HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 1,1988
30:0046'
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
1
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Feb. 2,
1988)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
CLOSED
SESSION
1
A:Ev~~s
PTA
COMMUNITY
FAIR
~
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
AND THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 1, 1988
The City Council
session March 1,
Chamber.
and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular
1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council
Rev. Roger Sonnenberg, Our Saviour Lutheran Church
Economic Development Assistant Joyce Friedmann
PRESENT:
ABSENT;
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
On MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1988 were
APPROVED. Councilmember Harbicht did not vote as he was not present at
the February 2, 1988 meeting.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that
the reading in full be waived.
CITY ATTORNEY
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency and City Council in the adjourned regular session prior to this
meeting, met in CLOSED SESSION to give instructions to the Agency's
negotiators regarding negotiations with the Low family concerning
potential land acquisition of property at 333 E. Huntington Drive in
the City of Arcadia.
PRESENTATIONS
Sandy McQuilikin, 1200 S. Santa Anita Ave. and Donna Wood, 60 W.
Orange Grove, explained the upcoming PTA Arcadia Community Fair for
the purpose of raising money for the school. This is to be held March
4, 5 and 6. The ladies distributed packets to the Councilmembers
further describing the event and invited everyone to attend.
1.
PUBLIC The City Council on January 19, 1988 adopted Resolution No. 5399
HEARING declaring the City's intention to vacate and abandon the remaining
(VACATION portion of North Third Avenue adjoining Huntington Drive. The required
PORTION notices were published and posted in accordance with Part 3 of Division
N.THIRD 9 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The appropriate utility
AVENUE) companies were notified of the intent to vacate.
(APPROVED~)(, f'
~r ~~
\S &'
Q' ~
3/1/88
-1-
Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and, no one desiring to be heard,
the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by
. ~ouncilmember Harbich1: and CARRIED.
~~The title of Resolution No. 5407 was read by the City Attorney. It
~ was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember
RESOLUTION \l~ Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution NO.
NO. 5407 ~ 5407, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
(ADOPTED) )( CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THE SOUTHERLY 210'
S OF NORTH THIRD AVENUE ADJOINING HUNTINGTON DRIVE" be and it is hereby
~ ' ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(STREET
LIGHTING
SEWANEE
LANE) ""
(APPROVED),
~
!::
~
3.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(T. A.
87-17)
(APPROVED)
~'t'
,
"
30:0047
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
1
A petition had been received from property owners along Sewanee Lane
requesting the ins'allation of s1:reet lights. The Engineering Division
has studied the request and has determined that four street lights would
be necessary to provide the minimum recommended level of lighting for
this street. The installation of these lights would require the construc-
tion of underground conduits and ornamental concrete poles at an estimated
cost of $10,560. The City will pay 75% of the installation cost if the
property owners pay the remaining 25% as well as 100% of the future power
and maintenance costs. If the property owners agree, the benefitting
properties could then be annexed to the Lighting Maintenance District, Zone
"E" and the costs would become part of the property tax bill. The petition
from the 18 benefitting property owners indicates fourteen in favor (78%).
Mayor Gilb declared the hearing,open and
Frank Rush, 2326 Sewanee Lane, inquired of staff if there had been a
change in the estimated amount. Staff replied that the estimate was the
same. Mr. Rush stated that he and two of-his neighbors were objecting.
Staff noted that there would still be 78% favorable response.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED.
It waS then MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Superintendent of
Streets be AUTHORIZED to proceed with the installation of street light-
ing along Sewanee Lane as set forth in the staff report dated March 1,
1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
Consideration of Text Amendment 87-17, amending the setback regulations 1
and building height regulations to the R-O, R-l and R-M zones. Staff
report presented. In response to concerns expressed by the Commission,
Council and residents, the Planning Commission directed the staff to
prepare this Text Amendment for consideration. The Commission received
both written and verbal comments regarding the large size of new homes
and how these large homes do not fit in with the character of the neighbor-
hoods. The visual impact of these homes is determined principally by two
factors, first. the width of the homes in relation to the width of the
property and second, the height of the homes. The original staff recommenda
tion proposed a sideyard setback angle which would establish both setback
and height limits. There seemed to be some general confusion regarding
3/1/88
-2,
30:0048
1
the use of the angle concept, so in the January 15 report revised
recommendations were presented with a more traditional approach. The
overall impact of the height and setback on new construction will be
nearly identical with either approach. The Planning Commission at its
Meeting of January 26 recommended approval of the revised January 15th
proposal with some minor changes. The'Commission in reviewing both the
November and January staff proposals felt that the scale recommended in
the January report was more appropriate and would be more restrictive
in the narrower lots than the original recommendations. However, it was
the consensus of the Commission that the building height limit should be
a maximum of 30' on lots 75 to 100 feet wide rather than the step scale
which was proposed by staff. Staff believes that this Text Amendment
will result in the construction of both new homes and additions to
existing homes which will be more compatible in scale with the size of
the property, while at the same time continuing to allow two story develop-
ment. The narrower the lot, the more restrictive the maximum building
height limit. The Text Amendment is not intended to dictate any partic-
ular'design style. On the other hand, the amendment has the greatest
impact on the current trend of constructing large two-story English
tudor-style dwellings with minimum side yard setbacks on narrow lots.
