over the investment function includes establishing investment policies, annually reviewing such policies,, reviewing monthly investment reports and authorizing any deviations from the City's Investment Policy. 225 PROHIBITED INVESTMENT State law not withstanding prohibited investments shall include zero coupon bonds, inverse floaters, collateralized mortgage obligations, interest only strips, reverse repurchase agreements, futures and options, and derivative securities. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES: A. An average amount of two week's warrants and one payroll to be maintained in immediately available investments, such as the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund or a similar liquid instrument. This may include commercial paper or repurchase agreements acquired through the City's bank. Weekly analysis of cash flow will serve as a basis for determining the maturity date of investments. B. Investment Transaction. Every investment transaction must be authorized, documented and reviewed by the City Treasurer. C. Pooled Cash. Whenever practical, the City's cash will be consolidated into one bank account and invested on a polled concept basis. Interest earnings will be allocated according to fund cash and investment balances. D. Competitive Bids. Purchase and sale of securities should be made on the basis of competitive offers and bids when practical. E. , LiguldiM The marketability (salability) of a security should be considered at the time of purchase, as the security may have to be sold at a later date to meet unanticipated cash demand. F. Long Term Maturities. Longer term maturities having a remaining term to maturity of four (4) to give (5) years will not represent a significant percentage of the total portfolio (60 %), as the principal risk involved can outweigh the potential for higher earnings. G. Diversification. The portfolio should consist of a mix of various types of securities, issuers and maturities. H. State Investment Limitations. Security purchases and holdings shall be maintained within statutory limits imposed by the state of California Government Code. Current limits are: Bankers Acceptance — 40 %, Section 53601 (f); Commercial Paper — 30 %, Section 53601 (g); and Negotiable Certificate of Deposit — 30 %, Section 53601 (h); Repurchase Agreement - the term shall be one year or less, Section 53601 (1); Medium Term Corporate Note — 30 %, Section 536010); Shares of Beneficial Interest — 15 %, Section 53601 (k) Mortgage Securities — 20 %, Section 53601 (n). 226 I. Arcadia Guidelines by Type of Investment In- addition to the general investment limitations imposed by the State, the following more specific, and in some cases more conservative, guidelines by type of investment, will be followed: 1. Certificate of Deposit. Cash will be invested only. in FDIC of FSLIC insured certificates, with institutions having a branch located within the City's boundaries. The City will not invest in any institution less the five years old. The institution must maintain a net worth asset ration of at least 3 %, and a positive earning record. 2. Bankers Acceptances, A banker Acceptance is a time draft which has been drawn on and accepted by a bank. It is considered more secure than a Certificate of Deposit but less secure than a Government Agency instrument. The City will only invest through the 15 largest banks in the United States or the 100 largest banks in the world (in terms of assets). The maximum investment with any one institution will not exceed $3 million. 3. Treasury Bills Notes and Bonds The City will require safekeeping documentation of the treasury instrument in an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name. 4. Government Agency Securities. The City will require physical delivery of these securities to an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name. Examples of these securities include Government National Mortgage Association, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Land Bank and Federal Farm Credit Banks. 5. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper is an unsecured loan made by the City to an institution. The City will require safekeeping documentation of the security in an acceptable safekeeping account in the Citys.name. Commercial paper will be used solely as'a short-term investment not to exceed 15 days. It is anticipated that this type of investment will be used only a few times during the year when other short- - term investments are not available. A rating of Standard and Poors A -1 or Moodys P -1 is required. The City will only invest in the largest 15 bands (in terms of total assets) in the United States. The investment in any one institution will not exceed $1,000,000. 227 6. Repurchase Agreements ( Repos). Repurchase Agreements are loans made by the City to financial institutions secured by collateral posted by the borrowing institution. The City will require physical delivery of the securities backing the repo or safekeeping documentation in an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name, depending on the type of security. Repos will be used solely as a short-term investment not to exceed 30 days. The institution from.which the City purchases a repo must transfer on an ongoing basis sufficient securities to compensate for changing market conditions and insure that adequate collateral is maintained in the City's safekeeping account to cover the principal invested. Repos will only be purchased through the 15 largest banks in the United States.The investment in any one institution will not exceed $1,000,000. 7. State Local Agency Investment Fund. LAIF is an investment fund established by the state of California to assist smaller cities in increasing their investment earnings. Cities deposit funds with the State Treasurer's office which are then pooled with the State's fund and invested. The investment with LAIF may not, by State regulation, exceed $40 million per agency. 8. Passbook Savings Accounts Savings account shall be maintained for accounts under $100,000 that are received too late in the day to invest in other instruments. � William R. Kelly City Manager City of Arcadia Tracy L. Hause Administrative Services Director City of Arcadia Gerald A. Parker City Treasurer /Financial Services Mgr. City of Arcadia 228 d C C C C IL W M W 91 O 0 O F W C 20 f OC C p at Q C a Z 0 OY 7m m Q ` C � c N F ag Oy m c 9 y C C C d LL m M O O IL O N O O O O O N O O O O O N O O O O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O M N O AO A 0 0 0 N - V O - O M- O NOV a m O M O m O O m A N O A N A V N V C O) W N N f� N V M V N O - N O O f0 taatpp m N GD O 1� (O CAD mN V O A N N aV CJ N N 6'- C` 6 N N O O O O O N p O O N O N O O O O N O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O a N N�OrN O p 00 O a NO o V ONM O TNm NN N O C v � OO -O N V w-- p N O r W-N O N OONN N N MN MA N O V N N N V O V m N M N N V v NOfN M N r r N � M N N m - N , M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M O N O N mm O O V N A O M O 0 0 0 OWN m 00 O N 0 m r r IA G i0 O OOOONOO N NY) NO N 00 Oo Ao00a Mµr V M t Lq M C O �!1 W NOO�ONO� O NA NN - Q N�N M A N V- -O V O itON WDD N Nw- V Omm A -N VVr M M"V - �O)W M CI � N M r �N� N� CpMO�MO t OWN N�NrO�NTa V CD r CD I-MrI�nO V N MN w N NN- W N AN m m m Y N C m 00000000000000000NOOO000000000000� c o coo O a0 � N V O O) O O m m N N O A t rN W N fQp pp SB r r r 0 0 0 0 M N O 0 0 0 n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S ro O O N O S o OnN�- S O mO O O Mt W r m (ON AN OMO ( 0 0 0 yA N o O N N- N O V N N A m M o W A V m N, N N N 0 0 0 � 0 w O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' N- V NN NCNC��OON MO M W Oi NO `0 -'6I� n AO i+] tAONM C C V m OaV m0`-' NV N AWmM V V- M �aD aD V a C 'y C LL IV p S U d C O N N Z O - E N d 2 d La v 0 T c v c Ti eb m a �N �O: °E 'O Ec t � yy �'�° 0 . `1 2 N y C y G d d � @ d Y V C N N U d H d J D O 7 7 t6 6 W 'J %@ N m T N� Tt Q N N C C C C N N a w c E m v y m d r O c m a d m w c v CO ( t E E E E ' LLN 3 �Cg W a c� d m m� ;a °"O w�O E' v a _o ° o_o o ° O cEL'a �- - a�uLLm j5 Ees «dEc gQa t v . > > d d d O d O >> p O v E d '� o '.3 - o W Q Q❑ d d m d d m 0'� d d d d CDZZ 0T2rn `�3mWWc7 0 F O O O N O (R V D O tp P% m T tp O ' Q O o o rn m v m f m .- of vi y N LL r W w W LL Z N W N W G FF5 Z 7 F m LL W Z N A T O l O N } W Z LL LL K Z O m 1 3 m m O LL W 0 4� Iq N O O N O CIL N oc N O O Cl O ui N II V d w Q W N Q O } p Q LL O Q 9L r o ? a ° d = W g 6 a O K W L) F o °o >' W n �V�op m .6 O L6 LL> O F W V pJ e a m { N o N N g N > LU m vi N U O W LL O t C a u U ° O ° o ° O N O $ o o Co O } IL R� N N ro < S r t Z f g °_ r v o r g H LL � N W O Z Z O > = L HQ 0 0 W } W Z LL LL K Z O U O LL 7 w Z U LL F- W Q ~ W Y U d w Q W Q Q LL O Q W K W Cl) w a 7 O LU H Q' r N 6 V K 1 3 S Q K 3 n h v b N H H .0 ctl al G ub ^x v x s m m a 4 C r O o A U P C ca N J.>1) .0 U U H c0 C •o U 4 O G co 8 o H • O H 4) u N u U U U G W G C u O n G PN 4) O u O O L pp W M O U •rl O •• H N rl •rl N • ,6 W bb x u H w o p o Iq n m rn m o 0 0 r w m H y of o5 o r O O 0 �l> 9. Q O O A M O OmD N N N H g Z �i i(l v M O W N 41 b � r ^ U W 4 IT y LL N N • co m q v ni U ai C U 0 C O N F W y W 4) N 7 1J y V P. W u rl W m >1 m H Z W .4 w C,GO H xbor- v W do +1 N 41 u •rl W m q. W ca cl H U 8 O N DO U 7 D P. •rl N m O w H r W O O N H O 3 x O +-I •.� C '-I W y r m m m m m U O U °• u H .O W co o a m ro r ro W �' z 0 u n N. N U P. W u w p y N o N N n _ r-1 W x p i- G -i W m o IL IL Z U H c W x b b C ro U J W K 1 Q LL N H ~ y� IL W Ca OU O 'd p O u H cd a 2 W 6 O U U F � oao 4 W .--4 P. c w >w I p a 5o p n W.O ad P O U u� O O O N O O O W W r-1 N ca 0 Uy >. F r O O m or o 0 H H n1 4) 1 a) A m ., 4 .. -H •r W K LL, y p ' w ' � voi � ci as 16 ui C W ca cn W 4 v c � r H O W h m N O_ W 0 N v .- — N 'I U O 0) p o f A O O .0 W V O W W rg c4 b H " rl - .a H C > 4) Cd 0 C ca 4) a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U LL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H W N m� u ,C O p H W O O h N N O G m E O u n m Q G Mo m A m 0 v ' O W f = v •- •- co r b P. 5 7 O 7 iz u W n co W G H .G 'd � u w y W C 0 N p U 7 F4 co x w W ^ P1 H u N b 'T ,> H f-I a) m m W A H q O H C O .0 H N H C P. F b a O W 41 O W' CW U W G LL K W 2U U QF Q? x u } z N W H C Y N 0 x O W K W LL a 6c~.) > > z wy .� LL M x F w U Q a Q w m a x y 7 LU G H H W m -H 'O T O F H W y () d W W W Q U y a W ti 6 3 S Q K 3 n h PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This 5 day of jUrkf 2003 M!L /Ll! �5 b CORE MEDIA GROUP, INC. Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly ` Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Independent 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2003 CITY DP ARCADbN CITY CLERK Proof of Publication of t = NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL _ NOTICE,IS HEREBY,GIVEN that,on Tuesday,'June 17,-2003 at 700 p m., in the Arcadia City hall Council Chambers, 240 W Huntington Dr.,-Arcadia; - California. a:PUBLIC HEARING will be -held by and before the City Council on the FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL: IMPROVEMENT. PROGRAM (CIP) 2003-2004 'THROUGH 2007-2008.' R• At saiditime,and place an opportunity will be afforded all those interested and the public in to be heard. Copies of the pmp' s"d budget shall be available for Inspection by the public in the office of the City Clerk, Monday through Thursday: from 7:30 a m::to I 5:30 p.m. and alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to:4:30 p.m., and at the City Library during the hours the Library is open,to, the, .public; at least len (10) days; -�pnor to the :hearing date. Below is a summary by fund of the proposed Five -Year Capital. Program (CIP).2003 -2004 through 2007 -2006 - g �, CITY.OFARCADIA� 'iSUMMARYOF PROPOSEDFIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMS • , ,,, = FISCAL-YEARS 2003.04 THROUGH 2007-08 - .. ESTIMATED ".:.,ESTMAlEO .,.:' ' •PROPOSED '+:. NET - TRANSFER ESTIMATED'" - .. FIVE . YEAR, FIVE -YEAR _ " -FUNDS BETWEEN.' . ' " FUNDS x .. TMID3r -.- REVENUE . EXPENDITURE -, - FUNDS 7M708 CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 4,120000 ° 19,459,780 : x 3011005• ,.- _ . `r. r. 000 5.864.000: 953 802 ;Y. GAS TAX FUND ,..1.1 :. - i SEWER FUND'•� - - 524,0) : . r 1;667,000, 4,176,000 - ` .,(4 30 r ,. 1 318,700 tv PARKS Ii RECREATION 's' " 1305.91 - 1236162 = ' FACILITIES FUND ° x- EQUIPMENT FUND r 8,342000 1548.700 146388001. ` 5051900" . WATER FAG RESERVE � + 7.400000 20 675,000 (23 207 320) t WATER EQUIP RESERVE "': 1175 000 275 000 i _ . ; (708 9861 t-t'' 441 0i4� •.TUNED ALFORD�' DATED: MAY :21 2003' f - '. - "�'" PUBLISH -' - JUNE 5 `2003' f i .ARrAn TA CTTV CT.F.RK - .. "r:: -" r' PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: Sine 51 �C)D5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This `J day of . )On-e 2003 X (&W-9 /YOI.OA- Signature G.ccd q 'A a CORE MEDIA GROUP, INC. Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Independent ` �✓ 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) oc1 Iwo !JUN 3 a 2013 CITY CF ARCADIA CI ,y CLc.RK Proof of Publication of ( y + NOTICE OF PUBLICHEARINGt ( - -- . „O., BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday: dune 17 2003 at 7.00 p in in the Arcadia Coy Hall Councl Chamber, 240 West Huntington Onve Arcadia Cal forma a '. _public hearing wol be held by,and before the City: Council In the PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL,YEAR 2003- 2004.r t 'y Al said lime and place an opportunity volt be afforded all those interested and- the public in general = to be heard - a ' 4A copy of the proposed budget shall be available for inspedion by the puElic in the Office of the City. Clark Monday Ihrough.Thursday from 7 30 a m Id 5 30 p m and �' i.' atternele Fridays from 7, 30 a.m_to 4 30 p m: and at the City Library during the Tours the library is open to the public. al least ten (10) days pnorto )lie dale ofsaidl'� hearing „ ... .,.:b , , y ;r Bebw is a summary by fund of.the proposed 2002 2003 butlget. 's✓ a 'ANNUAL BUDGET - .iJ ¢ ' SUMMARY BY FUND i4 ny 3 c -* i �Be9innin9 G t - t :.Ending . ,a », ,Fund Outside Transfer Total Appro. Transfer -r { ; Fund' .J' ° 1,Balance Sources _ de'' priatipns 1 out - Total ," Balaocei .Fund 4: OS -04 _ w4 iizure Fetlerai �.. ±1: `. ._. 1,310,000 _ r - x.76,000 _- -0 1. ,� 1, 3a6.000 - , 009.235 o.uw: 98.3401 a4;t4L.L5S -. 150].5)5:„ :. 1.]39630 878 riiure State ,' 1D F ,,.5,000 1 59 340 X103.340 102,540 ' - - ='pt,rr '. },102540 ;; .1800 - - - �' 4750 115,pDD ^'O :119.750 , � 1 c - •O t _ 8119750; oral 50.000, 2,015,000 ;0 2055000 4 2000,000 5'230, 2,009.230 -55770' nfomement Block Grant 26,600 _` 58.300 15,000 99,900 '' - 91.860 ..0. ; 84,840_ - 15,060, :hoofs Grant } p. 60.760 �' 30 60,760 60,760 .' 0. 60.760; -" ..0 :, npensation Liability - 2020.000. '-1:550,400 321,000 3891:400 . 1 413,025 1413,025. 2478375 fi Employee Retirement Fur < 2,222000 - ' 0 - 0 „_ ° ., - ' -0 :,2,222;000 „, 2,086,430 x;- 0 - �00- - I Life Insurance' - 309000 _ 1,282,000_ ''15000 '. ': ;- 0 142000 '. T, ,.. i� 900.310 531 ,535 - ,.,. .2,088430 .1.431,845 : ,2.222.000,” Emergency Reserve " -- 6,000,000 :: • 0 282.000 324.000 6.282.000 ' "' 0' 0; 0. - ' - - 324.000 - - Parks B Recreation ' " `•- ,- ' ^' 62600 ' (. 1 ., - 83.746•` 2 '. - '0 , • :.- ,. 746 221 " 210.926 - - p -, 210,926 62 82.00D_ - 1082 0 T rafOc Safety s '' - Y . _ '. 0' , ' 175,000 - „.D ' .175,000 ' ': 0 175,000: + 1]5,000'" -SObd Waste .; _ 413,000 294,000 •FO ;707000 °295055 '0 295055 411 - State Gas Tax 1. . 1,180,000 1,090,000 .'0 2.270.000, 667,420 544 d50° 1217870: 1058130' i 'Air Quality Management District 185,000 .'. 66,000 �0 251 150.260 `O 7150,260. =' 100740 - .' COmmunoy'Develapmant Block Granf -` 01' - ..498J030. 0 x98,030 498,010 =;'07 "� 498.030 - r`..- -pf - Transit '.. -- 2 - ' 0 - , '.1,574.035 - .1514,395 , „, 2,086,430 2 - 0 -, - Proposibon A..- •,.\' _ 1,282,000_ 860 ,000 '. ': ;- 0 142000 '. T, ,.. i� 900.310 531 ,535 - ,.,. .2,088430 .1.431,845 : ,0 >7f011550 Propovtion C -- :. ; n, .491,000 ,;_ 790,000 ' 0 1 281,000 = 979,7]0 a .. 9.730 - ^, 989.500 r TDA Article 36ikewaY : -, 0 72.000 , '0 072.000 72000 �p�0, 720001 ,'.291,5ppQ -10,+ Capital Outlay =: 4,120,000 1,964,780 x,700,000 6.784,780 jr. 3728605 + r 150000'x` 3 H 2906175 Facilit Replacement 2292.000 . 72,000 0 '. 2,364,000 0 0 0 2.364,000 ' :_Ughling Maintenance - - - (5,060) 371,955 -0 0 366,955 r 366,955 .,' 0 - 366.955 �.. .; 0 '- Parking Districts a - _ 145600 . D L 173,240 ` "19,600 - 1 960' 21.560' 151 680:., - ASSessmen(Dist nos �' ° p -' -,. 71,590 "' ' p - '0 ' ` -. 71:000 -._ - - - p Water Fund `` ' - Seger - 16,775;000,- 21.001,830 r 0 ?' 37776.830 - 21,657,070 ,5901, 0� ,7.1,590,, 21657,070.16,119,760.' Fun tl ° Equipment Service .1667 ,000 630,000 �752,3fi0 - '0 - 0 '2:497,000 1;254,590 �'D ;. " 0' 1254590' - 1242410. - Equipment Replacement - (331,000) "`8,342,000 - 421.360 '421,360 421360 0'. Tax lncrementi'- ' y 1,460,600 .�0 '. 9.802,600 1,111,900 1111900' 2223800 7578600; ,''Redevelopment ..,. :467,ODO , _, •0,�- ...3415,000:...'. ^Ot. J,415,00p' 3.415,000• " - 0. Ttetledelo I : ,1_ omen Project - - 8,423,' 000 1 275 • 1169,050 19,867,050 X1,136,930 ;'700,000 1.836,930 - ,. 8030120 ° ':' 1 Redevelopment LOwB Moderate Heu r Ratlevelopmenl Debt Service .4,130,000 "640,000 •'175,000.580,000 4,825.000,:x: 2,947;540 „� 0- 2,947540' L877;460” General Obligation Debt Service. -- - .'80,000 1,665,950 - '0.. 21385.950 - �. Fi 1.679 ,810 0 -- x '1,679,810 - 706140'? 300.000 ^:552,670 852670 552870 0 552870 "'•' 299800 . i. " T. Total 1 _ -t .63,888,9401" 71,091,431 .7,365,735 142,346,106 • 77,524878 7365735. 84890611' 57455495 " June D. Afford Coy Clerk Dated May 21 2003 - ... 1 , Publish. June 5 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 6357 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED THEREIN AS EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUNDS INDICATED WHEREAS, on the 23` of May, 2003, the City Manager submitted to the City Council a proposed budget entitled, "City of Arcadia Budget, fiscal years 2003 - 2005 ", a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, Section 1204 of the Arcadia City Charter requires notice and hearing for consideration of a proposed operating budget and its adoption by resolution; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned proposed Budget includes the budget for the ensuing fiscal year 2003 -2004; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed budget and a summary of the proposed budget were published on June 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, the duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the City Council on June 17, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 LASER IMAGED 31�111 SECTION 1. That certain "City of Arcadia Budget, fiscal years 2003- 2005 ", as on file in the office of the City Clerk, together with any approved amendments thereto, is hereby adopted, in pertinent part, as the official budget of the City of Arcadia for the fiscal year 2003 -2004 and the amounts specified therein as expenditures from the funds indicated are hereby appropriated for the purposes specified therein. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 17th ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 63 57 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None /S! JUNE D. ALFA City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 3 RESOLUTION NO. 6358 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 -2004 THROUGH 2007 -2008 WHEREAS, on the 23` day of May 2003, the City Manager submitted to the City Council a proposed plan entitled, "Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan; - fiscal years 2003 - 2008 ", a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, Section 1205 of the Arcadia City Charter requires notice and hearing for the consideration of a capital program and its adoption by resolution; M WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan was published on June 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, the duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the City Council on June 17, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That certain "Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan, fiscal years 2003 - 2008 ", as on file in the office of the City Clerk, together with any LASER IMAGED 1 3e approved amendments thereto, is hereby adopted, in pertinent part, for fiscal year 2003 -04. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6358 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None. •'_ {!` City Clerk of the City of Arcadia f�7 w '� ♦ 7 .= .F; 311 \ \ \£u*. ` STAFF REPORT June 17, 2003 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc or Tom Tait, Field Services Manager Prepared By: Maria Aquino, Management Analyst SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6353 APPROVING A WATER RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 P RECOMMENDATION: CONDUCT A PUBLIC H�RING AND ADOPT SUMMARY Based upon the Public Works Services Department's proposed 2003 -04 Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, and Updated Water Master Plan, it is recommended that the City Council consider a 3.92% rate adjustment to the water rate from $1.17 to $1.22 per 100 cubic feet. This proposed rate adjustment is predicated on annual operating budget, capital improvement projects outlined in the Water Master Plan and maintenance of a twenty million dollar fund reserve, which may be used in case of an emergency or catastrophic event that would affect the water system's infrastructure. After conducting the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6353, which sets the water rates beginning July 1, 2003, BACKGROUND At the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented a report on the proposed 3.92% water rate adjustment. The City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the adjusted water rate for consideration at the June 17, 2003 Council meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 6353 for the City Council's approval. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 It has been City Council's policy to have staff project future infrastructure and financial needs to operate and maintain a reliable water system. This policy allows the City to generate necessary funding through smaller rate adjustments on an annual basis as opposed to larger adjustments at less frequent intervals. The City's water system was re- evaluated during the preparation of its update to the Water Master Plan that was presented to the City Council in October 2001. The Water Master Plan update incorporates the results from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, in addition to making recommendations for other required improvements to the water system. The results of these improvements will ensure proper service during normal operation and adequate protection following a design -based earthquake and other natural disasters. Exhibit "A" is a graph showing the projected annual Capital Improvement Project and Operation and Maintenance costs for the next eight (8) years. DISCUSSION The proposed expenditures for the Water Operating Budget for 2003 -04 are $7,911,390. In preparation of this budget, staff has evaluated each account, and where possible, reduced operation and maintenance expenditures while maintaining the reliability of the water system, complying with water quality standards and retaining the existing level of service. The Operating Budget for 2003 -04 is $1,063,910, or 15.5% more than the current year's projected expenditures; this includes depreciation, which is a non -cash item. The primary reasons for the increase in the operating budget are due to increased Edison rates, lower pumping levels and the need to purchase a substantial amount of replacement water during the next year. Staff estimates that the City will need to purchase approximately 3,000 acre -feet from the Main San Gabriel Basin next year at a cost of approximately $750,000, a direct result of the current drought condition facing the San Gabriel Valley and the depletion of the City's water reserve in the Basin. Staff is exploring new and creative solutions to acquire and produce additional sources of potable water. Additionally, staff is looking at the feasibility of using reclaimed water to irrigate large green belts and median strips within the City. Staff is also looking at new ways to conserve water and aid customers in water conservation. The Water Master Plan, which was presented to the City Council in 2001, outlined a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) over a ten (10) year planning horizon. Annual capital expenditures outlined in Exhibit "A" will maintain the water system at the "Class V rating and improve seismic reliability in the event of an earthquake, as well as provide system improvements recommended in the Water Master Plan Update over the next eight (8) year period. Assuming no significant changes in the economy or major failures in the water system, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a 3.92% water rate adjustment, based on the Consumer Price Index from March 2002 to March 2003. Additionally, staff projects the need for annual cost of living rate adjustments for the next eight (8) fiscal years. Projected fund balances, as shown in Exhibit "A -2 ", include a 2% adjustment in rates to maintain the $20 million fund reserve. However, each year staff will re- evaluate the rate schedule and return to the City Council with an appropriate recommendation. