Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 17,1988_2 1 I 30:0106 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (May 3, 1988) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMSN. M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING May 17, 1988 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session, May 17, 1988 at 6:30 p. m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. Bishop G. Barton Payne, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Councilmember Mary Young PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht Councilmember Gilb On MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED, Councilmember Gilb was EXCUSED. On MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of May 3, 1988 were APPROVED. It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATIONS J On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Harbicht stated, in part, that Arcadia is a beautiful City and this is due in large measure to the efforts of the residents in maintaining their properties and beautifying their homes. This is what makes the greatest impact as you drive through our City. Tonight people who make very special efforts toward beautifying our City are being honored. The Arcadia Beautiful Commission does a yoeman's job in promoting our beautiful City and in putting together these awards. Mayor Harbicht then introduced Beth Costanza, Chairperson of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission. Mrs. Costanza gave a brief review of the history and accomplishments of the Commission, then introduced Members of the Commission and also Members of former Commissions who were present. She explained the procedures of receiving nominations for an award, how the Commission views the various properties and then the final selection of the winners. Mary Hansen, Chairperson of the Awards Committee, then introduced those who received the awards andvphotographs 'of each.home or business were projected on a screen so everyone could"see the winning properties. 5/17/88 -1- 30:0107 WINNERS PEACOCK AWARD 460 Catalpa ~oad - Mr. & Mrs. Gregory M~deiros LUCKY BALDWIN AWARD 239 Longley Way - Mr. & Mrs. Michael J. Curley MAYOR'S AWARD 1116 Louise Avenue - Mr. & Mrs. Olin Le~ ARCADIA AWARD 504 Gloria Road - Dr. & Mrs. Thomas A. Collins QUEEN ANNE AWARD 225 Joyce Ayenue - Mr. & Mrs. George E. Fitzer 1 ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION AWARD 1135 Greenf~eld Avenue - Mr. & Mrs. Mike Cowell ANITA BALDWIN AWARD 129 Magna Vista Avenue - Mr. & Mrs. Spencer Francis HUGO REID AWARD 401 Vaquero Road - Mr. & Mrs. Armando De Castro AZALEA AWARD 1330 Rodeo Road - Mr. & Mrs. Cree L. Kofford NEWCASTLE AWARD 1102 Loganrita Avenue ~ Dr. & Mrs. George Gamboa SANTA ANITA AWARD 488 W. Duarte Road - The Continental of Arcadia Apartments Owners - Dr. and Mrs. Robert F. Christy HUNTINGTON AWARD 800 S. Santa Anita Avenue - Nafissa Maiwandi (Campus Trust Building) CLARA BALDWIN STOCKER AWARD 428 El Dorado Street - El Dorado Homeowners' Association ROSE BUDD BALDWIN DOBLE AWARD 401 W. Los Altos Avenue - Michael & Laurie Rambeau BLOCK AWARD Woodland Lane Block Award Attendees Woodland Lane 5 6 11 18 21 24 30 31 40 47 48 55 56 65 66 74 77 82 Stanley Beerman Ramanarao V. Sunkara Harold & Georgiana Wardell Lawrence Wilson William B. Wells Dr. Jose Terz Ray E. Riley Sidney H. Wall Bruce H. Archibald Lewis Cantwell Harold E. Coombes Daniel Eventov James W. Pryor James H. Getzen J. Norman Elliott Carl E. Gilchrist Roger Kuppinger Robert D. Campbell 5/17/88 1 -2- CLOSED SESSION 1 1. 1 30:0108 Following the presentations, photographs were taken of the winners. THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 p. m. THE CITY COUNCIL THEN RECESSED, RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AND ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ENTERED THE REGULAR SESSION, FOLLOWING A CLOSED SESSION, AT 7:30 p. m. CITY ATTORNEY Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) the Council held a CLOSED SESSION regarding a land use issue in which under existing facts and circumstances, there could be an exposure to liability. Also, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 a CLOSED SESSION will be held at the conclusion of the regular meeting this evening with the City's designated labor relations representative to discuss upcoming negotiations and compensation regarding employees. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mayor Harbicht noted that there were some people in the audience who wished to talk about Item 6a of the Agenda, which concerns the possible move of the Arcadia Historical Society Museum. He inquired of the Council- members if they would prefer to hear these comments in this segment of the Council meeting or at a later time. It was the consensus that Council would hear those remarks at the time the Historical Museum matter was discussed by Council. Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, stated, in part, that she was presenting to Council a petition with 409 signatures which is a request for reduction of Arcadia utility taxes from 5% to 3%. These taxes amounted to $1,564,808.96 in fiscal year 1980-81; to date, $2,027,621 for 1987-88 and may very well be close to two and one-half million by the end of the fiscal year. This tax has increased steadily through the years. She referred to previous petitions regarding institutine charges for police services for big and noisy parties and traffic control charges. She felt these would compensate for the reduced utility tax revenues. Mrs. Hofer also asked Council to consider changing the Council meeting date when there is a statewide or national election as there is this year. She asked they consider hardship on City employees as well as other citizens who work all day and must drive the freeway and get to the voting booths before 8:00 p. m. There are many important issues on this upcoming