On wider lots the impact of the Text'Amendment is less. The Planning
Commission has recommended that 12' be the height limit above which
the setbacks have to conform to the second story setback requirements.
A typical 5 and 12 pitch roof with a maximum building height of 12' would
only permit a room of less than 15' in width to be located at the single
story setback line. Staff believes that this is excessively restrictive
and that gable roofs with a maximum height of 20' ,enclosing only
single story living space should be allowed to encroach into the required
setback area as set forth in the earlier staff report. Because several
property owners and builders are proceeding with projects based on exist-
ing code requirements, staff recommended that any plans in plan check or
submitted to a home owners' association prior to the adoption date of
this ordinance (that would be the date of the Council second reading) be ~
exempted from the new regulations. This would give the occupants a ~
minimum of 30 days from the date of the Council's action directing staff
to prepare the ordinance to submit plans for plan check to qualify
under the existing regulations.
I
Mayor Gilb inquired what the main objections were which the Planning
Commission had in regard to the height step. Staff responded in part
that there was not a great deal of discussion on that point. They
felt that 35' height would be no problem on lots that were more than
100' and below that they felt that 30' was probably something that could
be handled on a modification basis depending on the design of the house and
the height that was going to be requested. Originally staff recommended
that for each additional 5' of lot width between 75' and 100' we went
up another foot in allowable building height. With reference to gable
roofs, staff replied that most ranch style homes predominately have
gable roofs usually with a relatively flat pitch probably of 3 and 12
to 5 and 12. Councilmember Harbicht inquired if he understood that
because of the pitch required for a shake roof to work that given 12' height
requirement one would end up with a house that is very shallow. Staff
replied that was true unless the builder went with a 10' setback which
is not desirable.
Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and
Chris Bade, 2416 Florence Avenue, stated, in part, that he was concerned
about this Text Amendment. He does not think the City should go to
such an extreme. He agreed that a change is needed, but does not think
all homeowners should be penalized. He agreed with the new Text Amend-
ment with the exception of the height requirement ... that 25' high on a lot
that is 71' wide or less is too restrictive. This height requirement
will cause the houses to all look the same. Would think the City wouId
prefer some variety. Height requirement will also hurt existing homes
a house on a 60' lot will make it virtually impossible to add a second
story and make the house look architecturally acceptable. The City will
3/1/88
-3-
30:0049
end up with a bunch of boxes with flat roofs. He felt there is an
alternative to the height problem which is more acceptable. He thinks
it is fair that property owners who have the smaller lots ... the text
amendment also penalizes some of the wider lots ... from 75' to 99'
a house can only be 30' high. He feels the alternative is that as the
lot gets wider, the builder should be able to go higher. This will make
the height and the size more in proportion to the width and the size of
the lot and he thinks that is the goal of the text amendment. He also
feels that gable ends should be exempt. Approximately 75% of homes
in Arcadia have gable ends. If they should burn down they could not
be rebuilt.
Don Crenshaw, 37 E. Duarte, stated, in part, that he is an architect and 1
this has been discussed over a period of time. The-home owners and the
builders are not against each other. They are trying to come up with a
workable solution. He realizes that the impact from the street of these
massive houses is a great part of the problem. Perhaps a solution would
be a progressive second floor which would reduce the impact. Also a
400 coming from the street would also reduce the impact. Really the
height is taken care of by those two articles alone and this would be
a simple solution to the situation. We would end up with a pitch of 4
and 12. The impact from the street is basically what everyone is complain-
ing about. He referred to a house in the Village that was 27' high, but
27' is basically 60' from the front of the property. It is 60' back from
the street which is on a 66' wide piece of property. It does not have the
impact from the street.
Judy Packer, 1016 Coronado Drive, stated that she would like to know
the address of a house in ,he Village referred to by Mr. Crenshaw.
(Corner of Balboa and Golden West)
Milt Bade, 63 Birchcroft St. and has a couple of construction companies.
He has been building here in Arcadia for 25 years and have had a 35'
height limit. There has been a 35' height limit for a number of years ...
all of a sudden there is a great deal of resistance to this height level.
He is not opposed to the height of the buildings being built now... one
always gets a few bad ones ... a few are offensive. On an overall scale
of buildings in Arcadia, his companies have probably built 25 - 30 of
them. He has had no opposition to the homes built. He has had resistance
to two story houses, but there is always resistance to two story houses
when they are built next to single story houses. When a house has windows
looking into a neighbor's yard it does not matter how high the roof is.
The impact from the street is what is important. He would like to see
Council adopt the Planning Department's recommendation and he would like
Council's support.
Byron Dixon, 225 W. Lemon, stated, in part, that he is one of the people
who gathered up some of the literature on this matter and got out and
talked to people about it. They gathered more than 75 signatures of
people who were in favor of the text amendment. The main concern of 1
mos' of the people they talked with was not only of height but also of
massiveness. Noted that bliilaers and-developers are worried about being ,
limited in their construction. He does not think they have taken time
to have talked to the people who have lived next door to some of the new
construction and get their feelings of being infringed upon and losing
their privacy... that is their main concern. He is also concerned about
whether or not the public is being informed about the changes which have
been made since last November. Many people were in favor of the original
proposal and that has been watered down. Councilmember Harbicht replied
that what is before Council is what the Planning Commission recommended.