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 Even with 2% annual adjustments, the average annual fund balance is $14 million. Annual proposed rate adjustments are predicated on the annual operating budget, completion of capital improvement projects outlined in the Water Master Plan, and the goal to maintain a reserve fund. The value of the City's water system is estimated at $200 million and industry standards recommend a ten (10) percent reserve to offset costs in the event of a natural disaster. Following the eight (8) year planning horizon, the Water Fund balance will be approximately $20.0 million, or ten (10) percent of the total value of the water system. Based on this information, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a 3.92% water rate adjustment. This would adjust the existing rate of $1.17 to $1.22 per 100 cubic feet (748 gallons). As a result, the adjustment would raise the average monthly water bill $1.43 per month or $17.16 per year. Federal funding has been secured for the projects recommended for fiscal year 2002 -03 only and is included in next year's revenue projections. Should Federal Funding become available in future years for other seismic system improvements, these funds will be included in future rate analysis to help reduce rate adjustments. Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D" are presented for the City Council's information. Exhibit "B" summarizes the 2003 -04 Operating, Equipment Replacement and Facilities Replacement budgets and ending Fund Balances for the next fiscal year. Exhibit "C" shows the total revenue that would be received, should the City Council approve staffs recommended rate adjustment for the next fiscal year and Exhibit "D" is a historical chart of water rate increases. WATER RATE SURVEY Staff conducted a survey of the water rates of nine (9) neighboring water agencies. This survey is a comparison, based upon 28.5 units of water (1 unit = 100 cubic feet), which is approximately the average monthly consumption of a residential customer in Arcadia. The results of this survey are shown on Exhibit "E ". As shown in the survey, Arcadia's new average monthly water bill would be $40.47 as compared to the current average bill of $39.04, a monthly increase of $1.43 or $17.16 per year. The average water bill for the nine (9) neighboring water agencies is $46.96. The rates shown in this exhibit are today's rates. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The water rate is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT If the proposed water rate were approved, the City would be able to maintain the goal of $20.0 million in the Water Fund at the end of the eight (8) year period. If the water rate is not approved, completion of proposed capital projects recommended in the approved Water Master Plan would have to be re- evaluated, or the Water Fund balance would be significantly lowered. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public comments. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 6353 setting City water rates and finding the rates will not exceed the estimated amount necessary to fund operation of the City Water System Approved by: 4 1 William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:dw Attachments: Exhibits A thru E Resolution 6353 } r I I� IY �d�-0iv to 1 I l 1 f T Y4 1 I f X' r Ft + +e 5 + , f @1 t + ,b e�>R�1tf I lr � i i 7 i n71 +t ° Y { , � + t .137.11 =7Y17 Public Works Services Department Annual Budget Water Fund 2003 -04 Beginning Fund Balance ESTIMATED REVENUE: Transfers In Grants (EPA) Maps and Publications Water Sales Service to Customers Meter Service Public Works Inspection Property Rental Miscellaneous Engineering Charges Interest Earnings Total Revenues 2003 -04 With 0% Rate Increase Equipment Facilities Divisions Reserve Reserve $8,500,000 $875,000 $7,400,000 $7,000,000 $3,533,750 $2,000 $9,000,000 $1,000 $100,000 $30,000 $10,080 $50,000 $175,000 $575,000 $50,000 $475,000 $13,476,830 $50,000 $7,475,000 ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE $21,976,830 $925,000 $14,875,000 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES: Capital Outlay Operating Costs Transfers Out Total Expenditures ENDING FUND BALANCE $245,360 $7,250,320 $7,161,390 $7,000,000 $14,161,390 $245,360 $7,250,320 $7,815,440 $679,640 $7,624,680 2003 -04 With 3.92% Rate Increase Equipment Facilities Divisions Reserve Reserve $8,500,000 $875,000 $7,400,000 $7,000,000 $3,533,750 $2,000 $9,344,124 $1,000 $100,000 $30,000 $10,080 $50,000 $175,000 $575,000 $50,000 $475,000 $13,820,954 $50,000 $7,475,000 $22,320,954 $925,000 $14,875,000 $245,360 $7,250,320 $7,161,390 $7,000,000 $14,161,390 $245,360 $7,250,320 $8,159,564 $679,640 $7,624,680 • Includes add back of depreciation which is a non cash item. U F m 2 X w N t0 d V C ca 0 N 07 M L_ d C d d L d O N O M O O N 41 Ln c LO d' M r 44 N 7 C d m w H is 0 0 0 0 v N M m N N L U Q W c C U co Cl) i N C N co W U) + r L N co 4? m Cl) Lei D H m_ 2 w N C d �o N M 7 O O Q N w LL C CD CD o m N M N no 60 1 0 v 0' cta Oo � 00, 6 6' 8 566! `m } m 6; y 6 6, LL � O6 6' 8 (9 8, 6 " O 8 N O 00 (D V N O ;uaoaad - rc r, Y' �a I - ? A A r: I ........... t , i 60 1 0 v 0' cta Oo � 00, 6 6' 8 566! `m } m 6; y 6 6, LL � O6 6' 8 (9 8, 6 " O 8 N O 00 (D V N O ;uaoaad EXHIBIT E Public Works Services Department Water Rate Survey May 2003 Comparison Based Upon 28.5 Units of Water Average % Above Monthly Current Water Bill Arcadia Rate San Gabriel Valley Water $58.56 19.52% (Serves portions of Arcadia, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Industry, La Puente, Irwindale, Monterey Park, Rosemead, West Covina, Whittier, Pico Rivera, South El Monte, Santa Fe Springs) City of Pasadena $58.43 19.39% Southern California Water Company $55.69 16.65% (Serves portions of Arcadia, Temple City, Duarte, Monrovia, San Gabriel Rosemead, North El Monte) California American Water /Duarte District $48.00 8.96% (Serves portions of Duarte, Monrovia, Irwindale) East Pasadena Water Company $46.56 7.52% (Serves portions of Arcadia, Pasadena, Temple City, San Gabriel) California American Water /San Marino District $42.22 3.18% (Serves portions of Pasadena, Rosemead, San Marino, San Gabriel, El Monte City of Arcadia Proposed Rate $40.47 1.43% City of Sierra Madre $39.62 0.58% NOTE: Rate doesn't include 40% increase effective 07/01/03 City of Arcadia's Current Rate $39.04 0.00% City of Monrovia $37.94 -1.11 % Sunny Slope Water Company $35.65 -3.39% (Serves portions of Arcadia, Temple City, San Gabriel, San Marino, Pasadena) "Proposed increase includes the CPI percent increase of 3.92 %, Resident fees will have an increase from $1.17 to $1.22 per HCF. • PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: J uo 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This 5 day of , 0fte .2003 �. //L -_I► ;y, v/i 0 C4_�v '} CORE MEDIA GROUP, INC. N Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly 7 (1163 Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Indepenilr t 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) RECE vL;,IUI; AN 3 0 N CITY AFCt.()l\ Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE -- ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL- - �. NOTICE IS HEREBY: given, . that on June 17, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the Arcadia City Council Cham- bers, 240 Wait Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, the City Coun cll will,hoid a public hearing to con ,sldera resolution setting water rates , and finding the rates will not exgeed i the estimated amount necessary to ;fund the long -term opeiation of the { City's water system. Persons chat- j flanging any,action taken after the i I public hearing may beJlmited to rats - ;Ing only those. matters raised by ( them or others at the public Bearing. t ( -- In compllarme with the Amen - I;cans with Disabilities Act, If you need :I j special assistance to participate. in' i a City Council meeting, please con - j fact the Clry Clerk's office at (626) 574= 5455,at least three (3). mrking days before t he meeting or,tlme -, � when special services are needed. This notlficatlon will help. City stafij In making reasonable arrangementsl to provide you with access to meeting. Forfdriher Information, con tact the City of Arcadia Public Works' Services Department at (626) 305-! 1.1386 Monday through Friday be -; tween the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 15:00 p.m:'- 'r f;,, /s/ Pat Malloy . Public' Works .Services 'Director - Dated: .May 6; 2003 - Publish: June 5, 2003 ArcaAia.Weekly_ -. RESOLUTION NO. 6353 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CITY WATER RATES AND FINDING THE RATES WILL NOT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT NECESSARY TO FUND OPERATION OF THE CITY WATER SYSTEM WHEREAS, pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 7531.1, water rates may be set and modified by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to maintain flexibility so as to best meet the needs of the City and water consumers; and WHEREAS, proposed water rate changes were presented to the City Council at the June 3, 2003 and June 17, 2003 regularly scheduled meetings; Mrs WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing concerning said rate changes was conducted by the City Council on June 17, 2003, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RATES INSIDE THE CITY. The following rates are established for the provision, delivery, and consumption of water for beneficial use inside the City during each bimonthly period: LASER IMAGED �f c SIZE OF MINIMUM BIMONTHLY METER SERVICE CHARGE 5/8" $ 10.12 3/4" 11.39 1" 12.65 1 -1/2" 18.98 2'° 26.57 3" 46.81 4" 69.58 6" 132.83 8" 208.73 All water consumption shall be charged at the rate of one dollar and twenty-two cents ($1.22) per full one hundred (100) cubic feet registered on the consumer's meter. SECTION 2. RATES OUTSIDE CITY. The bimonthly rates for metered services and for all other purposes for which no other rate is specified for water put to or made available for beneficial use outside the City and served or to be served through a meter, shall be as follows: SIZE OF METER 5/8" 3/4" 1 " 1 -1/2" 2 " 3 " 4 " 6 " 8 " MINIMUM BIMONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE 15.18 17.08 18.98 28.46 39.85 70.21 104.36 199.24 313.09 91 All water consumption is to be charged at the rate of one dollar and eighty-two cents ($1.82) per full one hundred (100) cubic feet registered on the consumer's meter SECTION 3. FIRE HYDRANT SERVICE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PRIVATE USE. Fire hydrant meters and operating valves shall be subject to the following charges: Meter Installation $50.00 Meter Relocation $25.00 Meter Rental $40.00 /month Eddy Valve Rental $25.00 /month Hydrant Rental $15.00 /month Hydrant Permit $25.00 Water Usage* $1.64/100 cu. ft. *Applies only to metered water use. Unmetered water use will be charged at a flat rate determined by the Water Section of the Public Works Services Department based upon type of use. SECTION 4. FIRE LINE SERVICE (NO CHARGE FOR WATER USE.) The following rates are established for bimonthly charges for fire protection services: 3 SIZE OF MINIMUM BIMONTHLY METER SERVICE CHARGE 2" $ 10.12 4" 20.24 6" 30.36 8" 40.48 10" 50.60 SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the rates specified in this Resolution will not produce an amount in excess of that necessary to fund the operation of the City of Arcadia Water System. The City Council further finds that this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14 Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. SECTION 6. All rates set forth in this Resolution shall be reflected on all water bills issued after July 1, 2003. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 4 Passed approved and adopted this lath of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHMG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: ISI JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6353 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 2 ARCAD J *OOR "ORAT% ,eon STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc or Prepared by: Tom Tait, Field Services Manager Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6355 ADJUSTING SEWER RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 RECOMMENDATION: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT SUMMARY Based upon the proposed 2003 -04 Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and the Sewer Master Plan, it is recommended that the City Council consider adjusting the sewer rate by 3.92 percent from $2.55 to $2.65 a month for residential property and from $7.64 to $7.94 a month for each connection on commercial property. This proposed rate adjustment is based on the March 2002 to March 2003 Consumer Price Index. After conducting the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6355, which sets the sewer rates beginning July 1, 2003. BACKGROUND At the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented a report on the proposed 3.92% sewer rate adjustment. The City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the adjusted sewer rate for consideration at the June 17, 2003 Council meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 6355 for the City Council's approval. In February 1998, the Sewer Master Plan, a comprehensive report outlining a long - range program of capital improvements and preventative maintenance measures to upgrade and maintain the City's sewer system, was presented to the City Council. The Sewer Master Plan was formally approved by the City Council on May 5, 1998. At that time, Ordinance No. 2086 was adopted amending various sections of Chapter 6, Article Il, of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to the Sewer Service Charge. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 2122, amended, Chapter 6, Article It on July 18, 2000. The sewer rate structure, approved as part of the Sewer Master Plan, provides for annual review and cost of living rate adjustments if necessary. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION Sewer rates were last increased July 1, 2002. The proposed expenditures for the Sewer Operating Budget for 2003 -04 are $416,500. In preparation of this budget, staff evaluated each account and where possible, reduced operation and maintenance expenditures while maintaining the reliability of the sewer system. In order to fund the annual Sewer Operating Budget, the Capital Improvement Program and future projects as outlined in the Sewer Master Plan, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a 3.92 percent sewer rate adjustment based upon the March Consumer Price Index (CPI). This would increase sewer rates from the existing $2.55 to $2.65 a month for residential property and from $7.64 to $7.94 a month for each commercial connection. The long -range Sewer Master Plan proposes over $3.8 million (in 1997 dollars) for future capital improvement projects. The 1997 Sewer Master Plan has outlined a Capital Improvement Program that establishes a Fund Balance of $5 million, predicated on CPI increases and no changes in the CIP plan over a 20 -year period. This equates to 5 percent of the City's $100 million sewer system for future operations and replacement costs. Exhibit A shows the 2003 -04 Sewer Fund Budget with and without the cost of living rate adjustment. The proposed Capital Improvement Program for the next two (2) years will result in capital expenditures of $810,250 in 2003 -04 and $1,092,500 in 2004 -05. The 2003 -04 Capital Improvement Program includes an update of the Sewer Master Plan to reaffirm the 1997 Sewer Master Plan's proposed capital improvement projects and budget outline. As can be seen in Exhibit B, even with a 3.92 CPI increase for fiscal year 2003/04, and a subsequent CPI increase of 2% each year for the following four (4) fiscal years, the sewer fund balance still falls quite short of the anticipated $5 million benchmark. Staff conducted a survey of sewer rates for ten neighboring cities (Exhibit C). The survey shows that even considering the proposed sewer rate adjustments, Arcadia's sewer rates are among the lowest in Los Angeles County. Storm water programs, better known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), have been transferred from the Sewer Budget to a General Fund account for the 2003/04 fiscal year. This change was subsequent to the Salinas case, where the City of Salinas, California had created a Storm Water Management Utility fee to pay for stormwater treatment and controls. This fee was challenged, and found unconstitutional based upon Proposition 218, which stipulates voter requirements for such fees, excluding only water, sewer and refuse efforts. For this reason, NPDES has been re- budgeted to a Street Sweeping Budget in the General Fund. Currently, the City has sent a letter of support to Assembly Member Tom Harmon, for Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 (ACA 10), which would allow for storm water to be exempt along with water, sewer and refuse (Exhibit D). Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Sewer rates are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the proposed rate adjustment will allow the City to continue operating as outlined in the Sewer Master Plan. Should the City Council decide not to approve the proposed rate adjustment, staff estimates that this will negatively impact the Sewer Fund Balance $28,420 for FY 2003104 alone. These dollars will be set aside for future capital improvement projects. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public comments. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 6355 authorizing the proposed sewer rate adjustment for fiscal year 2003 -04. Approved: t--� William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:ST:dw Attachments Annual Budget Sewer System Service Fund FY 2003 -04 Beginning Fund Balance With 3.92% Without Rate Rate Adjustment Adjustment 1,667,000 1,667,000 Estimated Revenue: Public Works Inspection Fee Sewer System Charge Industrial Waste Fee Interest Earnings Total Revenues 0 0 725,000 753,420 15,000 15,000 90,000 90,000 830,000 858,420 Estimated Funds Available 2,497,000 2,525,420 Proposed Expenditures: Operating Costs Capital Projects Equipment Purchases Total Expenditures 416,500 416,500 810,250 810,250 27,840 27,840 1,254,590 1,254,590 Ending Fund Balance 1,242,410 1,270,830 Exhibit A ti N C O V d �O CL w V C A m m a c W L d Q� 0 m O O = N X O LU O N tl- O O N O O N 0 a N LO O O N N O O N V O O N O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 ( N O W 0 (0 O V N EA ffl ffl 69 to H3 (H 64 EA Public Works Services Department Sewer Rate Survey - Monthly May 2003 1 Unit (water) = HCF HCF = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons SF = Square Foot/Feet (of floor space) EXHIBIT "C" Resitlential Rate Cornpanson Based Upor 28 5 Uriits oft r Nlohttl W.ater..Usa a Duarte (LA County San. Dist.) $7.17 Price cap is $86.00 per year Glendora (LA County San. Dist.) $7.17 Price cap is $86.00 per year Temple City (LA County San. Dist.) $7.17 Price cap is $86.00 per year Sierra Madre $5.00 Pasadena $4.56 Whittier $3.34 Price cap is $40.00 per year Alhambra $3.14 Arcadia Proposed Rate $2.65 Arcadia Current Rate $2.55 Monrovia $2.01 West Covina $1.83 El Monte $0.00 Commercial Rate Measurement methods vary between cities - Rahked hiq tiest to Iowest:witliin each =method° ? West Covina $1.83/ 667 SF of floor space Glendora $2.72/ 1000 SF of floor space (LA County San. Dist.) Duarte $2.63/ 1000 SF of floor space (LA County San. Dist.) Temple City $2.63/ 1000 SF of floor space (LA County San. Dist.) Sierra Madre $20.00/ each 1st -5th connections- plus $2.50 each additional Arcadia Proposed Rate $7.94 1month per connection Arcadia Current Rate $7.64 /month per connection Monrovia $4.02 / first connection- plus $2.92 each additional Whittier $0.20/ HCFof water usage Pasadena $0.16/ HCF of water usage Alhambra $0.16/ HCF of water usage El Monte No Charge 1 Unit (water) = HCF HCF = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons SF = Square Foot/Feet (of floor space) EXHIBIT "C" May 6, 2003 ail A. mushau Tayor anuar0 - Apri! 2003 h. Sheng Chang dayor Ipril - July 2003 I ary A. ICovacic Mayor my - October 2003 ohn Wuo uayor 7ct0ber -January 2004 vlickey Segal ?viavor 7'anuary -Apra 2004 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Assembly Member Tom Harman State Capitol, Room 5158 Sacramento CA 95814 RE: ACA 10 (Harman). Storm Water Fees. NOTICE OF SUPPORT Dear Assembly Member Harman: On behalf of the City of Arcadia, I am pleased to inform you that our City supports ACA 10. This legislation would allow NPDES perrnittees to gain revenue for the prevention, treatment, disposal and reuse of storm water and urban runoff the same way, we do for other essential public services. Proposition 218 language is quite clear, providing for the exemption of sewer, refuse and water rates from the public voting process. The addition of stormwater management would ensure fair and equitable fee based assessments to . property owners (industrial, commercial and residential), based upon property size and land -use. As a co- permittee of the Los Angeles County NPDES permit, we truly realize the enormous responsibility we have to contribute to the compliance of all mandates. An established income from storm water. fees, would further enable our City to find solutions through education, best management practices (BMPs), structural controls, etc. Thank you for introducing ACA 10. Sincerely, Sheng ang Mayor c: Coalition for Practical Regulation Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer, City of Arcadia EXHIBIT D • PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 0 CORE MEDIA ('_ROUP, INC. PLUS Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Independent 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 6/) ?lo (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) RECErt%OD I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: �od3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This 5 day of `I l ),A-e .2003 `" if m M4G9 JUN 3 3 20 CITY OF ARCA.DIA Proof of Publication of I NOTICE IS HEREBY given, that on June 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.`; In the.Arcadla City COUncll Cham- i bars; 240 West Huntington Drive, 1 ' Arcadia. California, the City Coun -; 7 cil will hold a public hearing to con- Sider a resolution sexing sower rates 1 i and finding the rates will not exceed j 1 the estimated amount necessary to! fund the long -term operation of the City's sewer system. Persons chat - lenging:sny action taken after the Public hearing may be limited to rais- } ing only those matters raised by them or others at the public hearing. In compliance with the Ameri cans with Disabilities Act, if you need i special assistance, to- participate in .I a City Council meeting, please con- fact the City Clerk's office at (626) 574 -5455 at least thme'(3) working I -days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff In making reasonable arrangements 10 Provide you with access.to the meeting. '. . For further IMonnatioq.con =' tact the City of Arcadia Public Works c Services Department at (626) 305 - 1386 Monday through,Friday be- .' tween the hours of 6:45 a.m. and. .5:00 p.m. -- /s/ Pat Malloy - Public Works Services'Diredor Dated: May 8, 2003: I Publish: June $ 2003. I Arcadia Weeklyr ' RESOLUTION NO. 6355 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CITY SEWER RATES AND FINDING THE RATES WILL NOT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT NECESSARY TO FUND OPERATION OF THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM WHEREAS, pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal. Code, sewer rates may be set and modified by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to set sewer rates in a reasonable amount and so as to meet the capital improvement and service needs of the City and its sewer service consumers; and WHEREAS, proposed sewer rate changes were presented to the City Council at its June 3, 2003 and June 17, 2003 regularly scheduled meetings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning said rate changes was conducted by the City Council on June 17, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RATES. The following new sewer rates are established and shall supercede rates heretofore adopted for the following categories of sewer service: $2.65 a month for connected residential property $7.94 a month for connected business property 1 LASER IMAGED 09 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the rates specified in this Resolution will not produce an amount in excess of that necessary to fund the operation of the City of Arcadia Sewer System. SECTION 3. All rates set forth in this Resolution shall be reflected on all sewer bills issued on and after July 1, 2003. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution and the establishment of the sewer rates set forth herein are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14 Section, 15273 of the California Administrative Code. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: IV JUNE D. WOW City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: A &G p 44 City Attorney E STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6355 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 3 Public Works Services Department June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc to r Prepared by: Susannah Turney, Environment I Se ices Officer Toyasha Black, Management Aide SUBJECT: PURSUANT TO SECTION 5120.7 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT SUMMARY In accordance with the Residential Refuse and Recycling Agreement Between the City of Arcadia and Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc., Waste Management has requested that the City Council adjust the service rates for residential refuse /recycling collection to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period of March 2002 to March 2003. The impact of this adjustment on a typical single - family household with a standard 90- gallon collection service will be a CPI adjustment of 3.05 percent or .37 cents, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $13.58, up from the previous amount of $13.21. Standard bin service rates (3 -yard bin picked up once per week) for multi - family residences will also be adjusted by 3.05 percent (CPI) or $2.41 a month, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $81.55, up from the previous amount of $79.14. In addition, the Los Angeles Sanitation District indicated they would increase solid waste disposal rates in November 2003. Therefore, for the purposes of appropriately calculating rate adjustments effective July 1, 2003, staff is requesting to return to the City Council in November 2003 to review Waste Management's request for a landfill disposal adjustment. Waste Management proposes to provide a convenient and safe way for residents to dispose of biohazardous "Sharps" waste, i.e.- needles, syringes, and other contaminated sharp objects. A more responsible way to dispose of these wastes - to avoid their placement to landfills or worse yet, their handling by line workers at Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF). LASER IMAGED Ile Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive public comments and adopt Resolution No. 6354 setting the service rates beginning July 1, 2003 for the collection of residential refuse and recyclables pursuant to Section 5120.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, BACKGROUND At the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented a report on the proposed refuse rate adjustment of 3.05% based upon 78- percent of the last March to March CPI of 3.92 %. The City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the adjusted refuse rates for consideration at the June 17, 2003 City Council meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 6354 for the City Council's approval. On August 17, 1999, the City Council approved the transfer of the City of Arcadia's Residential Refuse /Recycling Service Agreement with NEWCO Waste Systems, Inc., to Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc. The Agreement contains specific provisions that entitle Waste Management to receive annual rate adjustments, subject to staff review and the City Council's approval. The adjustments are calculated using two (2) categories — changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and changes in landfill disposal costs. The contract provides specific formulas to calculate annual rate adjustments including a weighting factor to determine the impact of each category. During the past year, Waste Management has performed the services set forth in the terms of the Residential Refuse and Recycling Agreement. Along with standard residential refuse collection, they also provide a full range of residential recycling activities. These activities include: • Commingled curbside recycling • Greenwaste recycling • Free Backyard Service for Residents with a Physical Hardship • Holiday tree recycling Additionally, Waste Management provides, 64- gallon greenwaste and refuse containers for residents who are senior citizens or have a physical hardship (i.e., disabled or container will not fit through gate). Last year, 40 residents participated in the free backyard service for residents with a physical hardship. More recently, the City of Arcadia and Waste Management have implemented additional residential programs that will help the City reduce the amount of waste being sent to local landfills. These programs include fully automated greenwaste collection for single - family homes and a refuse -to- energy program for multi - family units. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 DISCUSSION Waste Management's request for this year's refuse service rate adjustment was received by the City Manager's Office on May 1, 2003, per the terms of the Agreement. Rate increases are based on changes in the CPI and disposal fees. The actual March - to -March change in the CPI is 3.92 percent. However, Waste Management's request was calculated per the formula provided in the Agreement (see Table 1). The CPI changes were measured from March 2002 to March 2003 and are specific to the Los Angeles- Riverside - Orange County statistical area in accordance with the Agreement. The impact of this adjustment on a typical single - family household with a standard 90- gallon collection service will be a CPI adjustment of 3.05 percent or .37 cents, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $13.58, up from the previous amount of $13.21. Standard bin service rates (3 -yard bin picked -up once per week) for multi - family residences will also be adjusted by 3.05 percent (CPI) or $2.41 a month, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $81.55, up from the previous amount of $79.14. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts have indicated they would increase solid waste disposal rates effective November 2003. This rate adjustment is a result of a desire to make the operation of the Puente Hills landfill more efficient. The proposed landfill disposal increase is $2.75 (from $18.05 to $20.80), pending District Board approval in November 2003. Because this number may change, staff is requesting to return to the City Council in November 2003 to review Waste Management's request for the anticipated landfill disposal adjustment. Table I Rate Adjustment Formula Category Change Weight Final Factor Total Consumer Price Index *Landfill Disposal Costs 3.92% 78% 3.05% $2.75 22% $0.60 ( *Staff will return November 2003 to present the landfill disposal cost adjustment) Based on the change in the CPI, and the formula provided in the Agreement, the total adjustment that is being requested by Waste Management is a 3.05 percent CPI for standard single - family collection services and multi - family collection services. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 4 Staff has worked with Waste Management representatives and has thoroughly reviewed and verified all rate adjustment data. Staff has found the CPI rate calculation, resulting in a 3.05 percent increase for Waste Management, to be in compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Based on the contractors' service record and continuing satisfactory performance, staff is in concurrence with Waste Management's request for rate adjustments as provided for in the Agreement. As an additional service, Waste Management is proposing to provide a convenient and safe way for residents to dispose of "Sharps" biohazardous waste, i.e.- needles, syringes, and other contaminated sharp objects. This simple program would enable Arcadia residents to call Waste Management to order the service, choosing either a 1- Quart or a 1- Gallon size receptacle. Each container would come with a full set of instructions and return box for mailing. Once the "Sharps" container is filled, the resident would then securely package according to the directions, and hand to their postal carrier, who then delivers to the appropriate location. The cost for this program is on a per -order basis, and would be $28.50 and $37.28 (postage included) for the 1- Quart and 1- Gallon sizes respectively (Exhibit "C "). Additionally, Waste Management and Staff will be partnering over the next year to look into the feasibility of instituting the following programs: • Electronic waste (E- waste) — curbside program for residents, adding an additional service for disposal of computers, televisions, etc. that are restricted from disposal at regular class III landfills. • Household hazardous waste — Waste Management, at staff's request, is proposing door -to -door pick -up of residential hazardous waste, i.e., pesticides, latex paints, fluorescent tubes, automotive fluids, batteries, etc. • Greenwaste bin service contamination fees — establish fees for residents who contaminate their greenwaste bin with unapproved materials. • Illegal hauler fees — A program to implement fees and raise revenue from unauthorized refuse collection of non - permitted haulers. This program would also act as a deterrent for illegal haulers in the City and will help document actual refuse charged to the City's diversion program. • Customer billing — Staff, with the assistance of Waste Management, is considering the possibility of combining residential water and refuse bills. This program should raise additional revenue for the Solid Waste Fund & decreasing refuse bill abandonment, while giving the City control over billing changes. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 5 Waste Management has been able to provide refuse collection and recycling services to its residents while keeping rates among the lowest in Los Angeles County. In May 2003, a rate survey (see Exhibit "B ") was conducted, indicating the City of Arcadia's refuse rates are among the lowest in Los Angeles County even with the proposed rate adjustments. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive public comments and adopt Resolution No. 6354 setting the service rates for the collection of residential refuse and recyclables pursuant to Section 5120.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Refuse rates are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. FISCAL IMPACT Residential refuse and recycling collection service rates are a fee - for - service that is paid directly to the contractor by the residential customer. The proposed rates will not impact the City's budget. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a Public Hearing and receive any public comments. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 6354 setting the service rates for the collection of residential refuse and recyclables. Approved: WA William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:ST:TB:dw Attachments 2003 CPI ADJ. ( +3.05 %) EXHIBIT "A" 2003 LANDFILL 0 CITY OF ARCADIA FEE ADJUSTMENT SINGLE AND MULTI - FAMILY TOTAL ADJ. ( +3.05 %) RATE SCHEDULE Number of Bins STAB RATE and size NUMBER OF PICK -UPS PER -WEEK IMMEMINISM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - 1.5 Yard $58.09 $116.18 $174.28 $232.38 $290.47 $348.56 2 - 1.5 yard $105.62 $211.24 $316.86 $422.47 $528.10 $633.72 3 - 1.5 yard $158.43 $316.87 $475.30 $633.74 $792.17 $950.61 4 - 1.5 yard $211.25 $422.51 $633.75 $845.00 $1,056.26 $1,267.51 5- 1.5yard $264.06 $528.13 $792.20 $1,056.27 $1,320.33 $1,584.40 1 - 3 yard $69.21 $128.51 $207.63 $276.83 $346.05 $415.26 2 - 3 yard $12157 $257.05 $370.71 $494.27 $617.84 $741.41 3 - 3 yard $177.97 $385.56 $533.88 $711.84 $889.80 $1,067.76 4 -3yard $232.34 $514.08 $695.99 $929.32 $1,161.65 $1,393.98 5 -3 yard $286.72 $642.60 $860.14 $1,146.84 $1,433.56 $1,720.26 1 - 6 yard $129.70 $259.41 $389.11 $518.81 $648.52 $778.22 Number of Bins DISMOUNT RATE and Size NUMBER OF PICK -UPS PER WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - 1.5 yard $65.49 $131.00 $196.49 $261.99 $327.48 $392.99 2 - 1.5 yard $119.09 $238.18 $357.27 $476.36 $595.44 $714.54 3- 1.5yard $178.62 $357.25 $535.87 $714.50 $893.12 $1,071.73 4 - 1.5 yard $238.17 $476.34 $714.51 $952.67 $1,190.84 $1,429.01 5- 1.5yard $297.72 $595.42 $893.14 $1,190.85 $1,488.56 $1,786.28 1 - 3 yard $75.38 $142.13 $226.14 $301.45 $376.90 $452.27 2 - 3 yard $137.18 $284.21 $411.52 $548.70 $685.87 $823.05 3 - 3 yard $198.96 $426.05 $596.87 $795.83 $994.79 $1,193.76 4 - 3 yard $260.74 $568.46 $782.23 $1,042.97 $1,303.72 $1,564.45 5 -3 yard $322.54 $710.59 $967.61 $1,290.16 $1,612.69 $1,935.23 1 - 6 yard $141.98 $283.99 $425.95 $567.94 $709.92 $851.91 Number of Bins STAGE RATE and Size NUMBER OF PICK -UPS PER WEEK 119VE111111M 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ 1 - 1.5 yard $71.66 $143.34 $215.00 $286.66 $358.33 $430.00 2 - 1.5 yard $130.32 $260.64 $390.96 $521.28 $651.60 $781.92 3 - 1.5 yard $195.49 $390.97 $586.46 $781.94 $977.43 $1,172.91 4. 1.5 yard $260.65 $521.30 $781.95 $1,042.60 $1,303.26 $1,563.91 5- 1.5yard $325.81 $651.61 $977.42 $1,303.22 $1,629.03 $1,954.84 1 - 3 yard $81.55 $154.46 $244.68 $326.24 $407.80 $489.36 2 - 3 yard $150.76 $308.95 $452.27 $603.03 $753.79 $904.55 3 - 3 yard $219.97 $463.42 $659.91 $879.88 $1,099.84 $1,319.81 4 -3yard $289.19 $617.90 $867.57 $1,156.76 $1,445.94 $1,735.14 5 - 3 yard $358.36 $772.37 $1,075.14 $1,433.50 $1,791.88 $2,150.26 1 - 6 yard $154.14 $308.33 $462.42 $616.56 $770.69 $924.84 EXHIBIT A (1 of 3) _ T 01 m m I y c u W y H 3 z LLI 3 N n y M M M M M r r n r n O V C W O C O O O rn rn m 0) rn N 0 t W O � � C p N tM (V W O1 Oi Qi m Oi (0 0 d G y. wwwwus r (V M V M^ t0 tD n wwwww ~ HH H w w w w w w H w H H � H f O c V d O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 O D M O O . o . c . o . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 . o . c . o . 0 0 0 0 0 0 w H w H w w H H H H H H H H H H H O W W qt W W N N C7 W O O O O M O O r n n r n n n n n n O O O O M O O 0 0 o c o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 Sri c o wwwww _m _ w H www n6 _v H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H w w - N M V O - N M O 0 w w m A. m N � m m m m O m m O y y N N N y . C C O O O c a w Q � O a 0 0 0 N N F15 U) M N N N N M H H H w y M M M M M r r n r n O V C �d�u4�'is;L? 4k'd)��sw.. O O O O O rn rn m 0) rn N 0 t W n N O OJ mi CD W O1 Oi Qi m Oi (0 0 d G y. r (V M V M^ t0 tD n Q.. LL ~ H w w w w w w H w H H w A d z O c V d O O O O O O O O O O N! C T O! M M M M M M M M M M O O U yy C < o C "" R d a N N H ` w w m A. m N � m m m m O m m O y y N N N y . C C O O O c a w Q � O a 0 0 0 N N F15 U) M N N N N M H H H w y r rn d � „�+M ��`i^2 �¢�4 o o ro o flea �I'�'u �h) N a/ w H �d�u4�'is;L? 4k'd)��sw.. {41' °•S,� S+6F,��sli24 {Sw�: iK d m N � t W n N N Y w E mt C LL N u N �o d G r (V M V M^ t0 tD n Q.. LL ~ H w w w w w w H w H H w A d z O c V d O O O O O O O O O O O O C T O! M M M M M M M M M M O O U yy C < o C "" R d a N N H ` H C d d r U '� d E `. U E= v E o 5 U E O O �' _ N D! N n n n n n n n r n r • d N g L O 0 0 0 0 0 c m m a a m O m v a m o y E y a •D y m U LL O O 'm LL rn 0 m LL a y T O ~ � o N N 9 C — y _m _ d_ n6 _v _ S a a m CJ E U a S mcg >• 2' U f7; LD OI m E y C a m y m a m C 0 Y m' m w C L y r rn d � „�+M ��`i^2 �¢�4 o o ro o flea �I'�'u �h) N a/ w H �d�u4�'is;L? 4k'd)��sw.. {41' °•S,� S+6F,��sli24 {Sw�: iK m N � T vo`r Y w E mt C LL N u N �o d G r (V M V M^ t0 tD n Q.. LL ~ H w w w w w w H w H H w A d z c V d O O O O O O O O O O O O C T O! M M M M M M M M M M O O < o C 5 a U b N H H U d y d O H '� QI W W Q! O QI Qt QI O Qt O O A N N D! N n n n n n n n r n r o 0 N W a L O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w H T y W T H H www w w www m m o a T o v s d E 1 E H y $ U U F I n N ~ � �a n6 vrn m F� mc4 m�a � ww Hww mcg y U f7; U C' w O Zz F o p OO OO N rn O) O �pp 0 0 0 O o w e Oi W W W �H .- N K N f w w w w w m K Cl) Cl O O O M C; o vi w w w O w Ct w M M O n m m H H M 0 H N fD w N M d d H m m 1 o m m O y � N y y c c 0 o � m d U' m v 00 y y N i0 N N f w N y r rn o o ro o ro w w H w H m O O M C; o vi w w w O w Ct w M M O n m m H H M 0 H N fD w N M d d H m m 1 o m m O y � N y y c c 0 o � m d U' m v 00 y y N i0 N N f w N y o o O O m Y m d v z c d T N < o C 5 a U b H H U m y d O H '� T a C - N N U m= tp N d N N W a L O O and N T y W T v o m m o a E o v s d E 1 E H y $ m A F I n Q ~ �a n6 vrn m F� mc4 m�a mcg y tD O O v •� H N m y m F a a o e d m m `o 0 0 E m EXHIBIT A (2 of 3) y O m Y m d v z c d d N < o C U b H H y d O H T T C m o ' Om d N > y d a : and �+ mm T p W d d s 00 E 1 > a LN F I n Q ~ EXHIBIT A (2 of 3) 2003 CPI ADJ. ( +3.05 %) 2003 LANDFILL 0 FEE ADJUSTMENT TOTAL ADJ. ( +3.05 %) EXHIBIT "A' CITY OF ARCADIA SINGLE AND MULTI - FAMILY RATE SCHEDULE Single Family Bin Serve Rate for Green Waste 5 6 EXHIBIT A (3 of 3) Solid Waste Survey - May 2003 Residential Rates s; tr)f: City Rank Total Monthly Rate South Pasadena $27.66 Claremont $22.07 Pomona $21.64 West Covina $19.03 Covina $18.68 Montebello $18.32 Glendora $18.17 Monterey Park $18.13 Walnut $17.71 El Monte $17.51 Baldwin Park $17.16 San Dimas $17.10 Alhambra $16.56 Pasadena $16.32 La Verne $15.53 La Puente $15.48 Azusa $15.26 Diamond Bar $14.96 Sierra Madre $14.68 Arcadia (proposed rate) $13.58 Duarte $13.36 Arcadia (current rate) $13.21 Rosemead $11.14 Monrovia $10.60 EXHIBIT B Mo D U Q LL O V H � Z Z W W Q � d W O � Q U) W W U_ > W W W Lij 1.L. O Q U_ o J C m CV L d N RI L �J c ,e m U) O Q U) Q L m 4- O c O E Nt O N L O O O L Q V L � O U c O N L C L Q .0 c (n O cm C N a. Q "0 v x w 0 Q' L Q c cn U c0 O ca _0 0 Q E O CB xO y c c - 0 Q cz (� p O N c fn L c +- L Q O N U m =3 Q L Q L V Q O �O c N N N U LO .� N .M C 0 Q 0> (D L N U 00 C O � Q � 0 N O 0 0 Q a) 0) N N - a) �— �- m . T v x w PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 30 n2 5 f CPoo I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This C J day of I(, )ae .2003 rw No 0 DMIN •��o CORE MEDIA GROUP, INC. ` S Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly J' Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Independent / 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) RLEC',LIVE � j;Jilq 3 0 20u3 CITY OF ARCADIX CITY CLEFK Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY given , that on June 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Cham Il bers, 240 West Huntington Drive, - � Arcadia, California, the City Coun -' cll will hold a public hearing to con- k alder a resolution setting service rates for the collection of residential, refuse and recyclables. Persons' !challenging any action taken after the public heading may be limited to raising only those matters raised bi . them or others at the public headng.'� In compllance.With the Amed- 1 cans with Disabilities Act, 8 you need ! special assistance to participate In { a City Council meeting, please con tact the City Clerk's office at (626)" ' 574 -5455 at least three (3) working x (.tlays� before the meeting or time +., when. special sirvices are needed. This notification will help City staff In making reasonable arrangements" i to provide. -you with access to the ; .mseting. - I For further Information, con - `tactthecity ofArcadiaPublicworks iServices Department at (626) 6551 Monday through Friday be tween the flours of 6:45 a.m. and 5:00, p.m. - /a/ Pat Malloy Public Works Services Director . Dated: May 8, 2003 Publish: June 5, 2003 -Arcadia Weekly RESOLUTION NO. 6354 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE SERVICE RATES FOR THE COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE AND RECYCABLES PURSUANT TO SECTION 5120.7 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 5120.7, the Arcadia City Council is authorized to fix and determine the uniform rates that may be charged for collecting or removing garbage, refuse or recyclables from any premises in the City; and WHEREAS, all residential units in the City are required to participate in the City's refuse collection service; and WHEREAS, the franchisee under that certain Residential Refuse and Recycling Agreement-date 6 , 1996 is not authorized to charge or collect any fees or rates other than the fees and rates set forth in this Resolution and the fees and rates shall remain in effect, unless changed by resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: LASER IMAGED t 3je SECTION 1. Commencing July 1, 2003, the monthly rates for residential refuse and recycling collection services shall be those set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. All rates set forth in this Resolution shall be reflected on all refuse bills issued after July 1, 2003. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed approved and adopted this lath day of .rune 2003. /s/ SHENG CHA Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney FA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6354 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia kcl '`°��.. =•9 ^'' STAFF REPORT OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK / DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council 21eyt: FROM: June D. Alford, City Clerk SUBJECT: Recommendation to Appoint City Boards and Commissions Arcadia Beautiful Commission (3) Human Resources Commission (1) Library Board (1) Parking District Commission (1) Planning Commission (1) Recreation & Parks Commission (2) Senior Citizens Commission (5) Relocation Appeals Board (1) A list of City Board and Commission Members whose terms are expiring June 30, 2003 is attached to this report. This list indicates the eligibility status of each commission board member. On June 6th you were provided all Citizen Service Resumes on file for these commission that time and a matrix listing names of the applicants and their board or commission preference. Additional Citizen Service Resumes have since been filed which are attached to this report along with a second matrix and an updated eligibility status list of applicants. All appointments and reappointments should be made for four -year terms with the exception of the Senior Citizens' Commission which is a two -year term. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may: 1. Make appointments from the Citzen Service Resumes provided; or, 2. Conduct interviews with selected applicants and make appointments at the conclusion of the interviews or at a subsequent City Council meeting. LASER IMAGED �, �y c% r - / V . r BOARD AND COMMISSION TERMS ENDING 6 730 -03 ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION (3) Richard Cordano 1 partial term served Carmie Falabrino C 1 full term served 9 Sandy •Ho M 2 full terms served, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION (1) James Hanrahan 1 full term served LIBRARY BOARD ((1) John Fun& 1 full term served Jeff Johns David Olson PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION (1) 1 full term served PLANNING COMMISSION (1) 1 partial term served Patrick A. Gibson Don Kennedy s le��a w� David Olson RECREATION COMMISSION (2) . 1'-partial 6 2'.full terms served 2 full terms served RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD (1) 1 partial term served SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION (5) Jim Lewis a Senior Friendship Club Arlene Okamoto At -large representative CONTINUED TO PAGE 2 .1-: MSn n!!1 19� fnR Eligible - wants to be reappointed Eligible - wants to be reappointed Not eligible -E1'igible - wants to be reappointed Eligible - wants to be reappointed wr-�--.