3/1/88
-4-
30:0050
1
Robert Doeppel, 117 W. La Sierra Dr., stated, in part, that he is very
concerned about the new building restrictions. When he purchased his
property the City gave him guidelines about what he could do with his
property and one of them was to add on or build a 35' high house. Now
the City is considering taking away that right. He thought there should
be consideration given to whether or not the problem is really related to
this code or what is the problem in the first place. This is not just a
builders' law... it affects all property owners as well. He referred
to the Minutes of the Planning Commission when the text amendment was
approved. People were concerned about turrets and castle homes; they
were concerned about privacy; about architectural design, etc;
Architectural design has nothing to do with building height. Also,
there was discussion about cul-de-sacs which seem to be going up all
over town. These arguments have nothing to do with the text amendment.
The fact that builders make a profit has nothing to do with taking
away his right to build on his property. The builders live in Arcadia.
Privacy is of great concern but people can look into back yards from
a 25' house as well as from a 35' house.
Michelle Silvio, 429 W. Lemon, stated, in part, that she wanted to ask
Mr. Doeppel if he objected to a grand victorian house which was pink ,and
blue next to his house. Such a big house swallows up your little house
and property. She does not think they object to two story homes in
Arcadia, but that they object to, the style which is out of place.
Linda La Rue, 365 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that she wanted to
addresS-some comments made by some of the builders. Some at the Planning
Commission said they did not understand why homeowners were so upset by
ths new building when their property values were going up. She did not
move into Arcadia only to sell in a few years and make a profit. She
moved here to enjoy the spaciousness of the City and the education her
children receive. An increase in property values at the expense of
oversized homes is not worth it. These houses do not fit into the
neighborhood. She supports the amendment as proposed by the Planning
Department.
1
Louis Hasbrouch, 2721 Caroline Way, stated, in part, that he is concerned
about over-development. Many of the new homes are too large and too
high for the lots. Some of the new homes are box shaped. He is also
concerned some of the older homes in his neighborhood are being torn
down and a very disportionate house in relation to the neighborhood,
replacing it. There is a slow growth movement sweeping Southern California.
We see such an initiative in Pasadena. City Councils and Planning
Commissions in other cities have managed this. Perhaps they (Arcadia)
are listening to the developers and not to the majority of the voters
and home owners. Some say it is un-American to tell a person what he
can do with his property. But last December the Supreme Court ruled
(in Ross vs. Rolling Hills Estates) that open view zoning ordinance that
forbids second story homes was constitutional. It is not un-American.
Some of the new homes being built are as large as apartments. He is
going to have a 30' home in his neighborhood with view taken, shadows
cast down. It just does not fit aesthetically into the neighborhood.
Bob Kladifko, 348 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that he is in favor of
the text amendment proposed by the Planning Department originally. Many
members of the community share their concerns with him perhaps because
of his position on the School Board and those concerns not only involve
the schools but they also involve concerns regarding the community and
their homes and they have done just that 'in regard to the text ameridment
and their concern about the building that is going on in the community.
The Planning Department and Planning Commission have worked together
on this and have put in many, many hours with much input. He would like
to say that he wished the public,other than the builders and architects,
had an opportunity to report to the Planning Commission. He felt the
3/1/88
-5~
30:0051
planners and builders had more opportunity to discuss their concerns
with the Planning Commission. He did not feel he was given these same
privileges. Many other citizens feel the same. However, he feels the
Planning Department has put together a very fine proposal. Council-
member Harbicht commented that the Planning-Commission-had never met
with the builders except in a public room and that everyone had a right
to speak.
Kathy Tyson, 310 W. Norman, stated, in part, that she strongly supports
the amendment that is before Council this evening. In the Baldwin
Stocker area she was one who circulated petitions and talked to a lot
of people. Everyone she talked with was very interested because they
were very frustrated that homes could be built that were so massive.
They want the law changed. She lives in a two story home, but when
they built the second story, they worked with the neighbors and respected
their privacy. Their windows do not overlook their yards. This can be
accomplished. It is Council's job to pass this amendment.
1
Gordon Maddock, 45 Christina Street, stated, in part, that he had been
to many of the Planning Commission meetings on this matter. He believes
that the Planning Commission at the direction of the Council and the
citizens recognized a problem in the community and the staff came up with
a proposal which was originally presented at one of the Planning
Commission meetings. At that time the builders -- most of whom live
in this city and mos' have been building in this city for many years
they recognized the problem at the same time. We sat down with the
ordinance that was proposed by the staff and tried to make recommenda-
tions and tried to study it from an architectural freedom point of view
but yet address the problems that the citizens were concerned with.
Staff put forward proposals they felt comfortable with. At the Planning
Commission hearings everyone had a chance to be heard. People were
trying to work together to solve the problem. Perhaps the height
consideration had been decided too quickly. There should be some
consideration for the wider lots with a difference in heights. The
builders did not agree on what the height limitation should be. Their
presentation was not very clear. The staff had agreed on a graduated
reduction in height to lot width. He feels this is a step in the right
direction. It not only affects new homes, but also affects remodeling.
We have to do this one step at a time. He suggests Council give con-
sideration to the recommendations given earlier of Chris Construction
ownero_
Milt Bade, 63 Birchcroft St., stated, in part, that they must allow
a foor-Dr so here or there to allow for the width of the lots. Maybe
55' they are asking for 26' height .,. that could be 25' ... is not a
big deal, but he thinks that when they get up to 60' wide they have
got to have some type of height there to get some pitch on the roof
and have some type of architectural design to a house. You can build
a box but that is not good. It is important. Has listened to the
people who have apoken but none of tham have really addressed what we
are talking about ... the height of a house ... worried about
windows looking into yards. We are talking about the height of a
house. They can't build new houses and make ,hem look like the older
houses that are already there.
I
, ,
~
Don Crenshaw, 37 E. Duarte, stated, in part, that with regard to
whether or not a foot makes a difference in the pitch of the roof
it does because if you go on a gradual scale like 7 and 12 or 6 and 12
that means that you go over 12 feet and up 7 feet ... that is how they
judge a roof pitch. The wider the house that means that the pitch is
going to have to be higher. It is important in a 5 foot or 6 foot
wider house. Councilmember Young asked if different types of roofing
material make a difference in the amount of pitch that a roof needs.
Answer -- wood shake has to have a 4 and 12 pitch. Under that can
go into composition or rock roof at 3 and 12. Concrete tile needs
more than a 4 and 12 pitch.
3/1/88
-6-
/
30:0052
Trudy Kladifko, 348 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that she was in
favor of the Planning Commission amendment. She thinks it is a good
compromise.
Stella Ross, 743 Southview, stated, in part, that she is distressed
because she does not really know what the issue is here. What is
more comparable; more appropriate. Are people just unable to handle
change. She has recently moved from a home to an apartment building and
has managed to adjust and is very happy with her new surroundings. People
must be afraid to know each other. Council must be fair to everyone.
1
Griffin Blake, 871 Coronado, stated, in part, that he thinks the
reason we-ar; all here is because of the matter of too much house on
too little lot. He is for anything that can be done to improve that
situation.
Mary Pozza, 600 Workman Avenue, stated, in part, that the question
is proportion ... it is not two storys, not privacy, it is proportion.
Let's put the house in proportion to the lots.
Steven Philippi, 804 Balboa Drive, stated, in part, that he feels
the proposed text amendment is in response to new construction which
people perceive to be too massive, too large, too much. That translates
into height and setback and he wants to compliment the Planning Depart-
ment and the Planning Commission for coming up with what he believes is
a workable plan -- perhaps only a first step but a workable first step.
This will attempt to alleviate this problem and yet not stifle construction.
It is very misleading to act as if there will no longer be construction
in Arcadia if this proposed text amendment is passed. He does not think
that is the case at all. Builders here tonight have suggested that Council
abandon the restrictions on height. He referred to the transparancies
which were shown which graphically set forth the differences the height
restrictions would make. When you see them, you see that the height
restrictions are the important issues. He would encourage Council to
pass this proposed text amendment.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED.
1
He wanted to reply to Mr. Philippi that this did come about as a result
of 'concerns expressed over the past several months or a year and he thinks
that the Planning Commission and Planning staff have done a yoeman's job
in putting together all three public hearings, all of them well attended.
Their efforts and the efforts of the concerned citizens are appreciated.
As a result of that we have made some modifications and now we probably
have a better ordinance before us than we probably had when we started
out. That was the purpose of the whole thing, so the system works. He
wished to respond to a couple of points. Someone had made the point that
whenever we make changes we are infringing on people's rights and that, of
course, is true. You have a certain code and you make the code more
stringent then we are taking something away from people. But also I
would like to point out that'happens all the time. As a matter of fact in
Arcadia we used to have a 3' sideyard setback and changed it to a 5' setback
some years ago. I think that was something that was good for the City but it
did, of course, restrict what people could do on their property. There was
also a point made that height is not the issue. I am going to disagree
with that. I think that clearly height is the issue. What we are talking
about here and what this proposal is trying to accomplish is to reduce the
apparent bulk of the homes. The original proposal had a square footage
restriction in there and I think a number of people testified that it is
really not the number of square feet in the home, it is what the home looks
like from the street ... the neighboring residences and so height and
setback are really things that address those particular issues. There
was a proposal made tonight by Chris Construction Co. for different
height restrictions than were proposed either by the staff or the Planning
Commission and those differed somewhat. I am not in favor of the proposal
3(1/88
-7-
30:0053
HT
d)
that was made this evening simply because it raises the height on
the smaller lots. The proposal which is before us, there is no
difference between the Planning Department's and the Planning Commission's
recommendation that any lot of less than 71' will have an absolute limit
of 25'. The proposal brought this evening does allow higher building
than that on lots from 50' to 60'; 65'. I am not in favor of that. I
think that the problem that exists is primarily on the smaller lot in the
community and the problem is a result of the height on those lots. So
I think that having 25' limits on lots of-70' or'less specifically
addresses the major problem that we" have; that it addresses the-issue, so
I am in support of that recommendation. I do have some concerns -- we
have two somewhat different proposals before us -- one from the Planning
Commission and one that was made to the Planning Commission by staff and
that is the Planning Commission proposal that we go up in a graduated
one foot for everyone foot of lot size -- 71' to 75' and all of a
sudden there is a 25'jump with no graduation. I don't think the major
concern is on the larger lots. I don't think it is the 80' and 90'
lots where we have the problems and I really like the proposal for every
5' of increased lot width we go up another foot. 35' limit of 100' stays
unchanged. It is basically the gradual stepup on those 5' increases in
lot limit and the fact is that as the lot increases in width, you are
allowed to build a wider house. The one foot can make quite a difference
in the angle of the roof. If you go out five feet and stay at the same
height then you angle just has to keep coming down besides to out so I
think that that is a reasonable thing and don't think that it has the
same problem on the apparent bulk that you have on 60' lots or 70' or 75'
10ts.The other question I had was on the question of gable and I would
like to ask the Planning Director about single story homes, the Planning
staff recommended that we allow a gable roof to go as high as 20' which
would be just at the very peak of the roof. Is that also for a two story
home that has a single story gable roof and another 5' or 7' setback for
the second story? Staff answered this exception would only apply to
the first story portion of the dwelling. If you had a two story home the
second story portion would have to comply with the setback requirement.