-.,1 -' �a� y , r Does not want to be reappointed Eligible - wants to be reappointed Not eligible Not eligible Eligible - wants to be reappointed Eligible - wants to be reappointed Eligible - wants to be reappointed (1) (2) BOARD AND COMMISSION TERMS ENDING 6 -30 -03 - CONTINUED SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION - CONTINUED Joan Leathery Arcadia Assistance League Moved to Colorado representative r term expires 6 -30 -04 Vacancy Carol Curtis Arcadia Assistance League Eligible - Fulfill (replaces Joan Leathery) unexpired term to 6 -30 -04 Esther Barnes Designated by Arcadia Travelers Club <Arcadia Eligible Harlene Hamann Travelers Club Not eligible'- 2 full terms served James "Russ". 2 full terms served as representative Not eligible Simsarian of Senior Men's Club Don Milefchik Senior Men's Club has designated Eligible Mr. Milefchik as new representative (2) O U Z Q U a a 0 Z Q O u 4 H.. 0) o v a � m � u v� U e e �m u a oa oa m I A, q v ar A 04 a a 9 �a as y y Tl- 5E YC N P7 W N >4 p a v ,��tltly H ey u A I C pG rl 3 O . F.. H h y H H t1 7 _0 x a1 _ O a .a 'o W O g ' H M . H U . •.� N , u A O Pi D N y . J. id h cu v� ' h H v i q q w q o u q p O N 00 .' H N 24 H n A b' N - .4J �N N. ❑ q J7 r a b i • S H +' GI ' Y, d W N iJ 4 ; 14 H 'ji' •ri b d d L1 +. Ol 41 ., /r ,D .G O O A O D O q ,- 4 9 N 'N U ,'# m U N �' .i �� H O ctl N u o0 al N PA , U u v v v A w :c� A :?3 m, p4 eG a tr7 .. � w w w 71 r4 m 14 M PC DC vi U eo G. On Ca C3 3 xx cli Lr) 14 d) Cd 4j 1-4 OJ p C14 C bi Cd CA 96 lu r W a U a a z 0 �o U� Q O q e, 0 Z • di any m N 4' �4 u FROM : KEA LANI HOTEL FAX NO. : 875 5516 r . Jun -09-03 11 i UUM nI �... - Jun. 09 2003 12: WM P2 CITY OF ARCADIA Citizen Service Resume RECEIVED office of the City Clerk 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5410 JUN 10 2003 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK voluntary advisory boards and commissions are listed below: parking District Commission Arcadia Beautiful Commission planning Commission Historical Museum Commission Human Resources Commission Recreation and Parks Commission Library Board of Trustees Senior Citizens' Commission lRiifif;4fz ;fizfs4 fA11 ;zzYfilYYf ;tsM4dMZ;fwfM44kM1ff �eA�1W' � 'ff�vld'�L4iMli;ffMYW ;T1r�.fxaf Y t; tsfzisf f i s Y4WWezf sfM1wf Date of Application �A Board! Commission applied for AGcl A - L!o✓a srr {ems Names R /fl 4L r�7GvGG2 /�.r�K _ First LAM Middle Home Phone AM 4wr- 7/_ 75 Bus iness (5 "Z E 6-45 How long have you been a resident of Arcadia? 9 f:&� S Are you a registered voter? Yes —i° No Occupatio /ti ✓C Employer �-� �7or ��1 ? off. GFy Education Onclude professional or vocational 1icon es or certificates) t1 _ ,�1►G�r�rts ��cdr �1 in J+�y,SL '��, .5� T / Community Involvement (list organization memberships and committee assignments) 4 .(over) FROM : KEA LANI HQTEL FAX NO 808 875 5516 Jun. 09 2003 12:55PM P3 Jun -09 -03 11:OlA At`GSu,a V °� What i chars In your background training, education or Interests that qualifies You as a appointee? i . i '. —r n _ / r - ;i, - {'cam XdA.-1, Ls om udl� ` ��"e� What do you see as the objectives and Yogi LL- / -1Li /Jrvt9 Of the advisory board or commission for which you are appilng? O F.i Ara you aware of the time commitment necessary to fulfill the obf(gations of an appointment to this position? yev No_ Are you aware that financial disclosure may be required annually, (e.g. sources Of income, loans, gifts, investments, interest in real progeny as required by state law yesk No_ What special quality can you bring to an Arcadia advisory body? + I hereby certify that the foregoing Information is correct to the best of my knowledge. t 1 signature Date Please attach additional pages if necessary and return to the address listed on the reverse side a ;_ Office of the City Clerk 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626)` 574- 5410 RECEIVED JON 12 '2003` CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK 3 , Voluntary"advisory boards and commissions are listed below: Arcadia Beautiful Commission Parkiriq District,Comrnission Historical Museum Commission Planning Commission Human Resources Commission Recreation and Parks Commission Library Board of Trustees Senior Citizens' Commission e�*«........i< vPtP �:.,,.* a* �«•* ��.> t.** a. ��. �,:.+ �. �+.... �.,. �,...: �.,:• �... e..■..*«.*.*.+ r,� * * * :..sa +e « *.. +...�« Date of Aanllcation �O U Board /Commission applied for: IJC,C 2eAn o N f Pr4 kS L 0 fj. h (S SICAV Name TIER G OTj R^2 I First Last * Middle Address 11 o f s I >v 5 l N 6 WO Home Phone 3 _gL145 Business Phone (2113) 5 J O - "7074 How long have you been a resident of Arcadia? S 1 N (-2. 1 q g Are you a registered voter? Yes � No Occupation f+ R o R-oc-1 Employer 6- i l 6 ke-1 1 ft o w V, * , e loN if- Education (Include professional or vocational licenses or certificates) IAA c {� [ �a R o f A n - r5 , ST htga s' U 1 �6c- 0N une-or Community involvement (list organizatton memberships and committee assignments) �tMe CoA C�ne yo U1% loo- s dce +(�.�d .1� _Y*t. P4nL�t,a... yout 1-e ti°.^u-2 CITY 'OF ARCADIA Citizen'Service Resume . r. kt 1� afO Co h �� � NAti�e� } l N � �Cg !A (over) What is there in our background, training, education or Interests that qualifies you as an appointee? Z AR AA Li-i+-4 S L .J I n► %Y o 1v a r fj S ip uru c (- Are you aware of the time commitment necessary to fulfill the obligations of an appointment to this position? Yes -lf c, Are you aware that financial disclosure may be required annually, (e.g. sources of Income, loans, gifts, Investments, interes in" real prbperty as requjred by state law )? Yes ` What special quality can you bring to an Arcadia advisory body? ` � t s �( �- W I° L t I hereby certify that the foregoing information is correct to the best�of my knowledge. Signature Date Please attach additional pages if necessary and return to the address listed on the reverse side J eoµ ' — +Hari What do you see as the objectives and goals of the advisory board'or commission for which you are applying? CITY OF ARCADIA Citizen Service Resume Office of the City Clerk 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (6N) 574- 5410 RECEIVED JUN 9 2903 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK Voluntary advisory boards and commissions are listed below: Arcadia Beautiful Commission Parking, District Commission Historical Museum Commission Planning Commission Human Resources Commission Recreation and Parks Commission Library Board of Trustees Senior Citizens' Commission Date of Application Lv D 3 11 Board /Commission applied for: �-►7 mrlA xLV a1 l/LU2 FPiS (` Saun<eS 1�Ai1 rtq rLM n - 7 - n lc/" .1 n. n �Z t3YY Ib.lSSla6� J First Last a Middle Address ml l 4 h✓ C. a/yyrrtri u-r lc-L-41 Home Phone L& - d 7 -2 1 Business Phone How long have you been a resident of Arcadia7 -9— / 142 Are you a registered voter? Occupatio No Employer S 3 C Education (include professional or vocational licenses or certificates) 1 C lD �OLeyW?� Community Involvement (list organization memberships and committee assignments) 4xiig u kc Ci 3 a, w I� r"rt_ . �. _ �.., ra r _, n .. .� apt { Sc — 1 O' ci U (over) What is there in your background, training, education or interests that qualifies you as an appointee? -4, . LAA -4 AO.. � 7 , rt , f -I JVX-A I-ej - �itn-t,'3 x a wee, c1!4, , [�&A" u rN MOL- -a-�m } wc�c1 a0ao a What do you see I , i i the advisory board or com Sion f which you are applying? 1flA, _ NA i A n.....< AA.._ .-n Cl�ly l?C't.. h;.l -lan TLL.MILA /RJI�w�a V1 l� I \I _�: s - �A,4�c lc.C t bt � 0, Are you aware of the time m necessary to ful t e obligatlons of an appointment to this position? Yes L No_ Are you aware that financial disclosure may be required annually, (e.g. sources of Income, loans, gifts, Investments, interest in real property as required by state law )? YesK No_ OEM V� sS N vco a^ o� V � C.N4zac wv Ge A `Y G i ftq I hereb certify that oregoing infor tion is correc to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date Please attach additional pages if necessary and return to the address listed on the reverse side CITY Of ARCADIA Citizen Service Resume Office.of the City i 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadla, CA 91007 1526) 574, =5410 Voluntary advisory boards and commissions are listed below: Arcadia Beautiful Commission Building and Fire Code Appeals Board Handicapped Accessibility Appeals Board MAY 2 2003 ° �atY Parking District Corn Planning Commissio Commission Date of Application ._:: t r /.G Board /Comity ssfon applied for: First Last ° f Middle Address /Jo / I _L- i? `, ; T.dl ffx,,OU P-44 !�t . t 00 /_. . Home Phone _� Business Phone C424_2 2- How long have you been a resident of Arcadia] c2 *2,c -s Are you a registered voter?!1 1,Yes No Occupation (.1DA A I t C WT QLn tmd+^d Education (Include professional or vocational licenses or certificates) Community Involvement (list organization memberships and committee assignments) M (over) What is there in your background,' training, education or interests that qualifies you as an appointee? • 0 n V V Are you aware of the time commitment necessary to fulfill the obligations of an appointment tQ'thls.po$ifion? Yes Y No= Are you aware that financial disclosure maybe required annually (e.g. sourcesof`Income, loar1': gifts; . ` investments, interest in real property as required, by state law )? Yes No What special quality can you bring to an Arcadia advisory body? 1A) I1V VAAA0 M1 J ." �. rinn i..4 f i_. Cif 1:. 7` .I_ - n . I hereby certify that the foregoing information is correct to the best of my knowledge. 10 21 Date Please attach additional pages if necessary and return to the address listed on the reverse side What do yo see as' the objectives and goals ofihe'advis6ty bnartl.or commission for which you are applying? staff report • •x•oll• i••tlereMprnerrt agency DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Chairman and Agency Board FROM: Don Penman, Deputy Ex Director Tracey L. Hause, Treasur Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Resolution No. ARA -206 authorizing a budget for fiscal year 2003/04, and approving the City's investment policy Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY It is recommended the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency annually consider a budget for the spending year. The recommended actions herein are necessary to implement the budget for the Redevelopment Agency for the 2003 -2004 fiscal year. BACKGROUND The document presented for the fiscal years 2003 -2004 was distributed to the Redevelopment Agency Board on May 23, 2003. On June 3, 2003, a study session was held to discuss the budget, respond to questions, and receive input. DISCUSSION There were no recommendations made for revisions to the budget at the study session. As a result, staff is recommending adoption of the fiscal year 2003 -2004 operating budget as presented. Additionally, staff is recommending the Agency Board approve the City's Investment Policy (Attachment "A ") as applicable to the Agency. There are no proposed changes to the policy. The Agency's independent auditors have requested formal action on the Investment Policy annually. Since the Agency has historically included the Policy as part of the budget document, action at this time is recommended. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended thaV' he Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution No. ARA- 206, a Resolution of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia, California, adopting a budget for the fiscal year 2003 -2004 and appropriating the amounts specified therein as expenditures from the funds indicated and approve the City of Arcadia Investment Policy as applicable to the Agency. Approved \^! %�y � William R. Kelly, Executive Director ���� LASER IMAGED Attachment "A" CITY OF ARCADIA STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FY 2003.2004 This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's Funds and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its funds. OBJECTIVE The City's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expen- ditures and revenues, thus enabling the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City Treasurer, attempts to obtain the highest yield obtainable as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. A. The City Treasurer operates the City's cash investment under the prudent man rule.* This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment opportunities as long as the invest- ment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the State of California and other imposed legal restrictions. B. City investments may be made in, but not limited to, the following instruments: Certificates of Deposit purchased from banks or savings and loan institutions. Banker Treasury Bill and Notes Government Agency Securities (e.g. Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National Mortgage Association, Federal Farm Credits) Commercial Paper Repurchase Agreements State Local Agency Investment Funds Passbook Savings Account *The prudent man rule states, in essence, that "in investing . property.for the benefit of another, a trustee shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then pre- vailing, which men of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs" ' 9 -3 :JYo' 01 l 3 c e% A S 223 C. Criteria for selecting investments and the order of priority are: 1. Safety. The safety and risk associated with an investment refers to the potential loss of-principal, interest or a combination of these amounts. The City Treasurer only places City funds in those investments that are considered very safe. 2. Liquidity, This refers to the ability to "cash in" at any moment in time with a minimal chance of losing some portion of principal or interest. Liquidity is an important investment quality especially when the need for unexpected funds occurs occasionally. 3. i I Yield is the potential dollar earnings an investment can provide, and some - times.is described as the rate of return. D. Safekeeping Securities purchased from brokerldealers shall be held in a third party safekeeping by the trust department of the bank or other designated third party trustee of the local agency, and shall be under the agency's name and control whenever possible. The treasurer shall render a monthly report to the Administrative Services Director, the City Manager and the City Council within two weeks following the end of the month covered by the report. The report shall provide the following information: A. Breakdown of portfolio by type of investment, showing dollar amount and percent of portfolio invested in each. B. Weighted average maturity and monthly weighted yield of the portfolio. C. Detailed listing of current holdings. 1. Shows book values, market value (with source of valuation) and par value as of the date of the report. 2. Shows coupon or discount rate, yield to maturity and total return. 3. Shows type, issuer, seller. 4. Shows purchase date and maturity date. D. Comparison of projected receipts, and expenditures for the next month and next six months demonstrating the adequacy of projected revenue and proceeds from maturing investments to meet expected expenditures. E. Treasurer's compliance statement. 224 QUALIFICATIONS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH SELL THE CITY INVESTMENTS The Treasurer will obtain information from qualified financial institutions to determine if the institution makes markets in securities appropriate to the City's needs and:can assign qual- ified sales representatives. The Treasurer will recommend to the Administrative Services Director and City Manager three to six institutions for inclusion on the City's approved list. Investment accounts with all financial institutions -will be 'standard non - discretionary accounts and may not be margin accounts. QUALIFICATIONS FOR SAFEKEEPING INSTITUTION The City will safekeep investments only with institutions that demonstrate financial sound- ness and are ranked AA or Aa by Standard and Poor's and Moody's. In addition, they shall be a trust company or state or national bank located within this state or with the Federal Reserve Bank or with any state or national bank located in any city designated as 'a reserve city by the Board of governors of the Federal Reserve System. INVESTMENT CONTROLS The Treasurer, (with review and direction by the Administrative Services Director) will implement and maintain a system of internal investment controls and segregated responsibilities of the investment function in order to assist in the prevention of fraud, theft, loss of principal, loss of control, and in accurate. reporting. POLICY REVIEW This policy shall be reviewed annually.. by the City Council, at a public meeting to ensure it meets the changing needs of the City, is consistent with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return and to ensure that the City's ongoing investment practices and procedures are consistent with the Policy. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY As assigned by the Director of Administrative Services, the Financial Services Manager/Treasurer is responsible for the investment of the City's idle cash subject to review and approval by the Administrative Services Director and City Manager. In his /her absence, or incapacity, the Administrative Services Director will assume the duties and responsibility, for investment of City funds. In his /her absence, or incapacity, the City Manager will assume the duties and responsibility, for investment of funds. The City Council's primary responsibilities over the investment function includes establishing investment policies, annually reviewing such policies, reviewing. monthly investment reports and authorizing any deviations from the City's Investment Policy. 225 PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS State law not withstanding prohibited investments shall include zero coupon bonds, inverse floaters, collateralized mortgage obligations, interest only strips, reverse repurchase agreements, futures and options, and derivative securities. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES: A. An average amount of two week's warrants and one payroll to be maintained in immediately available investments, such as the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund or a similar liquid instrument. This may include commercial paper or repurchase agreements acquired through the City's bank. Weekly analysis of cash flow will serve as a basis for determining the maturity date of investments. B. Investment Transaction. Every investment transaction must be authorized, documented and reviewed by the City Treasurer. C. Pooled Cash. Whenever practical, the City's cash will be consolidated into one bank account and invested on a polled concept basis. Interest earnings will be allocated according to fund cash and investment balances. D. Competitive Bids. Purchase and sale of securities should be made on the basis of competitive offers and bids when practical. E. , Li uidi . The marketability (salability) of a security should be considered at the time of purchase, as the security may have to be sold at a later date to meet unanticipated cash demand. F. Long Term Maturities. Longer term maturities having a remaining term to maturity of four (4) to give (5) years will not represent a significant percentage of the total portfolio (60 %), as the principal risk involved can outweigh the potential for higher earnings. G. Diversification. The portfolio should consist of a mix of various types of securities, issuers and maturities. H. State Investment Limitations. Security purchases and holdings shall be maintained within statutory limits imposed by the state of California Government Code. Current limits are: Bankers Acceptance — 40 %, Section 53601 (f); Commercial Paper — 30 %, Section 53601 (g); and Negotiable Certificate of Deposit — 30 %, Section 53601 (h); Repurchase Agreement - the term shall be one year or less, Section 53601 (1); Medium Term Corporate Note — 30 %, Section 53601 Q); Shares of Beneficial Interest — 15 %, Section 53601 (k) Mortgage Securities — 20 %, Section 53601 (n). 226 I. Arcadia Guidelines WType of Investment. In addition to the general, investment limitations imposed by the State the following more specific, and in some cases more conservative, guidelines by type of investment will be followed: 1.. Certificate of Deposit. Cash will be invested only. in FDIC of FSLIC insured certificates, with institutions having a branch located within the City's boundaries. The City will'not invest in any institution less the five years old. The institution must maintain a net worth asset ration of at least 3 %, and a positive earning record. 2. Bankers Acceptances. A banker Acceptance is a time draft which has been drawn on and accepted by a bank. It is considered more secure than a Certificate of Deposit but less secure than a Government Agency instrument. The City will only invest through the 15 largest banks in the United States or the 100 largest banks in the world (in terms of assets). The maximum investment with any one institution will not exceed $3 million. 3.. Treas uEy Bills, Notes and Bonds. The City will require safekeeping documentation of the treasury instrument in an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name. 4. Government Agency Securities, The City will require physical delivery of these securities to an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name. Examples of these securities include Government National Mortgage Association, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Land Bank and Federal Farm Credit Banks. 5. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper is an unsecured loan made by the City to an institution. The City will require safekeeping documentation of the security in an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's, name. Commercial paper will be used solely as a short -term investment not to exceed 15 days. It is anticipated that this type of investment will be used only a few times during the year when other short - term investments are not available. A rating of Standard and Poors A -1 or Moodys P -1 is required. The City will only invest in the largest 15 bands (in terms of total assets) in the United States. The investment in any one institution will not exceed $1,000,000, 227 6. Repurchase Agreements (Repos), Repurchase Agreements are loans made by the City to financial institutions secured by collateral posted by the borrowing institution. The City will require physical delivery of the securities backing the repo or safekeeping documentation in an acceptable safekeeping account in the City's name, depending on the type of security. Repos will be used solely as a short -term investment not to exceed 30 days. The institution from which the City purchases a repo must transfer on an ongoing basis sufficient securities to compensate for changing market conditions and insure that adequate collateral is maintained in the City's safekeeping account to cover the principal invested. Repos will only be purchased through the 15 largest banks in the United States.The investment in any one institution will not exceed $1,000,000. State Local Agency Investment Fund. LAIF is an investment fund established by the state of California to assist smaller cities in increasing their investment earnings. Cities deposit funds with the State Treasurer's office which are then pooled with the State's fund and invested. The investment with LAIF may not, by State regulation, exceed $40 million per agency. 8. Passbook Savings Accounts. Savings account shall be maintained for accounts under $100,000 that are received too late in the day to invest in other instruments. William R. Kelly City Manager City of Arcadia Tracy L. Hause Administrative Services Director City of Arcadia I ' Q(A Gerald A. Parker City Treasurer /Financial Services Mgr. City of Arcadia 228 RESOLUTION NO. ARA -206 A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 AND APPROPRAITING THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED THEREIN AS EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUNDS INDICATED WHEREAS, on the 23' . day of May, 2003, the Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency submitted to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency') a proposed budget entitled "City of Arcadia Budget, fiscal years 2003- 2005 ", which includes, in part, a proposed budget for the Agency; and WHEREAS, said Budget includes the budget for the ensuing fiscal year 2003-04; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Agency has considered said budget; M1! WHEREAS, said budget, together with a record of any adjustments, is on file in the office of the Secretary of the Agency. NOW, THEREFORE, THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That certain "City of Arcadia Budget, fiscal years 2003- 2005 ", as on file in the office of the Secretary of the Agency, together with any approved amendments made thereto, is hereby adopted, in pertinent part, as the official budget of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year 2003- LASER IMAGED 3p 2004, and the amounts specified therein as expenditures from the funds indicated are hereby appropriated for the purposes specified therein. SECTION 2. That the Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. , Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /s/ sHExc canxc Chairperson Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ATTEST: Secretary Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch Agency Attorney 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, Secretary of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA -206 was passed and adopted by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Chairperson and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said Agency held on the 17th day of June, 2003 and that said Agency Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Agency Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: Nonel IV JUNE MA LFORD Secretary of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency W o00 IfIfL;!