Councilmember Harbicht asked -- but your recommendation is that they
could still go to 20' for the first story gable? Staff answered that was
correct.
1
,I frankly feel that the 20' limit for a gable roof on a single story home
'is a good idea. The other is so restrictive that we wouldn't have any
,gable roofs. I think it would pretty much dictate that everyone would
have to go to hip roofs and I would rather see the freedom of design
there. I don't think you are really changing things all that much. I
am very much in favor of the recommendation with those two reservations
and I would like to see us pass it. I think it is going to address a
lot of concerns that people have and is going to be a good thing for the
City of Arcadia.
lBICHT
Basically, what I want to do is this -- that the absolute maximum height
up to 70' is 25'.
1
fESKI
Would you repeat for me what you want to do on the setback situation?
l.BICHT
You're looking at the recommendation of the Planning Department rather
than the Planning Commission and against what was presented by Chris Const.Co.
The Planning Department and the Planning Commission
are identical except for the portion of the 75' to 100' lots and there
is a big jump. I don't think that is where the problem is and it seems
to be too restrictive.
.B
ESKI
There was a comment made tonight that there was the feeling that someone
was getting penalized by discussing this or perhaps coming up with a new
ordinance. I don't look at it as a penalization of anybody. I think we
have to understand that when the original code was built in this City
there was actually a request that a certain amount of the lot be developed
to be built upon and we have '0 remember that historically this was a
single story residential community. Two story houses really weren't in
3/1/88
-8-
J
1
YOUNG
GILB
PLANNING
DIRECTOR
GILB
I~-
DIRECTOR
LOJESKI
30:0054
vogue, particularly in the smaller lot sectors of the City. Well that
has changed and I completely agree with comments Councilmember Harbicht
made in terms of the visibility of mass and height is a strict consideration.
The second story setbacks situation is a strict consideration, too, as
far as determining and discussing mass. I don't look at this proposal
that is in front of us this evening as any sort of a radical change and
I look at it as a very workable plan, one that we can get into. I think
historically the City does do things in a very slow, conservative fashion.
We have had a number of public hearings on this issue. We have listened
to a lot of testimony. We have received a lot of testimony and I think
we have come up with a very workable solution and one that on the other
hand may need refinement in either direction as time goes on. It is a
situation that we need to grow... we need to develop. But we do need
to address those concerns from the residential community. I can't remember
attending a City Council meeting or listening to the goings on of what
was going on in City Hall where there has been such an issue as has touched
every sector of the residential community we live in and I for one appreciate
all of the input that was given by the citizens of the community. This
is not an issue that was just homeowner organizations involved. It was
not just the owners or builders or developers or architects. It was the
little guy on the street and I truly do appreciate that. I look a' it as
a workable solution and one that we should undertake. I have no problem
with the gable roof issue at 20'. I also would prefer the Planning
Department's recommendation rather than the Planning Commission's
recommendation on the building height. I think there can be a little
stairstep situation there. These are the only comments I have.
I certainly want to compliment the Planning Department and the Planning
Commission because of the time and effort and their long hours of study
that went into this. I approve the text amendment as it is written, but
I, too, feel there is nothing wrong with the graduated height on lots
over 75'. I think this will certainly help our City and I think it is
a marvelous way to start and I am sorry we did not do it somewhat sooner.
I want to ask a
ive date of this
plans in, etc.?
question of staff. I would like
will be. Will this be effective
What is your recommendation?
to know what the effect-
for people who have
Our recommendation was to have the ordinance worded in such a way
that plans which are submitted to the Building Department for plan
check or which are submitted to a local homeowners' association for
approval by the adoption date, which would probably be April 5, plans
that are either submitted to the City by that date or to the local
homeowners' association by that date, would fall under the existing
regulations and anything after that date would have to comply with the
revised ordinance.
For the benefit of the audience, if there is a motion made and carried
tonight, this ordinance will come back on the agenda at the next meeting
for introduction. Then the meeting after that would be for adoption and
so what we are saying here is plans that are in plan check or at property
owners'- associations will from that date on go under the new regulations,
but this is just to let everybody know from where we are starting.
One thing we should make clear so people don't see something going up that
doesn't comply, once plans are in plan check there is a period of time that
they can be in plan check and can be there as long as six months. People
can pull building permits after that and they do not have to have their
first inspection for six months so it is possible that there could be
homes built as long as a year after this is passed which might still be
under the existing regulations.
I have one more clarification on this -- let's assume everything goes
in place as the majority of us have discussed here at the Council table
and an architect or developer comes in with a height greater than what
the recommendations are, can they do it? What procedures would they have
to go through?
3/1/88
-9-
PLANNING
DIRECTOR
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
GILB
4.
30:0055
Automatically -- no -- they can't do it, but the City does have a
modification procedure wherein people can request certain modifications
to the regulations. To receive that, they would normally require a
notice to property owners within 100' and there would be a public hearing
before the Modification Committee to consider the request and at that
time the specifics of the individual situation would be looked at and
the modification granted, denied or conditionally approved.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by-Councilmember
Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council adopt
the recommendation of the Planning Department, as opposed to the Planning 1
Commission which, as we discussed, is not really significant other than
taking into account lots that are 75' or greater; having 1 foot for every
five feet. I would also like to include in the Text Amendment an exception
for the single story gable roofs not to exceed 20'. And that we exempt
all plans submitted to Building-Department and to the various Architectural
Review Boards in this community if they were submitted prior to the
adoption of this resolution.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and'Gilb
None
None
Wanted to comment that we have an issue that has been a long~ drawn out
thing and we have very-disparate/views. I think we went into this knowing
that we weren't going to make everybody happy. I kind of look at it as
we could finish up tonigh' and have everybody out there mildly annoyed
at us, we would have done a pretty good job.
I think that the main objective was to get rid of the massive homes
and some way to try to restrict them. I think that is really what
started this whole thing. Also, I think the Planning Director and the
Planning Department deserve a hand for all the work they have done on
this.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, stated, in part, that she wished
to distribute voter registration cards at the Arcadia Library and also
at Von's Market over the weekend and asked if there were any objections
to this. The City Attorney replied that this was not the accepted and
usual use of a public building inasfar as the Library was concerned, but
that she could stand outside and distribute the cards. Mrs. Hofer said
that she would be outside. She referred to a planned visit of the
members of the City Council to senior citizen facilities in other
localities. She wondered if the two City Council candidates would be
also invited to participate in these visits. Mayor Gilb replied that 1
the visit would be discussed at a study session to be held at 6:00 p. m.,
March l5, 1988. Mrs. Hofer inquired how much money had been set aside
for such a Senior Citizen Center. Mayor Gilb said none so far. She thought
it might be a good idea to run this in the Newsletter and get response.
She said she was concerned about drug usage in the City and inquired
what was being done to control the situation. Councilmember Young
briefly described the activities of the Police Department, schools, City
Council and Community Challenge to solve these problems. Mrs. Hofer
also expressed concern about the proposed CALTRANS' sound wall along the
210 freeway and Mayor Gilb's statement that it would probably be 20'years
before the wall was constructed. Mayor Gilb said-the City staff and the
City Council had spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get
CALTRANS' approval for construction of a sound wall and that this was a
continuing effort and concern.
3/1/88
-10-
5.
6.
6a.
ROLL CALL
30:0056
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
6b.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Feb. 2,
1 (i;~:bvED)
/6C.
OFF-SITE The developer of the South Side site, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates,
IMPROVEMENTS has requested reimbursement for the cost of installing and connecting
(Arcadia off-site water laterals and for the time his Project Manager spends
Gateway working on off-site improvements at the project site. Off-site improve-
Centre ments above $50,000 are an Agency obligation under the Development and
Associates)Disposition Agreement. The developer is requesting $13,163 for the
(APPROVED) installation and connection of three water service laterals. Upon review
_\r~ of the negotiation files and the Development and Disposition Agreement,
I\I-r- staff now agrees that these costs are eligible and that the $13,163 can
/ ~ \ be paid directly to the Water Department on behalf of the Developer.
~\
j6d
QUITCLAIM
RIGHT-OF-
ACCESS
(North
Third
Av. J
(APPROVED)
~'\
1\
~
"
If'
On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED,
the Minutes of the Meeting of February 2, 1988 were APPROVED. Member
Harbicht did not vote on the Minute approval, since he was not present
at the February 2, 1988 Meeting.
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Lojeski and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency AUTHORIZE payment
of $13,163 for the installation and connection of water laterals directly
to the Water Department on the Developer's behalf and AUTHORIZE reimburse-
ment to Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates in an amount not to exceed
$2,608 for off-site project management, upon submittal of appropriate
documents.