_1JIFK JW_ IIlII��'1II staff report LJLJ wratlloredevefoPmentagency June 17, 2003 TO: Arcadia Redevelopment Agency FROM: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Gerald A. Parker, Financial Servic s Manager /City Treasurer Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Fund exists solely for the re- payment of interest and principal. The source of funds for these payments is tax increment revenue. The repayment of debt between the Agency and the City is recorded in the City's accounting system in order to utilize tax increment funds for redevelopment projects and to formally recognize and document loans between the City and the Agency. DISCUSSION The borrowing and repayment by the Agency is an administrative procedure done in order to meet certain legal requirements. The Agency, by law, must be "in debt' in order to receive tax increment from the County. This procedure of borrowing from and repaying to the City, allows cash to then be utilized for operating and project expenditures. The Tax Increment Fund will have adequate resources at June 30, 2003 to repay the loan the City has made to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund during the past fiscal year to pay expenses and acquire property according to the directives of the Agency Board. It is recommended that the Agency take formal action to remit $470,000.00 to repay the loan to the City. LASER IMAGED 1 Al?)9� eon, -/ -�- Arcadia Redevelopment Agency June 17, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact on the City. This is a routine, administrative procedure to establish and document existing loans, and the receipt and payment of loans made between the City of Arcadia and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. RECOMMENDATION That the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency authorize a payment in the amount of $470,000.00 to the City of Arcadia from the Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Fund. APPROVED: _ ng William R. Kelly, Executive Director TLH:GAP :CL: 2 AR a °Rp °RdTE ° ° STAFF REPORT Development Services Department June'17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Prepared by: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 6364, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE EXCLUSION OF LUNCHTIME BUSINESS HOURS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 2003 -003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1692) FOR A TWO- STORY, 4,400 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DINING CAPACITY OF 82 PEOPLE AT 1038 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE.. SUMMARY The City Council at its June 3, 2003 meeting denied an appeal of the exclusion of lunchtime business hours as a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 2003 -003 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692) for a proposed two -story, 4,400 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 82 people at 1038 South Baldwin Avenue, next to the existing Wells Fargo Bank. Attached is City Council Resolution 6364: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE EXCLUSION OF LUNCHTIME BUSINESS HOURS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 2003 -003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1692) FOR A TWO- STORY, 4,400 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DINING CAPACITY OF 82 PEOPLE AT 1038 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. ACTION The City Council should move to adopt Resolution No. 6364 as attached. Attachment: Resolution No. 6364 APPROVED BY: y William R. Kelly, City Manager LASER IMAGED ��, GBH, �� �, RESOLUTION NO. 6364 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE EXCLUSION OF LUNCHTIME BUSINESS HOURS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 2003 -003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1692) FOR A TWO- STORY, 4,400 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DINING CAPACITY OF 82 PEOPLE AT 1038 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003, Mr. Frank Yang submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's exclusion of lunchtime business hours as a condition of approval (Section 3.2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692) for a two - story, 4,400 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 82 people, and with beer and wine service with meals; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 2003 -003 at 1038 South Baldwin Avenue, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2003 the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and the Draft Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, as a part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered the following: 1. The staff report and related attachments submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council, including the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration; and 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 and the record of the Planning Commission's April 22, 2003 public hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 2003 -003, along with all letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at that public hearing; and -1- LASER IMAGED 6364 3. All letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing of June 3, 2003 and all oral presentations at that public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council reviewed the record of the proceeding, discussed and deliberated the matter, denied the appeal, added a condition of approval to prohibit the restaurant from being used as a "food factory," adopted the Negative Declaration, and directed staff to prepare this resolution to reflect the Council's findings and decisions; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report dated June 3, 2003 is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the appeal should be denied because the site for the proposed restaurant is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate said restaurant with lunchtime business hours, and all of the parking required to adjust said restaurant with lunchtime business hours with the land and uses in the neighborhood. SECTION 3. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan and that the subject property is zoned for general commercial uses, and that the proposed use inconsistent with those designations, except for the preparing of large batches of certain dishes for delivery to the applicant's other restaurant(s) and therefore, the proposed restaurant is to be prohibited from being -2- 6364 used as a "food factory". The City Council hereby imposes the following additional condition of approval: 14. The restaurant is not to be a "food factory" at which food is pre- prepared for delivery to other restaurants." SECTION 4. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the Initial Study is appropriate; that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and that, therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. SECTION 5. That for the foregoing reasons the City Council denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's exclusion of lunchtime business hours as a condition of approval (Section 3.2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692) for a two -story, 4,400 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 82 people, and with beer and wine service with meals at 1038 South Baldwin Avenue. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -3- 6364 Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 O btitit B'.Yn Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -4- 6364 Legal Description — 103 8 South Baldwin Avenue Lot 38, of Tract No. 3430, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 42, Page(s) 32 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. Except the westerly 15 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot, as granted to the City of Arcadia by deed recorded August 6, 1954, in Book 45261, Page 384, Official Records, for Street and Highway purposes. Also except therefrom the northerly 30 feet, measured at right angles to the northerly lot line of Lot 38, of Tract 3430, as per map recorded in Book 42, Page 32 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. Also except the westerly 15 feet,_ as measured at right angles to the westerly lot line of said Lot 38, as granted to the City of Arcadia, by deed recorded January 6, 1961, as Instrument No. 3341. EXHIBIT 'A' -5- 6364 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6364 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None IV jUt& D. D City Clerk of the City of Arcadia M ° �oaets 9 �� STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Directorip Janet Sporleder, Director of Library and Museum Services By: Phil Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administratoreo Prepared by: Brian Saeki, Management Analyst Dan Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer, SUBJECT: Award of Contract — Arcadia Public Library (Phase I interior renovation) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with K & S Design Construction in the amount of $106,500 and to appropriate $82,150 from the Capital Outlay Reserve Fund .for this project. SUMMARY The Arcadia Library Strategic Plan called for, among other things, a space allocation study to identify alternatives for accommodating the need for additional office space and the possibility for expanding service areas in the future. The architectural services of Charles Walton Associates (CWA) were retained to complete this study. A half -day "Design Camp" was held on June 13, 2002 with members from the community, Library Board, CWA and Library staff to discuss alternatives for the interior remodel. As a result of this effort, CWA was directed to prepare two schematic designs (Phase I & Phase 11) and estimated construction costs for each Phase. Phase I includes the addition of a new conference room and reconfiguring of the existing conference room into a new office and work area. The Administration area and the Friends of the Library office are also proposed to be reconfigured as part of Phase I. Due to budgetary constraints, Phase II improvements, which would create a teen center and enlarge the area for international language materials, cannot be completed this fiscal year. The Phase I project was budgeted in the FY2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program. The project was advertised for bids in May with a bid opening on May 20, 2003. Three bids were received. The low bidder, Delta Contractors, immediately requested their bid be withdrawn due to a clerical error. The . second lowest bidder, K & S Design Construction is responsive and their bid is less than the architects construction cost estimate. Staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the interior renovation of the Arcadia Public Library to K & S Design Construction. LASER IMAGED 310 1 Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION As part of the preliminary budgeting process in Spring 2002, staff proposed that $63,500 be budgeted for an interior renovation of the Library. This amount was based on a standard per square foot rate for this type of work. In order to help better define this renovation, the architectural services of CWA were subsequently retained to complete a study to address the present and future needs of the Library. A half -day "Design Camp" was held with members from the community, Library Board, CWA and Library staff -to• discuss alternatives for the interior remodel. This study provided a master plan for the Library that addressed potential growth in staffing and service areas in two (2) phases. The original project budgeted in Spring 2002 was significantly changed. The Phase I interior improvements , include: 1) conference room, 2) reconfiguring existing space manager, management analyst, workroom and cler newspapers, oversized books, and a volunteer relocating existing bookshelves and storage areas All work will occur within the footprint of the existing relocating and constructing a new to accommodate a library service ical area, 3) creating space for back Friends Foundation office and 4) to accommodate the new spaces. building. The Phase II interior improvements would create a teen center and enlarge the area for international language materials. Due to budgetary constraints, Phase II could not be completed in FY2002 -03 but could be in a subsequent year. Nine (9) prospective contractors , received plans and specifications and three (3) qualified bids were received with the following results: Bidders Address Amount Delta Contractors La Crescenta, CA .$98,000.00 K & S Design :Construction Garden - Grove, CA $106,499.00 DCL Construction Hacienda Heights, CA $136,699.00 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content, and has performed the contractor's background check for recent projects and competency. Although the lowest bidder withdrew their bid, staff has determined that the second lowest bidder, K & S Design Construction can satisfactorily perform the required work. 030)1 %MI Fit 3? Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 class 1(a) from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT Phase I improvements were budgeted at $63,500 as part of the FY2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program. Due to the significant changes in the overall project as recommended in the study prepared by CWA, an additional $82,150 is required to complete this project from the Capital Outlay Reserve Fund. The additional $82,150 includes a percentage of the construction costs, a 10% contingency and costs for inspection services and other charges. The cost of the project increased significantly from what was originally budgeted in Spring 2002 due to an increase in the amount of work proposed in Phase I. However, the Phase I improvements better address the current needs for the Library as well as allowing for future growth. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with K & S Design Construction, In the amount of $106,500 for the Phase I interior renovation of the Library and appropriate an additional $82,150 from the Capital Outlay Reserve Fund for this project. Approved By: William R. Kelly, City Manager ,.�.,'8r71t \Deem- STAFF REP0RT Development Services Department DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator fN�,Prepared by: Dan Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance — Construction of Concrete Bus Pads at Various Locations Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Damon Construction Inc. as complete and authorize final payment to be made in accordance with contract documents SUMMARY On March 18, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract to Damon Construction Inc. in the amount of $137,928, to construct twenty -four (24) concrete bus pads at various locations. Attached is a location map for reference. A change order was issued during this project for twenty -four (24) additional detector loops in the amount of $9,600. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the required work has been performed to staff's . satisfaction for a final project cost of $147,528. Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the project as complete and authorize the final payment in accordance with the approved contract documents subject to a retention of $14,752.80. DISCUSSION As part of the citywide construction of bus pads, the City completed the construction of twenty -four (24) concrete bus pads around the downtown area. This project will prevent the deterioration /failure of the A.C. pavement at the bus stops. The change order was issued for the installation of twenty -four (24) additional traffic signal detector loops at the intersections of Sunset Boulevard /Duarte Road and Duarte LASER IMAGED 3r Staff Report Acceptance - Construction of Concrete Bus Pads at Various Locations June 17, 2003 Page 2 Road/El Monte Avenue in the amount of $9,600. It was discovered during construction that thirty (30) loops have to be reinstalled instead of the original estimate of six (6). FISCAL IMPACT Proposition A Transportation Funds were appropriated in the FY 2002/03 Capital Improvement Budget. The total construction cost of the original contract is $137,928 on the actual quantities of the materials used on the project. With the addition of the change order in the amount of $9,600, the contract construction cost was totaled to $147,528. Funds are available to cover the contract cost, engineering and design, material testing, inspections and contingencies. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accepts all work performed by Damon Construction Inc. for the construction of concrete bus pads at various locations as complete and authorizes final payment to be made in accordance with contract documents subject to a retention of $14,752.80. Approved By: WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER DP:PW:dl Attachment I. - r " 11] M F ;w � a 2 G J a 2 0 G Q Y 5 ~ v4 P h 9 11N M SANTA ANITA P A R K G S P V /'/ Q + P P P O 4 P SANTA ANRA GOLF COURSE A R C A D I A H S CITY OF ARCADIA J.A iuexic m. BUS PAD LOCATION DATE: 1 -03 CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE BUS PADS BY: D.L. AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS CHK'D BY: LOCATION MAP SCALE: NOT TO SCALE Attachment 1 77 1 A\ JR � nmr nrAw < G t w NORTH WING NO. 1 + OAATB +eaQ STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: June 17. 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, City Engineer'FR,' Prepared By: Dan A. Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer 4 SUBJECT: Offer of Dedication as set forth in Parcel Map No. 2'548 at 727 West Lemon Avenue Recommendation: Accept SUMMARY Parcel Map No. 26548 has been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the appropriate City Departments, and has been found to be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map as approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2002. This map is in conformance with the subdivision regulation of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. It is recommended that the City Council accept the dedication as set forth in Parcel Map No. 26548. DISCUSSION On January 8, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Parcel Map Application No. 02 -001 (Parcel Map No. 26548) to subdivide a single - family residential lot into two lots at 727 West Lemon Avenue. A condition of approval for this subdivision was that the developer dedicate for street purposes five (5') feet of land to widen the southerly parkway of Sharon Road to 12 feet. In accordance with Section 66463(a) and 66477.1(a) of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must accept or reject any offer of dedication. The required dedication is shown on Parcel Map No. 26548 (copy attached). LASER IMAGED 0 0 N. 9 --• SP Staff Report Offer of Dedication as set forth in Parcel Map No. 25548 at 727 West Lemon Avenue June 17, 2003 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council accepts the dedication as set forth in Parcel Map No. 26548 at 727 W. Lemon Avenue. Approved By: William R. Kelly City Manager DP:DL:pa Attachments: Los Angeles County Letter of Compliance Parcel Map No. 26548 3D1 t �2A.1 2 PARCEL'S SHED 1 OF 2 SHEETS 214005° FII PARCEL MAP NO. 26548 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT B, BLOCK "G ", OF THE SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY'YTHACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 0 PAGE 137 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. TRRECH ASSM.MTES. IN:. OWNER'S STATEMENT: SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: 1 HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE OWNER OE OR AM IMERESTEO IN THE LANDS THOS WP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECl*H AND WAS COT IIFD INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDMSNIN SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHRI THE FROM RECORD DATA IM CONFORMANCE WITH THE REWREMENTS OF THE OISRNCThF BORDER LINES, AYD WE COIISENT TO ME PREPARATION AND FILING SUBTMNyON MAP MT AND LOCAL ORDMANCF' AT THE REQUEST OF SZE MAN OF SAO MAP AND WNDNSbN. WONG ON SEP 111. 2001. I HEREBY STATE TWAT THIS PARCEL RAF WHSTAMMLLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROWD OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED HEREBY DEC CATE TO THE PUBLIC USE 4L STREETS, ^iGewP15, AHD 01HER TENTALVE MAP. IF ANY. PUBIC wg SHUUN ON SAD MAP. STATIC OF CALIFORNIA S.S. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ON THIS JY£ At 2002 BEFORE ME, Ayw,3 C. ENH✓ A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AMID FOR SAID SGTE, PERSONALLY APPEARED S££ ILIN IONO. PERSON4LLY KNOWN TO ME OR PHONED TO ME ON THE BASS OF YTSFACTDtt ENDEHCE TO BE ME PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO ME WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEOGEO TO ME THAT SHE EXECUTED THE YNE IN HER AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, ARE THAT BY HER SIGNATURE ON ME INSMUMEM THE PERSON. ON THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH MC PERSON ACTED. EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WMESS M /Iy /M(1 / 1 SONATLAE � *- A A4wJ MI PMNCNAL PLACE OF BUyRESS IS NOTARY PU&O IN AND FOR SAD STATE. IN NOS AV Q WNIY. glyAlls e, ame awa MAC A.- (MAINE PRINTED) 1 w e SIGNATURE OMISION NOTE THE SIGNATURE OF SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY. EASEMENT HOLDER FOR PIPE LINES PURPOSES AS DISCLOSED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 981 PAGE 153 OF DEEDS. RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES HAS BEEN OMITTED CINDER THE PRDNSONS OF SEMI 66136(a)SA(I -VAR) OF ME SUMPASION I4P ACT. THEM INTERIM IS SUCH MAT U CANNOT RIPEN IMO A RE MIRE AND YID SIGNATURE S NOT REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCY, SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE ESNMNEO THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIER WMA ALL PROOSIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROMAL OF ME TENi41NE MAP. AMID THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP S TECHNICALLY CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED TO BY ME CITY CNGNEER. BY CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE ROE. NO EKP I HEREBY CEBPII THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT R CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO ME TENTOW MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS MEREOF: THAT AIL PROJISIpJS OF SUEOMSION CRpNWCES OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPLCABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF TENTATNE MAP MALE MEN! COMPLIED WITH Mb THAT I ALL SAMFIED THAT M5 WP IS TECHNCALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO C16 RECORDS. CM ENGINEER. CHY OF ARUOK R.C.E. NO, EXP. PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATE: THIS IS TO CERTFY THAT ME TENTATNTV O CEI 518 WAS APPFOJFD AT A MEETING HUD ON ME '26 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP $UBSENifM.LLY COMPILES APPROWD TENTMTN M E M. ME REV%jUSLY hl2912:5 ^- DATE SECRETARY OF ME PINNING COMMSSION SZC YAN IIO ON £RJ {� ' /p,VF' CAD L.S. NO. —O P.` 9 -.HI -2005 EX 30- STATIC OF CALIFORNIA S.S. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ON THIS JY£ At 2002 BEFORE ME, Ayw,3 C. ENH✓ A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AMID FOR SAID SGTE, PERSONALLY APPEARED S££ ILIN IONO. PERSON4LLY KNOWN TO ME OR PHONED TO ME ON THE BASS OF YTSFACTDtt ENDEHCE TO BE ME PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO ME WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEOGEO TO ME THAT SHE EXECUTED THE YNE IN HER AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, ARE THAT BY HER SIGNATURE ON ME INSMUMEM THE PERSON. ON THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH MC PERSON ACTED. EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WMESS M /Iy /M(1 / 1 SONATLAE � *- A A4wJ MI PMNCNAL PLACE OF BUyRESS IS NOTARY PU&O IN AND FOR SAD STATE. IN NOS AV Q WNIY. glyAlls e, ame awa MAC A.- (MAINE PRINTED) 1 w e SIGNATURE OMISION NOTE THE SIGNATURE OF SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY. EASEMENT HOLDER FOR PIPE LINES PURPOSES AS DISCLOSED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 981 PAGE 153 OF DEEDS. RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES HAS BEEN OMITTED CINDER THE PRDNSONS OF SEMI 66136(a)SA(I -VAR) OF ME SUMPASION I4P ACT. THEM INTERIM IS SUCH MAT U CANNOT RIPEN IMO A RE MIRE AND YID SIGNATURE S NOT REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCY, SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE ESNMNEO THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIER WMA ALL PROOSIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROMAL OF ME TENi41NE MAP. AMID THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP S TECHNICALLY CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED TO BY ME CITY CNGNEER. BY CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE ROE. NO EKP I HEREBY CEBPII THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT R CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO ME TENTOW MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS MEREOF: THAT AIL PROJISIpJS OF SUEOMSION CRpNWCES OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPLCABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF TENTATNE MAP MALE MEN! COMPLIED WITH Mb THAT I ALL SAMFIED THAT M5 WP IS TECHNCALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO C16 RECORDS. CM ENGINEER. CHY OF ARUOK R.C.E. NO, EXP. PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATE: THIS IS TO CERTFY THAT ME TENTATNTV O CEI 518 WAS APPFOJFD AT A MEETING HUD ON ME '26 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP $UBSENifM.LLY COMPILES APPROWD TENTMTN M E M. ME REV%jUSLY hl2912:5 ^- DATE SECRETARY OF ME PINNING COMMSSION CITY OF ARC,MAA CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCAON, BY MOTION DULY PASSED ON ME DAY OF APPROVED THE ATTACHED MAP AMID SAID COUNCIL ALSO DID ACCEPT ON £ EHALF OF THE PUBLIC WE DEDICATION OF STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND OTHER PLI WAYS SHOWN ON S40 MAP. DATE CITY CLERK, CT" OF ARCADA CITY TREASURERS CERTIFICATE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEA UNDER ME JUPoSDCTOR OF ME CITY OF ARCADA TO MACH ME LAND INCLUDED IN ME WITHIN SUBOMSON OR NW PART THEREOF 5 SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FUU, HAYS BEEN PAD IN ALL. AAY .T� le-w:l RER C DATE CITY TREASU OF MCMM FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ME FEE REWIRED BY SECTION 9118.4 OF ME MUNICIPAL CODE HAS BEEN PAO TO ME CITY OF ARCADI4. DATE DIRECTOR OF lWWCE -CITY OF ARCADIA, SCALE: 1" = 20' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS It PARCEL MAP NO. 26548 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRITECH ASSOCIATES, Mc. 1 � N C! LV —4_ _ SHARON _ H 6r10000 E _ _ ROAD s[Lr sDe uNF aP s 0.0.0, N A EPIm AS NN'Lx LOT TA, a GH -ID 'A t, - xFbix 0.NL — - (l \ - \ Zb•— = 1 3z:oo - r — zez ao wn c�2-f I[z7 N 61 1000' E ]].00N S SR a d o o0va0.xER of A e, 8 . 8 8 - ). RI or i ue m 8 € «I qq 'd 4 e d3 09 42 O o €F �� 2 �- 10.656 SD FT. m a s u 8I9000 E n.ao ks I i I I ni I I I I =1 €,) —i � I I MONUMENT NOTE: (1 FWNO LT. x T, PER TR. MO. 47234, EASEMENTS' NOTE! M.B. 147'1- 5A -55. iET B' WIDE EASEMENT WIMIx (B1 FOUND NJMWQ EVAB. BY TIES PER PRCEL 1 FOR 02JW4E C" OF ARCADIA F.B. BB) -6. y I PURPOSE FOR ME BEREFT, OF PARCEL 3. TO BE RESERVED IN RECORD DATA NOTE: I0.656 so. FT DOCUMENTS. RECORD EATA IS TAKM FROM SANTA ARITA LWD COMPANYS TRACT, u.0. 6 -137. 42' 12 _30" : 3 8I sAFLt c00.Nm OF w] e. o 8 � ,+ aacx 'e a wR. wmA ,. �r � o-iwYPUn TV Cr. Ye. e �. x6400' 72 00' x6)00' 1 S 47.02 _yI L.T I, A.. M wM F VN wd M O PA'Y 4 o LEMON N 61-IDOO E 0 AVENUE 9— _ — x� B 0 M o n LEGEND: _ l INOIGTES ME WUxNFY OF ME LAND BONO SUWMDEO BY NIS MAP. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC .WORKS JAMES A. NOYES, Director 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE AL IAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803 -1331 Telephone: (626) 458 -5100 www.ladpw.urg ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802 -1460 April 8, 2003 Mr: Phillip A. Wray City Engineer City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 -6021 Dear Mr. Wray: PARCEL MAP NO. 26548 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: LD The enclosed subject parcel map has been reviewed by Public Works for mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, title information, and for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. It is ready for your examination and certification as to compliance with the conditional approval and applicable City Ordinances. The City Council or Advisory Agency should make the findings required by the State Environmental Quality Act and the Subdivision Map Act. After your approval and the approval of the City Council or Advisory Agency, the map should be returned to Land Development Division, Subdivision Mapping Section, for filing with the Registrar- Recorder /County Clerk's Office. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Armando Aguilar of our Subdivision Mapping Section at (626) 458 -4915. Very truly yours, JAMES A. NOYES Director of Public Works DENNIS HUNTER Assistant Division Engineer Land Development Division RS:ca P:1L DPUB'S UB DIVSNIMAPPINGIPARC EL. LTR Enc. STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Prepared by: Philip A. Wray, City Engineer%a SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement - Traffic Engineering Services Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Associates in the amount of $60,000 for City traffic engineering services SUMMARY Since 1996, the City has contracted with Willdan Associates for city traffic engineering services. Over the last several years, the Willdan representative, Ed Cline, has been able to serve the City of Arcadia as the City Traffic Engineer with an average of one day per.week in the City, although the total number of hours has increased as the City's traffic engineering analysis needs have increased. In the 2003 -04 budget, a total of $60,000.00 is allocated for city traffic engineering services. This amount would provide for approximately eight (8) hours each week of city traffic engineering services and the bi- annual traffic count information. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan to provide city traffic engineering services for the fiscal year 2003 -04. Willdan has agreed to continue to assign Mr. Cline to the City of Arcadia to perform those duties. BACKGROUND Willdan proposes to assign Ed Cline to be the City Traffic Engineer. Ed Cline has been appointed as the City Traffic Engineer from the first city traffic engineering services agreement in 1996. LASER IMAGED Staff Report Professional Services Agreement - Traffic Engineering Services June 17, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Cline has more than 40 years experience in municipal traffic engineering, is licensed as both a Civil Engineer and a Traffic Engineer in the State of California. Additionally, he has been a resident of Arcadia since 1972. Consequently, he is very familiar with the streets and traffic flow in the City and is able to deal with traffic engineering issues in an extremely efficient manner. The total number of hours required for traffic engineering services has increased in the past three years. This is due to increased development activity, preparation of the Transportation Master Plan, and a much closer working relationship with the Arcadia Unified School District, specifically related to student/pedestrian safety around the school campuses. Though the total number of hours needed for traffic engineering services has increased, contracting for this service is still the most cost effective approach as a full -time City Traffic Engineer is not needed. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Traffic Engineering Services have been budgeted in the Development Services Department, Engineering Division fiscal year 2003 -04 budget with funding provided by the General Fund in the total amount of $60,000.00. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement in the amount of $60,000.00 with Willdan for the City traffic engineering services. Approved By: _ WILLIAM R. KELLY City Manager DP:PW:pa rJ(If7 7; 7 . 4 ,; �ZJ STAFF REPORT RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 17, 2003 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL J FROM: DAVID LEWIS, DIRECTOR 0nL RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Prepared by: Jim Venegas, Senior Citizens Supervisor J SUBJECT: SUMMARY The City of Arcadia, Senior Citizen Services has contracted with Catering System Inc. to provide luncheon meals Monday through Friday for Senior Citizens at the Arcadia, Community Center from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The contract expires June 30, 2003. By approving the original contract, the City Council waived the need for an annual bid process if the City and the Contractor desired to continue the contract in succeeding years. The 'renewed contract entails the same terms and conditions as the original agreement except for a 3% cost adjustment, which increases the per meal price from $4.06 to $4.18. ,Due to the CDBG contribution, it is recommended that the $2.00 cost per meal to participants continue. BACKGROUND Catering Systems Inc. was awarded the contract in July 2001 to provide luncheon meals for the City of Arcadia, Senior Citizen Services at the Arcadia Community Center, Mondays — Fridays. The current contract expires June 30, 2003. Under item 2 (TERM) of the original agreement, it speed that the City had an option to renew the contract based upon the contractor's performance. This will be the last year the City can exercise this option. A new contract will be awarded in fiscal year 2004 -05. The current contract also specified that the contractor may request a cost of living adjustment pursuant to item 6 (COMPENSATION. LASERIMAGED eo N. /Y I . Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to extend the City's contract with Catering Systems, Inc. for the period July 1, 2003 though June 30, 2004, in the amount of $41,000 to provide subsidized lunch meals for senior citizens. - 2 - FOR SERVICE). After reviewing and evaluating Catering System Inc.'s implementation of the contract, Senior Citizen Services staff recommends the renewal of the agreement for fiscal year 2003 -2004 with a 3% increase. Presently the cost per meal is $4.06; a 3% adjustment would increase cost to $4.18 per meal. Participants currently pay $2.00 and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds subsidize $2.06 per meal. For fiscal year 2003 -2004 it is proposed that participants continue to pay $2.00 and that CDBG funds subsidize $2.18 of the cost per meal. The proposed CDBG meals budget for fiscal year 2003 -04 is $50,000, which can adsorb a 12 cent per meal increase. The senior lunch program averages 40 meals per day, which can be attributed to a low cost meal for the participants and the quality of the food provided by the caterer. The Senior Citizens Commission feels that the Senior Meals Program continues to serve a need in the senior population of Arcadia. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Senior Citizen Meals Program budget for Fiscal Year 2003 -04 is $50,000; $30,000 in CDBG funds to continue subsidizing the luncheon meals costs, $9,000 in CDBG funds to provide a Senior Meals Program Leader and $11,000 from the Senior Citizen/Recreation and Community Services Department . General Fund Budget, which is offset by participant payments. The proposed budget allows for a 12 cent increase to the CDBG subsidy, which is proposed to be $2.18 per meal. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to extend the City's contract with Catering Systems, Inc. for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, in the amount of $41,000 to provide subsidized lunch meals for senior citizens. APPROVED: . - 9 EA William R. Kelly, City Manager r " ° °RA °R•tD� STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works, Services Director I Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General. Services Manager Rafael Fajardo, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: SUMMARY The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood parks, and Coastal Protection Measure (Proposition 40) was adopted in 2002. In accordance with the Per Capita Grant Program, the City of Arcadia is eligible for $241,000.00, over the next three (3) years, in grant funds to be used for the rehabilitation of neighborhood parks and to respond to recreation and open space needs of Arcadia residents. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6362 approving the application for grant funds for the per capita grant program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. Per Capita Grants are allocated to Cities on population -based formulas. Allocated funds are appropriated primarily for projects that accomplish the following: • Rehabilitate facilities at existing local parks, which will allow the parks to be more efficiently managed and will reduce operational costs. • Develop facilities that promote positive alternatives for youth and that promote cooperation between local park and recreational service providers and youth - serving nonprofit organizations. • Promote family- oriented recreation, including art activities. • Provide for open, safe, and accessible local parklands, facilities, and botanical gardens. LASER iMPUGUED Recommendation: Adopt Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 Eligible projects include acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, and enhancement of local parks and facilities. The grant programs are distributed under the California - Department of Parks and Recreation with the mission to provide the health, inspiration, and education of residents by helping to preserve and protect biological diversity, natural and cultural resources, and create opportunities for quality outdoor recreation. These grant applications require that the City Council approve resolutions authorizing the filing of the applications and authorize the City Manager to execute any agreements, contracts, and requests for payment regarding this matter on behalf of the City. These grant funds will be used to fund capital projects outlined in Parks & Playgrounds Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Over the next three (3) years, the City of Arcadia is entitled to $ 241,000 in Proposition "40" funding. The 2003105 CIP budget has proposed five (5) park improvement projects eligible for grant funding These grant funds will be used to reimburse the City for the cost of the Parks Projects. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Resolution No. 6362 approving the application for Grant Funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and file on behalf of the City of Arcadia all forms necessary regarding this ' Grant with the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Approved by: - -�� William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GFL:CL:dw Attachments: Resolution No. 6362 RESOLUTION NO. 6362 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant Program which provides funds for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, the procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require an applicant's governing body to certify by resolution the approval of the applicant to apply for the Per Capita Allocation; and WHEREAS, the applicant will be required to enter into a contract with the State of California upon approval of a grant of funds. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: LAGER WAGED 1 �a i SECTION 1. The City Council approves the filing of an application for local assistance funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. SECTION 2. The City Council certifies that the City, as applicant, has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s) for which funds are sought. SECTION 3. The City Council certifies that the City, as applicant, has reviewed, understands and agrees to the general provisions contained. in the form of contract set forth in the Program's Procedural Guide. SECTION 4. The . City Council appoints the City Manager, or his/her designee, to conduct all negotiations and to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and the like, which. may be necessary for the approval of grant [ITT 413 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 2 Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /S/ SHENG; (',HANG. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Xttomey STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6362 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Ll STAFF REPORT DATE: June 17, 2003 Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Legal Advertising Recommendation: Reject all bids and direct staff to rebid for legal advertising services SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council reject all bids and direct staff to rebid for legal advertising services for the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 420 of the Arcadia Charter, staff must solicit proposals from the Sunday Star /Arcadia Tribune and Core Media Group, Inc. (i.e., Arcadia Weekly), for legal advertising services (e.g., Notices inviting Proposals, Public Heaetetc.). In May 2003, staff requested proposals from the two local newspapers for advertising services during the 2003 -2004 Fiscal Year. However, the public notice soliciting proposals in the local newspaper was inadvertently not published. As such, staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids and direct staff to rebid for legal advertising services for the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004. 1ASERIMAGED colq /ff 4: Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are currently budgeted in the proposed 2003 -04 budget to cover the cost for this service. It is recommended that the City Council reject all bids and direct staff to rebid for legal advertising services for the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004. Approved: " William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: QKANIJ. MIZU :r1] Date: June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6365 approving participation in the w mmendation: SUMMARY The City of Arcadia is currently a member of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ( ICRMA), a Joint Powers Authority of 28 member cities that provides risk management programs of insurance to protect its members from the effects of unexpected losses. Staff is recommending the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6365, approving participation in the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority workers' compensation program. DISCUSSION ICRMA is a joint powers agency with 28 member cities throughout Southern California. It has provided the City with public entity liability coverage above a self - insured retention since 1986. The City has enjoyed the benefits of pooling risk with other member cities, including: • Ability to mitigate the impact of changing insurance markets, • Risk management and loss control services, • Claims and litigation management, • Return of premiums when program costs are lower than projected, and • Lower cost of excess insurance or reinsurance due to economies of scale. The City has historically procured coverage for excess workers' compensation (W.C.) on a group purchase basis through ICRMA until this year. In June 2002, member cities of ICRMA were hit with the realities of the insurance crisis upon receipt of their W.C. LASER IMAGED 4 , renewal quotes for the policy year beginning July 1, 2002. The quotations for all ICRMA member cities were dramatically higher than the previous year, some with rate increases five to six times greater, and all at higher self- insured retentions. ICRMA members were faced with few options, as little time was available to renew coverage and there were very commercial insurance markets willing to underwrite municipal risks. As such, ICRMA decided that each member would be afforded the opportunity to negotiate its own placement, an unfortunate occurrence for a group joined for the benefit of each other. The result was the City purchased insurance with Employers' Reinsurance at a substantially higher cost than in previous years. Because of the negative budgetary consequences of these increases, the ICRMA Board approved the exploration of a self- funded excess Workers Compensation Program (WCP). An ad hoc committee was formed, the Program Development Committee (PDC), consisting of members from all of the ICRMA standing committees, and the President and Vice - President of ICRMA (nine members total). The PDC met frequently and developed the following WCP for the ICRMA Board's consideration. The ICRMA Board met on November 19, 2002, and approved the establishment of a WCP. The new WCP has two enrollment periods: one was between February 1, 2003, and then a second one will be on July 1, 2003. The WCP became operational February 1, 2003, once a minimum participation level was reached. The analysis developed for the initial 18 -month period indicates significant savings to most member cities. The PDC anticipates that only those_ member cities that did not place their W.C. coverage with Hartford Company would be in a position to consider participating effective February 1, 2003, with the remaining member cities participating effective July 1, 2003, due to the current contractual arrangements with the member cities' current W.C. carrier. Staff . has had difficulty securing a quote from our current broker and anticipates that when a quote does materialize, it will be significantly higher than past years. As a result, staff has reviewed the program provisions, terms of coverage, and financial implications of the WCP and bases its recommendations on: • A desire to participate in a self- funded program similar to the liability program, • Concern over further rate increases to rates due to the worsening conditions of the insurance market and new legislation beginning January 1, 2003 (AB 749), • Enhanced ability to provide loss control measures, and • Increased oversight of our claim administrator. In order to participate in the WCP, the attached resolution must be approved and signed. FISCAL IMPACT The annual premium will not exceed $101,000.00, with a self- funded retention of $500,000.00. There are sufficient funds proposed in the 2003 -04 FY Budget for this expenditure. This premium is nearly the same as last year's premium of $94,674.00, and is expected to be significantly lower than any other policies offered by our current broker's carriers. Further, the self- funded retention the City maintained last year of $750,000.00 is not recommended, as additional financial exposure on major claims exists. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 6365 approving participation in the workers' compensation program of the Independent Cities Risk management Authority, effective July 1, 2003. Approved: � " William R. Kelly, City Manager 3 RESOLUTION NO. 6365 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia ( "City") is a member in good standing of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ( "Authority"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has established a Workers' Compensation Program ( "Program ") through which member cities, including this City, may secure workers' compensation coverage; and WHEREAS, the Authority offers various self - insured retentions ( "SIRs ") and coverage limits as determined by its Governing Board; and WHEREAS, the City has received and reviewed a copy of the Program By- Laws, Memorandum of Coverage, and other related documents; and WHEREAS, it is expressly understood that a commitment by a participant in the Program must be for a period of no less than three (3) full program years; and WHEREAS, it appears to be in the best interest of the City that it participate in said Program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: LASER IMAGcD q( SECTION 1. The City of Arcadia hereby elects to join and remain a member of the Program for a period of not less than three (3) full program years, provided the minimum participation requirements in the Program are met. SECTION 2. The City of Arcadia hereby requests that, commencing on July 1, 2003, of the Program period, the City's industrial injury or illness claims be covered by the Program. SECTION 3. The City of Arcadia approves the Program Bylaws and Memorandum of Coverage and other related documents. SECTION 4. The City's designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents as may be required to bind the City to the terms and covenants of the Program. The City shall maintain an Affiliate Certificate of Consent to Self Insure. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall promptly forward a copy of same, by mail, to the Independent Cities Risk Management at 5777 West Century Blvd., Suite 665, Los Angeles, CA 90045. 2 Passed, approved and adopted this 1 7th day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: a STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6365 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution -- ..--- :- . - - -_- -was- adopted -by- the- following�vote,- .to•wit: .. -- - -- - -- AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None ITT City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 DATE: June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Gerald A. Parker, Financial Services Manager /City Treasurer Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize a loan in the amount of $470,000.00 from the City of Arcadia to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Fund exists solely for the re- payment of interest and principal. The source of funds for these payments is tax increment revenue. The repayment of debt between the Agency and the City is recorded in the City's accounting system in order to utilize tax increment funds for redevelopment projects and to formally recognize and document loans between the City and the Agency. DISCUSSION The borrowing and repayment by the Agency is an administrative procedure done in order to meet certain legal requirements. The Agency, by law, must be "in debt" in order to receive tax increment from the County. This procedure of borrowing from and repaying to the City, allows cash to then be utilized for operating and project expenditures. The Tax Increment Fund will have adequate resources at June 30, 2003 to repay the loan the City has made to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund to pay expenses and acquire property according to the directives of the Agency Board. It is recommended that the City take formal action to loan $470,000.00 to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund. LASER IMAGED & 6 N_ /S _A' Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact on the City. This is a routine, administrative procedure to establish and document existing loans, and the receipt and payment of loans made between the City of Arcadia and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. That the City Council authorize a loan In the amount of $470,000.00 from the City of Arcadia to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Project Fund. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:GAP:CL: �ad�f,J rliii /I.�lt Administrative Services Department DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement — emeroencv medical services billin and collection services Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Wittman Enterprises for emergency medical services billing and collection services SUMMARY In August 2001, the Administrative Services Department eliminated in -house ambulance billing and collection services and outsourced this function to Wittman Enterprises. The term of this agreement was for one year, with an option for two one -year extensions. Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to exercise the option to extend the contract with Wittman Enterprises for a second additional year. DISCUSSION Due to frequent and complex changes in the law, and particularly with Medicare, the in- house function of ambulance billing and collection services was outsourced to a private company specializing in this area. On July 17, 2001, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a one -year agreement with Wittman Enterprises, with an option for two one -year extensions. Wittman Enterprises has performed satisfactorily and staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to extend the agreement. The extension would provide for a second additional one -year term from August 1, 2003 to August 1, 2004, unless earlier terminated as provided in the agreement. . LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The existing agreement provides Wittman to receive 6.3% of net collections. Staff is estimating this amount to be less than $50,000.00, and adequate funds have been included in the operating budget, for fiscal year 2003 -04. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to exercise the option to extend the contract with Wittman Enterprises for one additional year. Approved: `^• —! m William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: G3�, .11232AJ c� DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement — Information Systems Management Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Knight Communications for information systems management SUMMARY In August 2000, the Administrative Services Department eliminated in -house information systems management and outsourced this service to Knight Communications. The current contract expires June 30, 2003. Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Knight Communications in the amount of $240,000.00 for information systems management. DISCUSSION In order to provide efficient and effective information systems management to all City. departments, with the exception of the Police Department, it was necessary to contract for these services. Knight Communications has provided a qualified Systems Coordinator to administer the functions of this division. With the assistance of other technical support staff, who are employed by Knight Communications, the following functions have been provided and will continue to be provided on an on -going basis as proposed: • Protection of the information systems infrastructure and availability of technical solutions for the City on a continued basis. • Working closely with third party hardware /software vendors in the resolution of problems associated with their hardware and software. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 • Evaluation and recommendation regarding software /hardware purchases, identification of costs and recommendations for supplies and services as needed. • Working closely with select City staff identifying and establishing long -term goals and objectives The level of service proposed is on -site during regular business hours year round. Additionally, all personnel for Knight Communications are on call 24 hours a day and remote dial -in support services are also available 24 hours if needed. Knight Communications has performed satisfactorily and staff is recommending the contract period be for one (1) year with optional one -year extensions, pending City Council approval. FISCAL IMPACT The cost for providing information systems management as described is $20,000.00 per month. This cost remains the same as the previous fiscal year, with no increase proposed. Sufficient funds are available in the proposed Administrative Services Department Budget for fiscal year 2003 -04. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement In the amount of $240,000.00 for information systems management with Knight Communications. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: 03D AMil R3(AJ 7E DATE: June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct SUBJECT: certain part- time /temporary General Employees Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Fringe benefits and related compensation for management and general employees through June 30, 2003 were authorized with the adoption of Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244. It is recommended these benefits and related compensation be extended on an interim basis effective July 1, 2003, in order to ensure current levels of compensation remain authorized. DISCUSSION The City of Arcadia provides various fringe benefits and related compensation for its officers, management, and general employees of the City as stipulated in Resolution No. 5608. On July 3, 2001, Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244 were adopted setting forth certain amendments and modifications to Resolution No. 5608 specifically for the 2001- 2002 and 2002 -2003 fiscal years. Staff is not prepared to recommend any benefit changes at this time, but anticipates a recommendation will be made for modifications at a later date, as Memorandums of Understanding are clarified and completed with represented employees. In order to ensure current fringe benefits and related compensation remain in effect after June 30, 2003, it is recommended the benefits described in Resolution Nos. 5608, 6243, and 6244 be extended on an interim basis. LASER IMAGED C N. /Y'-". Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds to extend the various fringe benefits and related compensation for officers, management, and general employees as outlined in Resolution Nos. 5608, 6243, and 6244 have been proposed in the fiscal year 2003 -2004 Budget. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6363, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California extending on an interim basis commencing July 1, 2003, Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244, as it is amended Resolution No. 5608 Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: RESOLUTION NO. 6363 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING ON AN INTERIM BASIS COMMENCING JULY 1, 2003, RESOLUTION NOS. 6243 AND 6244, AS IT AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 5608 WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 5608 sets forth various fringe benefits and related compensation for officers, management, and general employees of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 36 of that Resolution provides for amendment and modification of Resolution No. 5608 (the "Fringe Benefit Resolution ") by City Council approved resolutions that direct inclusion of any changes as part of said Resolution; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244 set forth certain amendments to and modifications of Resolution No. 5608 with respect to the 2001 -2002 and 2002 -2003 fiscal years; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend; on an interim basis and until - - -- - adopti -f resolutions- goveming- these matters, —the- terms- andTmvisions of Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244, except insofar as Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244 are hereby amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby extends Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244 on an interim basis, commencing July 1, 2003, subject to the changes and deletions hereinafter set forth. LASER IMAGED il SECTION 2. Except as amended by this Resolution, all other sections of previously adopted resolutions, not otherwise rescinded or amended, regarding benefits and compensation for management employees shall remain in full force and effect including, without limitation, Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244. SECTION 3. The Administrative Services Director shall include in the Fringe Benefit Resolution all amendments to and modifications of Resolution No. 5608, as previously amended by Resolution Nos. 6243 and 6244, that are set forth in this Resolution No. 6363, and shall provide for the original of the Fringe Benefit Resolution, as amended, to be kept in the Office of the City Clerk, with copies to be kept by all City departments. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June, 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney &Z fl • Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6363 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None Nor. V ; , s o ®' City Clerk of the City of Arcadia P :1 DATE: June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6356 establishing an am)ropriations limit for fiscal year 2003 -2004 Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Article XIII -B of the State Constitution imposes a limit ( "the Gann Limit") on tax proceeds that can be appropriated for expenditures in any given fiscal year. Section 7910 requires the City to establish the limit by resolution. It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution establishing the annual adjustment factors selected to compute the Limit and the resultant limit for fiscal year 2003 -2004. BACKGROUND In November 1979, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann initiative. This proposition created Article XIII -B of the State Constitution placing limits on the amount of revenue, which can be spent by City Government. Proposition 4 became effective for the 1980 -81 fiscal year, but the formula for calculating the limit was based on the 1978 -79 "base year" revenues. In June 1990, the.voters of California approved Proposition 111, which, among other things, provides new adjustment formulas, which makes the Appropriation Limit more responsive to local growth issues. Proposition 111 also implemented a requirement for an annual review of the Limit calculation. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION The Appropriation Limitation imposed by Propositions 4 and 111 creates a restriction on the amount of revenue, which can be appropriated in any fiscal year. The limit is based on actual City appropriations during the 1978 -79 fiscal year, and is increased each year using the growth of population and inflation. Proceeds of taxes are allowed to be spent on several types of appropriations, which do not count against the Limit. The law allows a City to spend tax proceeds on voter - approved debt and the costs of complying with Court orders and Federal mandates, with certain restrictions. Proposition 111 expanded these exempt categories to include expenditures for "qualified capital outlay" beginning in 1990 -91. Appropriations for these excludable categories also do not count against the Limit. In order to ensure that taxes are counted in the Appropriations Limit of only one agency of government, Article XIII -B and Government Code Section 7903 require that if the State provides funds to a local government with no strings attached, they will be counted as "State Subventions" and will be included in the Appropriation Limit of the City (i.e., Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue). On the other hand, if the State specifies that funds are restricted in their use then they are to be counted in the State's Limit (i.e., State Gas Tax). Beginning with the 1990 -91 Fiscal Year, and as a result of the passage of Proposition 111, the annual adjustment factor in computing the limit has changed. Instead of using only the change in the California Per Capita Income or U.S. Consumer Price Index to measure inflation, each City may now choose, the greater, of the growth in the California Per Capita Income or the growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City. At the present time, the data necessary to calculate the increase in the non - residential assessed valuation is not available from the Los Angeles County Assessor. In the absence of final information on this important factor, it is recommended that we adopt the 2003 -2004 Appropriation Limit on a provisional basis using the alternative factor of per capita income for the inflationary adjustment. Once the City receives the assessment data, the City may adjust the prior year's limit accordingly. The second factor and an important change authorized by the passage of Proposition 111 is, instead of using only the population growth of the City, the City may choose to use the population within the County of Los Angeles. For the 2003 -2004 Fiscal Year Limit, the population growth within the City of Arcadia, based on the prior year, was 1.24% while the County growth was measured at 1.66 %. The Californ per � y capita personal income factor for 2003 -2004 is 1.0231 %. v U I l i -C, { Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 The attached exhibits A, B, C and D, demonstrate the City's compliance with Article X111- 6 of. the State Constitution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. As calculated, the City's Proceeds of Taxes net of exclusions is established at $25,510,000 (Exhibit C). The 2003 -2004 Appropriation Limit is $ $51,030,305 (Exhibit A). Exhibit B shows that the City of Arcadia is under the appropriation limit by $25,697,032 for 2003 -2004. RECOMMENDATION That'the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6356, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia establishing an appropriations limit for the fiscal year 2003- 2004 pursuant to Article III -B of the California Constitution. Approved: ='=-L' William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A". CITY OF ARCADIA APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 AMOUNT 0 KI 14 FBI Last Year's Limit (2002 -2003) $49,266,562 Adjustment Factors 1. Population % 1.0124 2. ` Per Capita 1.0231 Total Adjustment (1.0124 x 1.0231) 1.0358 Annual Adjustment (49,266,562 x 1.0358 — 49,266,562) 1.763.743 2003 -2004 Limit (49,266,562 + 1,763,743) $51.030.305 EXHIBIT "A -1" CITY OF ARCADIA POPULATION /INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 PER CAPITA INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT 1.0231% POPULATION GROWTH - CITY OF ARCADIA 1.24% SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF ARCADIA APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMITATION FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 A. B. C. D. E. Proceeds of Taxes Exclusions Appropriations Subject to Limitation 2002 -2003 Year Limit Over (Under) Limit AMOUNT SOURCE $25,510,000 Exhibit "C" ( 176,727) Exhibit "D" 25 51.030.305 Exhibit `A" ($ 25.697.0321 LOCALLY RAISED LICENSES AND PERMITS Franchise Fee $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Parking Permits EXHIBIT "C" 150,000 CITY OF ARCADIA 600,000 600,000 CALCULATION OF PROCEEDS 875,000 875,000 Mechanical, Electrial FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 & Plumbing Permits REVENUE 240,000 Miscellaneous Permits - 10,000 10,000 Planning Applications PROCEEDS NON Fire Plan Check - 100,000 TAXES OF PROCEEDS 30,000 TOTAL TAXES OF TAXES Property Tax $ 6,000,000 - $ 6,000,000 Sales & Use Tax 7,400,000 - 7,400,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,950,000 - 1,950,000 Property Transfer Tax 400,000 - 400,000 Utility Users Tax 4,350,000 - 4,350,000 Business License Tax 810,000 - 810,000 TOTAL TAXES $ 20,910,000 - $ 20,910,000 FROM STATE Motor Vehicle In Lieu $ 3,100,000 - $ 3,100,000 Gasoline Tax - ' $ 1,040,000 1,040,000 Homeowner's Exemption 50,000 - 50,000 POST - 25,000 25,000 SB 90 Reimbursements 20,000 20,000 STC Program - - TOTAL FROM STATE $ 3,150,000 $ 1,085,000 $ 4,235,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTS Charges to ARA - $ 132,620 $ 132,620 Community Development (CDBG) - 498,030 498,030 Other (PROP A &C) Taxes - 1,360,000 1,360,000 FEDERAL (ISTEA) - - - AQMD (AB2766) 60,000 60,000 TOTAL OTHER GOVERNMENTS $ 2,050,650 $ 2,050,650 LOCALLY RAISED LICENSES AND PERMITS Franchise Fee $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Parking Permits 150,000 150,000 Plan Check Fees 600,000 600,000 Building Permits 875,000 875,000 Mechanical, Electrial & Plumbing Permits - 240,000 240,000 Miscellaneous Permits - 10,000 10,000 Planning Applications - 120,000 120,000 Fire Plan Check - 100,000 100,000 Engineering Permit Fees - 30,000 30,000 EXHBIT "C" (Continued) Page 2 REVENUE 1,450,000 - $ 139,370 139,370 PROCEEDS NON 966,020 TAXES OF PROCEEDS TOTAL 60,000 TAXES OF TAXES 3,000 Charges for Current Service - 1,237,000 1,237,000 Recreation Activities - 448,000 448,000 Library Charges - 65,250 65,250 Rent & Royalty - 150,000 150,000 Park/Dwelling Unit Fees - 35,000 35,000 TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS - $ 4,760,250 $ 4,760,250 FINES & PENALTIES Miscellaneous Fines Parking Citations TOTAL FINES & PENALTIES $ 100,000 $ 100,000 140,000 140,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 OTHER REVENUE Parimutuel Receipts Admin.O /H Transit Admin.O /H Water Admin. O/H Solid Waste Miscellaneous Receipts Court Appearances Sale of Property Solid Waste Assessments TOTAL OTHER REVENUE Total Estimated Revenues Before Revenue from Use of Money Revenue Earned from Use of Money Earned on Non - Proceeds of Taxes: Funds 107, 118 142, 151, 155, 157 & 521 Proceeds of Taxes: Fund 302 General Fund TOTAL REVENUE EARNED FROM USE GRAND TOTAL $ 1,450,000 - $ 1,450,000 - $ 139,370 139,370 - 966,020 966,020 - 42,275 42,275 - 60,000 60,000 - 3,000 3,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 270,000 270,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 1,530,665 $ 2,980,665 $ 25,510,000 $ 9,666,565 $ 35,176,565 - 425,000 425,000 265,000 - 265,000 292,000 108,000 400,000 $ 557,000 $ 533,000 $ 1,090,000 $ 26,067,000 $ 10,199,565 $ 36,266,565 i CITY OF ARCADIA INTEREST EARNINGS PRODUCED BY TAXES FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 PROCEEDS OF TAXES (EXCLUDING INTEREST) TOTAL REVENUE (EXCLUDING INTEREST) PERCENT APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDS OF TAXES (73 %) TOTAL INTEREST GENERAL FUND Exhibit "C -1" $25,510,000 $35,176,565 $ 400,000 INTEREST APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDS OF TAXES (73 %) $ 292,000 INTEREST APPLICABLE TO NON - PROCEEDS OF TAXES (27 %) INTEREST DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED TO FUNDS WHICH REVENUES ARE IDENTIFIED AS NON PROCEEDS OF TAXES — FUNDS 107, 118,142, 151, 155, 157, 521 INTEREST DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED TO FUNDS WHICH REVENUES IDENTIFIED AS PROCEEDS OF TAXES — FUND 302 $ 108,000 $ 425,000 $ 265,000 RESOLUTION NO. 6356 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII-B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION WHEREAS, Article XIII -B of the Constitution of the State of California imposes upon the City of Arcadia, as well as all cities, the obligation to limit each fiscal year's appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the amount of such appropriations in fiscal year 1978 -79 as adjusted for subsequent inflation and population changes; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has opted to use as the inflation adjustment factor, the percentage change in California per capita personal income in lieu of the growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City; and WHEREAS, at the time the appropriations limit calculations were prepared, the data necessary to calculate the increase in the non- residential assessed valuation was generally not available from the County Assessor; and WHEREAS, there exists a possible need to adjust the appropriations limit once the assessment data is available, and consequently this Resolution is being adopted. on a provisional basis; and LASER IMAGED 4e WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has opted to use, as the population adjustment factor, the growth in the population of the City of Arcadia in lieu of the growth in the population of the County of Los Angeles; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIII -B of the California Constitution, the City is required to set its appropriation limit for each fiscal year, and has made available to the public the. documentation used in the determination of said appropriation limit. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the appropriation limit for fiscal year 2003 -2004 for the City of Arcadia shall be and is hereby set in the amount of $51,030,305. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of'this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 2 Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June , 2003. /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: gt P.1a4� City Attomey 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6356 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 17th day'of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia rd :r -I : DATE: June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council , '' FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Directo By: Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6361 appointing specific representatives to the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY The City of Arcadia is currently a member of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ( ICRMA), a Joint Powers Authority of twenty -nine cities that provides risk management programs of insurance to protect its members from the effects of unexpected losses. As a member, each city is required to designate a member of the City Council to represent the City on the Governing Board. Additionally, member cities are entitled to designate an alternate representative, and, if desired, a substitute alternate representative. Staff is recommending the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6361 designating the Mayor as the primary member, Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director, as the alternate member, and Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analyst, as the substitute alternate member. DISCUSSION The City of Arcadia and twenty -eight other cities participate in, and maintain representation on the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ( ICRMA) Governing Board. Each member city must appoint a member of the City Council as the primary representative to the Board. At the May 6, 2003 meeting, the City Council designated the sifting Mayor as the primary ICRMA representative. As a result of the City Council's rotation of the Mayor in honor of Arcadia's Centennial, four members of the City Council will be designated as the primary representative. The following is the proposed schedule for the primary ICRMA representative, effective July 1, 2003: LASER IMAGED e- oN. /8--/1, Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 Term of Mavor (effective 07- 01 -03) Representative July 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003 Shang Chang July 15, 2003 to October 21, 2003 Gary Kovacic October 21, 2003 to January 20, 2004 John Wuo January 20, 2004 to April 20, 2004 Mickey Segal In addition, staff is recommending that Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director, and Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analyst, be designated as alternate and substitute alternate respectively. FISCAL IMPACT The adoption of Resolution No. 6361 will. not have a financial impact on the City's budget. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6361, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, designating the Mayor as the primary representative to the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority Governing Board; Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director, . as the alternate representative ;. and Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analyst, as the substitute alternate representative. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 6361 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA) JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT TO AUTHORIZE A MEMBER CITY TO APPOINT SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIVES TO THE GOVERNING BOARD WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia is a member of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ( "ICRMA "), a Joint Powers Authority created pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia is a signatory to the Joint Powers Agreement which governs the operation of ICRMA and establishes the membership of its Governing Board; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia desires to approve an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement to authorize the appointment by resolution of an elected official to the Governing Board of the Authority; and an alternate (the alternate may be a staff member) to act in the primary member's absence; and a substitute alternate (the substitute alternate may be a staff member) to act in the alternate member's absence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This City Council does approve an amendment to Article V. of the Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, to read as follows: ARTICLE V GOVERNING BOARD The Authority shall be governed by a Governing Board comprised of one Representative from each Member City. The City Council of each Member City shall appoint a member of LASER IMAGED 3. I 5� a the City Council as the Member City's Representative to the Governing Board. Each Member City shall also designate an alternate Representative and may designate a substitute alternate. The alternate and the substitute alternate Representative, if appointed, may be staff officer(s) of the Member City. Each Representative of the Governing Board has one vote. Either the alternate or substitute Representative, if appointed, may vote at meetings of the Governing Board in the absence of the Member City's Representative. Immediately upon admission of a new Member City pursuant to Article XVII, the Member City shall be entitled to appoint to the Governing Board a Representative and an alternate Representative and, if desired, a substitute alternate Representative. A Representative and /or alternate or substitute alternate Representative shall be removed from the Governing Board upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (1) the Authority receives a written notice from the appointing Member City of the removal of the Representative or alternate or substitute alternate Representative; (2) the expulsion or withdrawal of the Member City from this Agreement; (3) the death or resignation of the Representative; (4) the Authority receives the written notice from the Member City that the Representative is no longer a member of the City Council of the Member City. Representatives and their alternates, or substitute alternates, if appointed, are not entitled to compensation. The Governing Board may authorize reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Representative, or their alternates, or substitute alternates. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.6, the Authority shall designate an officer or employee, or officers and employees, to receive, deposit, invest, and disburse the property of the Authority pursuant to Government Code Sections 6505 and 6505.5. The Authority a shall fix the amount of the fidelity bond to be filed by such public officer(s) and /or employee(s). SECTION 2. That the City of Arcadia appoints The Honorable Sheng Chang to serve on the Governing. Board of the ICRMA from July 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003; The Honorable Gary Kovacic to serve from July 15, 2003 to October 21, 2003; The Honorable John Wuo to serve from October 21, 2003 to January 20,2004; and The Honorable Mickey Segal to serve from January 20, 2004 to April 20, 2004. SECTION 3. That the City of Arcadia appoints Tracey L. Hause to serve on the Governing Board of the ICRMA in the absence of the primary member designated in Section 2 above. SECTION 4. That the City of Arcadia appoints Michael A. Casalou to serve as the Substitute Alternate on the Governing Board of the ICRMA in the absence of the primary and alternate members appointed pursuant to Sections 2 and 3 above. SECTION 5. Thatthe individuals previously designated bythis Councilasthe City's representative and alternates to the ICRMA Governing Board and to the Liability Risk Management Committee of the ICRMA, are hereby confirmed and designated as the City's delegate to the ICRMA Governing Board for all purposes of representing the City's interests and exercising the authority of the City with respect to the coverage and the program and voting on behalf of the City on all matters delegated to the Governing Board and signing such amendments as are contemplated to be approved by the Governing Board under the Liability Risk Coverage Agreement and the Trust Agreement, and such individuals shall keep this Council informed of such matters on a timely basis. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 17th day of June ,2003 /s/ SHENG CHANG Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6361 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 17th day of June 2003 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Chang NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 5 i k'~N STAFF REPORT June 17, 2003 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Directo Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Service)Mana er Ken Herman, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Contract— Construction of Three (3) Pressure Reducing Stations Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc. in the amount of $431,195 for the construction of three pressure reducing stations. SUMMARY The City has received several grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) totaling $6,550,065 for the construction of water system projects to improve the seismic reliability of our water system. Included in these federally funded projects is the construction of three (3) pressure reducing stations which will regulate the pressure in the water system as water is drawn from a higher pressure zone to supply a lower pressure zone. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc., in the amount of $431,195, for the construction of these three (3) pressure- reducing stations. BACKGROUND The major supply of water to the City is achieved by pumping water from wells in lower elevations of the City to reservoirs located in the higher elevations. Then, the water flows by gravity from the reservoir to the user. The greater the difference in elevation between the reservoir and the user, the greater the pressure to the user. The reservoirs are located at various elevations to supply the proper pressure within pressure zones. There are four (4) major pressure zones. Each of these pressure zones has one gravity - fed pipeline supplying water to its respective central demand area. The seismic evaluation conducted by the Corps of Engineers identified this as a potential problem and recommended that a second line be installed to establish a redundant transmission system. The 2001 Water Master Plan Update recommends installing pressure- reducing stations to create the necessary redundancy at a fraction of the cost. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 Pressure - reducing stations would provide a secondary connection between adjacent zones with valves that would reduce the pressure in the pipeline as the water flowed from a higher elevation (pressure zone) to a lower elevation (pressure zone). This secondary connection could supply necessary water for domestic or fire prevention use in the event of an emergency. DISCUSSION Construction of three (3) pressure reducing stations and associated pipelines and appurtenances at the following locations will provide the City with greater protection and flexibility in the event of a failure to critical water system piping and transmission lines caused by a major seismic event or any catastrophic line failure (see attached location map): 1. Colorado Boulevard, east of Michillinda Avenue, connecting Zone 1 and Zone 2 2. Duarte Road, west of Baldwin Avenue, connecting Zone 2 and Zone 3 3. El Monte Avenue, south of Camino Real Ave., connecting Zone 3 and Zone 4 Notice inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper, trade journals, and posted on the Internet. Four (4) firms attended a non - mandatory pre -bid conference. The City Clerk publicly opened seven (7) sealed bids on May 22, 2003. The following bid results are listed for the City Councils review and consideration: RANK FIRM LOCATION BID AMOUNT 1 Perry C. Thomas Const., Inc. Monrovia $ 431,195 2 Robert G. Castonigia, Inc. Downey $ 445,715 3 Engineered Plumbing, Inc. Baldwin Park $ 446,876 4 Valverde Construction, Inc. Santa Fe Springs $ 450,600 5 Atlas- Allied, Inc. Anaheim $ 467,700 6 SRD Engineering, Inc. Yorba Linda $ 471,200 7 United Contractors Co., Inc. Santa Fe Springs $ 488,900 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and investigated the contractors' background and recent projects for competency. Staff has concluded that Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder to perform the construction of this project. Staff recommends that the City Council award a Contract in the amount of $ 431,195 for the construction of three (3) pressure reducing stations. 7 Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for the project on November 21, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff found no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the environment. As a condition of federal grant approval, the EPA completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which resulted in a finding of no significant impact. The public comment period for the EA has concluded and EPA has certified the EA and released the grant funds. FISCAL IMPACT The 2002 -03 Capital Improvement Projects has allocated $491,200 for the construction phase of the installation of these three (3) pressure- reducing stations. After submittal of the proper forms by the City, the EPA will refund up to 55% of the total cost expended by the City associated with this project's design, construction management, and construction. RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a Contract in the amount of $ 431,195 to Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc. for the construction of three (3) pressure- reducing stations. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. Approved by: �! William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GL:KH::dw Attachment: Location Map PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS Bl. PROJECT LOCATION COLORADO & MICHILLINDA S7 7n CATALP A._ "ORTA - CA - DR - MONTE NAOMI 11 AV 0 :1 PROJECT LOCATION I EL MONTE & CAMINO REAL SHARON RD J �_ _ __ LEMON AV AV LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE I l3 RD LEMON A 1*1 ,- June 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director I Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Mana er Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Contract— Replacement and Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playaround Equipment at City Parks Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Ortco Inc. in the amount of $81,260 for the Replacement and Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playground Equipment at City Parks SUMMARY The Public Works Services Department maintains all City owned parks within the City of Arcadia. Many of these parks have playground equipment that must be maintained and upgraded for function and safety. The City conducted a playground safety audit and parks infrastructure analysis of recreational areas. An outside consultant, Purkiss- Rose -RSI, completed this audit. The audit identified the existence of various playground equipment safety hazards at many City parks. These hazards were rated and categorized by the consultant and documented in a safety audit. Staff has reviewed the report and concurs with the recommendations. The 2002 -2003 Capital Improvement Program provides for the repair of all the class 1 and class 2 safety hazards identified in the audit. This project will correct the applicable class 1 and class 2 safety hazards. Currently, the playground equipment at Newcastle and Camino Grove Parks do not meet the current American Disabilities Act (ADA) and safety specifications. The equipment at Camino Grove and the Newcastle equipment is old and /or does not meet existing standards. It is therefore recommended that the equipment be replaced with new equipment which meets current ADA specifications and safety codes. Staff received four (4) bids for this project. Ortco, Inc., who has successfully completed similar projects, submitted the lowest qualified bid. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $81,260.50 to Ortco, Inc., for the Replacement and Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playground Equipment at City Parks. LASER IMAGED 6,9 /Y. $h. �p T Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION California Legislation AB1055 requires all. playground equipment areas that are accessible to the public be audited for safety. One aspect of this legislation requires that a Certified Playground Safety Inspector conduct inspections of all playground equipment. The City hired Purkiss- Rose -RSI to perform the safety audit and an infrastructure analysis. The safety audit was conducted to comply with AB1055 and the inventory/analysis of the City parks and recreational facilities was conducted to evaluate other park facilities. The inventory data collected from these facilities, combined with the information gathered as part of the safety audit, was used to establish a six (6) year Parks Rehabilitation Master Plan for renovations of existing park sites and playground equipment. Audits of eight (8) playground areas at various locations throughout the City of Arcadia were performed by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector to determine potential hazards and compliance with ADA. Once the audits were completed, the data was compiled by the inspector and recommendations were made to make the playground areas safer for children. Purkiss- Rose -RSI then established remediation priorities for the repair and replacement of playground equipment. The hazards were identified by degree of severity and divided into four (4) categories with categories 1 and 2 given the principle consideration. Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were distributed to area contractors. The following four (4) bids were received on May 20, 2003: Bidder Location Bid Amount Ortco, Inc. Orange, CA $81,260 Premium Construction Co. Camarillo, CA $98,995 Vido Samarzich, Inc. Alta Loma, CA $105,000 Ryco Construction, Inc Gardena, CA $134,431 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the Contractor's background and their recent projects for competency. It is the staff's opinion that Ortco Inc. can satisfactorily perform the work required and recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $81,260.50 to Ortco Inc. for the Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playground Equipment at City Parks. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $87,990 are appropriated in the 2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program for this project. Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Award a contract to Wheeler Ortco Inc in the amount of $81,260.50 for the Rehabilitation of Infrastructure and Playground Equipment at City Parks. 2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. 3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved: W '9 William R. Kelly, City Manager kTjCTICiI" M STAFF REPORT t"" - Public Works Services Department June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc or 01 1 Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Manager Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Contract — Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with EC Construction Co. in the amount of $350,190.36 for the 2002 -2003 Annual Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project SUMMARY: As part of the City's Pavement Management Master Plan, the Public Works Services Department is preparing to rehabilitate seventeen (17) residential streets throughout the City (see attached Location Maps). Staff received three (3) bids for this project. EC Construction Co., who has successfully completed similar projects, submitted the lowest qualified bid. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $350,190.36 to EC Construction Co., for the 2002 -2003 Annual Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project. 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 five (5) year pavement management plan to rehabilitate many of the lowest rated streets. The 2002/03 Capital Improvement Program includes the design and rehabilitation of seventeen (17) residential streets with approximately 12,400 lineal feet of asphalt. An asphalt overlay is the application of a 2" thick mixture of %" and smaller aggregate and asphalt applied over the existing street pavement. This mixture, when combined with edge cold milling, is designed to rehabilitate older pavement surfaces where surface cracks and loss of surface material are evident. LASER IMAGED C o �V. )8"..d-- • 7P Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 The (5) Year Pavement Management Plan identified seventeen (17) residential streets for major rehabilitation, location maps are attached for reference. These streets have considerable cracking, areas of localized failure, and a pavement condition index (PCI) of "poor" to tailed:" Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were distributed to area contractors. The following three.(3) bids were received on May 27, 2003: Bidder Location Bid Amount EC Construction Co. El Monte, CA $350,190 Palp, Inc. DBA Excel Paving Co. Long Beach, CA $379,923 Silvia Construction Inc. Rancho Cucamonga, CA $405,740 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 EC Construction Co. can satisfactorily perform the work required and recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $350,190.36 to EC Construction Co. for the 2002 -2003 Annual Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $452,724 were budgeted in the 2001 -2002 Capital Improvement Program for this project. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Award a contract to EC Construction Co. in the amount of $350,190.36 for the 2002 -2003 Annual. Asphalt Concrete Overlay Project. 2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. 3. 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:KH:dw Attachment: Location Maps n F CATION MAP ET 1 l A1' ELKI D 6 L 8 Z 3 N O L . VIRCMN DR 'HIGHLAND OAKS DARK ELEN ScRoOt W� LOCATION MAP SHEET 2 I I � �� I�� 51[PRA I'I NADRE �d Q F 4 1 p GRAND NEW AV K 4 P j O p � 9 Zy < _ W F '< Z 7 u ° f O o 9 ANDREA < i i � a 8 0 o W F F LDRALYN DR. K S a N D 6 L 8 Z 3 N O L . VIRCMN DR 'HIGHLAND OAKS DARK ELEN ScRoOt W� LOCATION MAP SHEET 2 I I � �� I�� 51[PRA I'I NADRE L V y Zp 0 DA D a 1 RPBO A OR SL J N J � O 2� 1 . N.T.S. LOCATION MAP SHEET 3 z : -rte 77� H� 3 root. NRR C. �z d y 1 T i P C IL- l i LOCATION MAP SHEET4 r a FLORES AV R AV Q COYLE -- -------J AV x LONGDEN AV 2 a 0 :LL LOVEJO`/ EL a Q tt w w w � O � w ' LL 3 z a ° ° a x h 3 SANDR I x N L ivE OAK AVE 1 1 N N.T.S. L M L OCATION AP SHEET5 A r A� MM �e°t.,rs RE Fire De DATE: June 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David R. Lugo, Fire Chiefx By: Richard C. Brown, Deputy Fire Chief SUBJECT: Communications Equipment Repair and Service Recommendation: Reject bids and direct staff to re -bid for the Communications Equipment Repair and Service. SUMMARY During the course of the fiscal year, the fire department has the need to purchase, service, or repair mobile and portable radios, mobile data terminals, and fire station alerting equipment. A Notice Inviting Bids was published in local newspapers to provide communications service for fire department radios and communications equipment. On May 29, 2003, the City received one bid and one "no bid ". Based on the inadequate number of bids, it is recommended that the City Council reject the bid from Nida Companies and instruct staff to re -bid the Communications Equipment Repair and Service contract. The Fire Department maintains a fleet of twenty-two (22) vehicles equipped with mobile and portable radios and eleven vehicles with mobile data terminals (MDT's). Each on duty firefighter is assigned two (2) portable radios for the duration of their shift. The Department maintains a cache of portable radios for large scale emergency operations, strike team response, and special operations. There is a need for radio service and repair throughout the year to keep the emergency communications network functional at all times. In FY 2000, the Fire Department went out to bid for radio service and repair and awarded a contract to Nida Companies, the lowest, qualified bidder. A one year LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 2 contract was awarded with a renewal clause for two additional years. This contract will expire on June 30, 2003. In May of this year, a notice inviting bids for radio repair and service was sent to fifteen (15) vendors. Only two (2) bids were returned, one of which was a "no bid ". Bidder Location Bid Amount Nida Companies La Crescenta $36,828.00 SJM Industrial Radio El Segundo No Bid FISCAL IMPACT The funds for radio service, repair and installation are included in the FY 2003 -2004 operating budget for communication equipment. RECOMMENDATION Reject all bids and direct staff to re -bid for Communications Equipment Repair and Service. DRL:rcb Approved: n William R. Kelly, City Manager