AYES:
NOES-:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
Pursuant to the November 17, 1987 and January 5, 1988 Disposition
and Development Agreements between the Agency and Emkay Development
Co., the Agency is to deliver the Northside Site to Emkay free and
clear of all but a few specific exceptions to title. Ticor Title
Company indicates that Third Avenue property owners have a private
right of access over North ,Third Avenue and that although the public
street may be vacated, the private access right remains unless quit--
claimed by the property owners. As the Agency owns property along
North Third Avenue, it will be necessary for the Agency to quitclaim
these private access rights.
It was then MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency APPROVE the Quitclaim, AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Executive
Director to execute it and any other related documents necessary to
remove the private right of access over North Third Avenue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
3/1/88
-11-
6e. j
DESIGN
REVIEW
(21 S.
First
Avenue)
(APPROVED)
~V
0\
~<<
6f. j
DESIGN
REVIEW
(46 E.
Huntington
Drive)
(APPROVED)
'~6g.J
~PURCHASE
I ofl 326
'" E.
Oi'. Huntington
, Drive)
~ (Derby
G, Motel)
'" (APPROVED)'
6h.J
ASSIGNMENT
ARCADIA
GATEWAY
rr CENTRE
,JASSOCIATES
"'" RESPONS IB.
r-l TO AM
('>o...OF SO.
CALIF.
~ (APPROVED)
k..
30:0057
Design Review for storefront improvements and repair of existing
earthquake damage at White Eyes Indian Shop, 21 South First Avenue.
Details are outlined in staff report dated March 1, 1988.
It was MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
APPROVE this Design Review under the conditions that the project comply
with all Zoning and Building codes as established or modified by the
City; that final approval is subject to compliance with requirements
of the City Departments and that the Design Review be in effect for one
year as per ARA-126.
1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
Design Review for construction of new exterior facade at First Cabin,
46 E. Huntington Drive. Details are outlined in staff report dated
March 1, 1988.
It was MOVED by Member Young, seconded by Member Lojeski and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
APPROVE this Design Review under the conditions that the project comply
with all Zoning and Building codes as established or modified by the
City; that final approval is subject to compliance with requirements
of the City Departments; and that the Design Review be in effect for
one year as per ARA-126.
AYES: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Staff noted in reply to Mayor Gilb's question that there would be consistency
in the designs of the canopies.
The Agency and owners of the Derby Motel have settled out of court for
the purchase of 326 E. Huntington Drive (Derby Motel). The amount agreed
upon by the parties is $810,000. This amount includes payment for land
and improvements, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, goodwill, any
interest payments and any and all other claims. The balance to be paid
to the Patels is $235,000 plus approximately $1,400 in interest from
March 1, 1988 through the close of escrow. The total amount to be paid
could reach $236,400.
It was then MOVED by Member Young, seconded by Member Harbicht and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency APPROVE the
purchase of the Derby Motel for $810,000 and AUTHORIZE payment in an
amount not to exceed $236,400.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
1
The Disposition and Development Agreement with Arcadia Gateway Centre
Associates - S: w. Gribble, requires Agency pre-approval of an assign-
ment of the Developer's responsibility to another party. AGCA proposes
to convey Parcel 4 to the Automobile Club of Southern'California. The
Automobile Club was pre-approved in the August, 1987 Amendment No.1
to the Gribble DDA; however, a formal Agreement is also required. The
Agreement permits the Assignment of AGCA's responsibility to AM. How-
ever AGCA, as the original master developer of the South Side project,
will still have the requirement to pay any future adjustment to the
original purchase price as set forth in the DDA if applicable.
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency APPROVE Assignment
Agreement of Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates (S. W. Gribble) Developer
Responsibility to Automobile Club of Southern California in form and
content approved by the Agency General Counsel.
3/1/88
-12-
30:0058
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
6i.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned to 6:00 p. m., March 15, 1988.
(\
8a. ",,'\
QUITCLAIM~APPROVED Quitclaim of private right-of-access over North Third Avenue,
NORTH nI pursuant to November 17, 1987 and January 5, 1988 Disposition and
THIRD AV~ Development Agreements between the Agency and Emkay Development Co.
8b. ,~
T.M.45809~APPROVED Final Map 45809 for a six lot subdivision at 1212-1230 S.
l2l2-l230Jc Santa Anita Avenue by Mur Sol Incorporated (owner/developer) subject
S. Santa~ to the condition that before the Final~ Map is recorded, all outstanding
Anita '.' conditions of approval must be complied with.
Q..
7.
1
8.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
8c.
INSTALLATION APPROVED the installation of a 45' radio tower at 376 Huntington
OF 45' RADI~ Drive by the Arcadia Chapter American Red Cross.
TOWER - Q..'"
RED CROSS "
~
8d.
WORK ACCEPTED the work and AUTHORIZED final payment pursuant to the contract
ACCEPTED ~With Baker Engineering Corporation for removal of an existing centrifugal
(Job ~ chiller and installation of a 100 ton replacement unit at the City Public
No.637)t~ Library, Job No. 637. The final contract amount of $54,070.00 was
~ funded from Capital Outlay Fund provided for fiscal year 1987-88.
8e.
ADVERTISE/APPROVED plans and specifications and AUTHORIZED' ,he City Clerk to
FOR BIDS advertise for bids for the construction of concrete gut'ers and
(Job No. miscellaneous curb, drive apron (Job No. 630) and asphalt concrete
630) patching (Job No. 625) of the Eighth Avenue, Naomi Avenue, Glencoe
(Job No. Drive, Myrtus Avenue and Golden West. The estimated cost of the
625) project is $88,000. Of this amount, the property' owners' share
would be $8,000 which will be advanced from Capital Outlay Funds
which will be reimbursed to the City with 7% interest over a ten year
period. Property owners also have the option of a one-time payment when
project costs are confirmed. The remaining $80,000 will be funded from
State Gas Tax Funds. The project is categorically exempt from the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15301, Class l(c) of the guidelines for implementation of said Act.
1
8f.
CONTRACT
AWARD
(Traffic
Signal
Modifica-
tion )
(Job NO.\,
577), ~~\
~\~
AWARDED contract for installation of six new traffic signal controllers
at intersections on Duarte Road and connection of these intersections to the
master traffic computer located at City Hall to the low bidder, Signal
Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $318,506. Funding for the project
will be 99% Federal Aid Urban Funds with the balance funded by State
Gas Tax Funds. $20,000 to be appropriated from State Gas Tax Funds
to cover the City's share of the contract amount including preliminary
engineering project testing and contingencies. All informalities or
irregularities in the bids or bidding process to be waived and that
following receipt of CALTRANS' concurrence, the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney.
3/1/88
-13-
8g.
0/ GIFT
[:- FROM
," FRIENDS,
~ OF THE
\ LIBRARY
(
0-:':" 8h .
"'- PURCHASE
'" OF POLICE
I '0... PATROL
V VEHICLES
\
~\
C'/
c f8'
L
t'~ SETTLEMENT
\J AMELIA
it:. SANTIAGO
30:0059
ACCEPTED gift from the Friends of the Arcadia Public Library in the
amount of $14,000.
Councilmember Harbicht remarked that a letter of appreciation should
be sent to the Friends of the Arcadia Public Library.
APPROVED the purchase of seven police patrol vehicles from Maurice J.
Sopp and Sons Chevrolet in cooperation with Los Angeles County in the
amount of $90,446.72. The Purchasing Department has permission from
the County of Los Angeles to purchase vehicles from their contract.
Funds for the purchase of the seven vehicles are budgeted in account
302 400 2107 8701, Capital Outlay Fund FY 1987-88 in the amount of
$l08,710.00.
I
APPROVED settlement in the amount of $7,750 for settlement of claim
of Amelia Santiago.
8j.
';I SETTLEMENT APPROVED settlement in the
, ~ CHARLES vs. of City of Arcadia's share
~ ARCADIA, County, Hewes and Johnson.
~ L. A. COUNTY
\J AND HEWES
~. AND JOHNSON
?:<.
,10 9a.
~ ORDINANCE
~ ~ NO. 1880
/) (ADOPTED)
,
V;
9b.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5404
(ADOPTED)
"Y
~,
y
k
amount of $50,000.00 for settlement of claim
of agreement, Charles vs. Arcadia, L. A.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED-ONuMOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER
LOJESKI~ SECONDED-BY COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE
AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney presented, explained 'the content and read the title
of Ordinance No. 1880, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL
CODE BY DELETING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION 3115.2.6 REGARDING FIREWORKS DISPLAYS".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember
Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance
No. 1880 be and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
NOne
1
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 5404, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING
PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR
THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1988,
HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5385 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No.5404 be and
it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
None
None
3/1/88
-14-
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 5406, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF' ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A PROPOSED TWO-STORY DWELLING
'\ '? WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 400 COLUMBIA ROAD".
'f')
'\
,lQ
~\
I".
11.
9c.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5406
(ADOPTED)
30:0060
It was MOVED by Councilmember
and CARRIED on roll call vote
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young
as follows that Resolution No. 5406 be
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHANDLER ~Thought that the exercise this evening regarding the height res'rictions
on buildings was well worth the effort. The most significant thing is
that people can no longer build such high buildings on small lots. Some
restraint will be necessary.
YOUNG ~
GILB I
12.
ADJOURNMENT
(March 15,
1988
6:00 p.
Wondered about the air vent on the new Citicenter Building.
that the vent had been damaged by the windstorm and when it
it would be covered by the sign.
Staff replied
was repaired,
Stated that he had resented the remarks made by Mrs. Hofer regarding the
matter of the sound barrier on the freeway and that nothing had been done
about it. Actually Council and staff have been working very hard to get
this barrier built. He did not feel he should dignify what was obviously
an election issue with discussion, but he had, in fact, stated at one time
that it would probably take twenty years," but this is because Arcadia
must get on CALTRANS' list for sound barriers and await its turn. There
is nothing the City can do because the City does not build the sound
barrier.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p. m. to 6:00 p. m., March 15, 1988 in
the Conference Room primarily to discuss a Senior Center Building and
to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and any Closed Session,
m.)if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation of
properties.
~
1 "'''''
~%~
Christine Van Maanen, City Clerk
3/1/88
-15-