election and it is hoped there will be a large turnout. At the recent City election, there was only a 19% turnout of voters. She also suggested that the $42,000 and the amount of money to be spent for architectural services for a Senior Citizens' Center and Recreation Department offices, be used instead for a recreation center which could be used by all the citizens. Perhaps a hearing should be held ... the citizens should be given a vote. Henrietta Loeffler, 942 Arcadia Avenue, stated, in part, that she was concerned about the number of condominiums going up allover the City .:. many of them on small lots. Perhaps there should be a moratorium. The condos cause increased traffic, congestion, create more trash, drai~ on water supply, etc. Family homes are torn down to make room for the condos; where there had formerly been 2 - 3 people in residence there are now 50; each family has two automobiles. When she first came to Arcadia in 1960 she thought it was the most beautiful city she had ever seen with all the trees and shrubbery -- now it is becoming a concrete jungle. There should be a limit on the number of condominiums. The situation is getting out of control. 5/17/88 -3- 2. 3. 3a. ROLL CALL 3b. MINUTE APPROVAL (May 3, 1988) (APPROVED) 3c. RENTYPE PROPERTY PURCHASE (300-308 E. Htg.) (APPROVED) i-V\ .- (A,f\ ,'d-' ~ 3d. ADJOURNMENT (May 31, 1988) 4. 5. Sa. HEARING ../ SCHEDULED (June 7, 1988) 5b. HEARING V SCHEDULED (June 7, 1988) 30:0109 CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht Member Gilb On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of May 3, 1988 were APPROVED. The Agency and the owners of the Rentype property, Mr. & Mrs. Jackson, have settled for the purchase of 300-308 East Huntington Drive. The Stipulation for Compromise for Entry of Condemnation that sets forth this agreement has been signed by the Jacksons. The amount agreed upon by the parties is $430,000. This includes payment for land and improve- ments, furniture, fixtures and equipment and any and all other claims except their claim for Loss of Goodwill and pre-Condemnation damages. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson have already collected $290,000 for land and improve- ments. The balance to be paid to the Jacksons is $140,000. Member Lojeski inquired if the Agency had any idea what the damages might be for Loss of Good Will and pre-Condemnation damages. Staff replied that the claim for Loss of Good Will is $3,000. Loss of pre-Condemnation damages is in the neighborhood of $358,000. The matter is now before the court. Member Lojeski inquired if then the worst-case amount of damages would be $361,000. Staff replied that was true. 1 It was then MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency APPROVE the pur- chase of the property located at 300-308 East Huntington Drive for $430,000 and AUTHORIZE payment in an amount not to exceed $140,000 as set forth in the Stipulation attached to staff report dated May 17, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, None Member Gilb Lojeski, Young and Harbicht The meeting adjourned to 5:30 p. m., May 31, 1988. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS SCHEDULED for June 7, 1988 consideration of an appeal of the Planning 1 Commission's denial of MP 88-010, overruling the appeal and upholding the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board's approval of a two- story, 4,600 square foot house, with the condition that the height of the living room be reduced to comply with new regulations, at 525 Campesina (Ronald Staebler, appellant). SCHEDULED for June 7, 1988 consideration of proposal to change fare structure of the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride. 5/17/88 -4- 5c. CONTRACT AWARD (Improv. Parking Dist.I & II) (Job No. 640 & 641) (J- q" y.(o 30:0110 AWARDED the contract for improvement of Parking Districts I and II consisting of removal and reconstruction of two asphalt concrete parking lots in Parking District I, including construction of landscaped islands and automatic sprinkler system and slurry seal of the existing Parking District II parking lot. The project is entirely funded by Community Development Block Grant funds, but current construction costs necessitate requesting additional available CDBG funds in the amount of $13,500 to cover slurry seal construction costs, repair of Parking District II lot by City forces and construction engineering fees. Contract in the amount of $86,740 to be awarded to the low bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Co.; approved application for additional $13,500 in CDBG funds; that any in- formalities or irregularities in the bid or bidding process be waived and that the Mayor and City Clerk be AUTHORIZED to execute a contract in form approved by the City Attorney. ISd. OTKIN, APPROVED recommendation to designate Cotkin, Collins & Franscell as COLLINS & defense counsel (self-insured liability defense for police cases). FRANS CELL ( (Legal -3;!~~ .. Counsel- (\, ;lI Police ,~;,. Cases) V' Se. LIEBERT, APPROVED renewal of Agreement for Services with Liebert, Cassidy & CASSIDY & Frierson for legal services in regard to labor relations and AUTHORIZED FRIERSON the Mayor to execute the same in form approved by the City Attorney. (Labor Relations "Or6'.J ./t" ~ Legal n'.~ 0 J' f' Services) \" (].; I' Sf. WATER RATE INCREASE f. 0U~j ~. fY\' " .' 6. 6a. RELOCATION 10F ARCADIA HISTORICAL MUSEUM (Job No. 642) (DENIED) ~.. APPROVED water rate increase for water used from 50~ per 100 cubic feet to 55~ per 100 cubic feet. In addition, there will be a revision of charges for fire hydrant service for construction purposes. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None Councilmember Gilb CITY MANAGER Consideration of request for approval of plans and specifications and authorization to call for bids for the relocation of the Arcadia Historical Society Museum building. Staff report presented. Mayor Harbicht inquired if the specifications would include walkways. Staff replied that both walkways and ramps would be included. Councilmember Young noted that this is a three-trailer-type building and wondered if it would be sturdy enough to move. Staff replied that it had already been moved twice with minimal damage. Councilmember Chandler noted that perhaps Council should discuss whether or not they want to move it. Council had previously decided to receive input from interested persons at this time. Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, stated, in part, that she feels that in regard to the moving of the Museum building, it would just be a great waste of $42,000 or more. She feels the Museum building is ideally located where it is now and to move it near the Library would be a tragic mistake. She had been to a recent open house and had talked to some of the Historical Society members and they were very much aga1.nRt hR.vi.n~ their building moved. 5/17/88 -5- 30:0111 Charlotte Davenport, Director of the Arcadia Historical Museum, 225 W. Norman, stated, in part, she feels the Museum is a very important part of our community... preserving our history. We are living in a changing society and such a museum is important as an Arcadia history resource center for our school children. Progress has been challenged to [the point where she is worried about maintaining interest and support in the effort. She recounted some of the projects completed and the problems encountered during recent years leading to the obtaining of the p~esent building. At that point it took a great deal of time and effort ~o bring the building up to City Code. At the present time a leaking roof is in need of repair, but the entire situation is being held in abeyance because of uncertainty about Council's actions. The memorial brick walk, which is one of the Society's fund raisers, is in jeopardy because of 1 newspaper articles about a possible move ... some donors are even inquiring about a return of their money... some have requested return of artifacts.' She urged Council to consider the hardship and frustration that the pro- posed action has placed on the Society and its members who had thought their long-time dream of a Museum had finally become a reality. Councilmember Lojeski inquired of staff if there was an estimate of time on this project. Staff replied that, if approved, bids would probablv be opened on June 28, 1988, bid to be awarded in July, based on that, it would be September or October that the building would be at the library location. Henrietta Loeffler, 942 Arcadia Avenue, stated, in part, that she is also in favor of leaving the Museum in the rose garden. She thinks the Museum building and the rose garden form a nice looking ending to the park ... it is a pretty spot. Since it will cost $42,000 to move the building, it would seem that some other location could be purchased if they need some- thing for the seniors. She agrees with the two ladies who spoke against moving the Museum building to the Library site. Susan E. Kasten, President, Arcadia Branch AAUW, 5039 Gary Park Avenue, stated: "At a meeting of our Board of Directors on May 2, 1988, ALIi Roysher presented the text of a letter which she had addressed to you on April 19, objecting to a proposal to move the Historical, Museum to the Library site. A motion to support this stand was passed by the Board. At our May 11 general meeting, a similar motion was also supported by the general member- ship of the Arcadia Branch of AAUW. Accordingly, we invite your considera- tion of the following statement made by Mrs. Roysher to clarify her stand. "We object to the proposal to move the present museum building to the library site. On the latter you have a carefully planned structure for a specially contoured site by William Guy Garwood, a student of Edward Durell Stone. To infringe upon that space with the intrusion of a temp~r- ary building with no character would be totally inappropriate, an in- congruous juxtaposition of disparate elements. UWhen we consider the present museum structure in relation to its site, we learn that it is located on the banks of the Santa Anita Wash. As you approach the county park from the west at the convergence of Huntington and Campus Drive and drive on either one, you become aware first of the vast spread of land. Then, nestled in the swale formed by the wash, you see the single-story museum building itself with the potential appeal of county park and trees. This is what we should develop. 1 "There is a question as to the legitimacy of building any other type of structure on this site. According to original transfer of title from the U. S. Army (this area was part of the Ross Field Balloon School) to L. A. County, the property was to be used for recreational and park purposes only. All structures were to be related to that type of function, other- wise the property would revert to the military. Therefore, the type of building which the city is contemplating would be questionable. 5/17/88 -6- 30:0112 "On the present City Hall campus there is more than enough space to accommodate the contemplated 17,000 sq. ft. structure. When the Police Department moves to the Armory, that space would become available. More could be added there as well as to the main building with a minimum amount of expense. Both City Hall staff and Seniors could continue to enjoy the expanse of lawn and mature trees without destruction of any growth for parking. "In no way should our position be taken as being against Seniors. In a recent survey of our members we learned that 38% are 65 or older; many are members of various Senior organizations. We are for a judicious expenditure of public funds." Signed Susan E. Kasten, President, Arcadia Branch AAUW 1 Councilmember Lojeski inquired if Mrs. Kasten was speaking of not building a Senior Center. Mrs. Kasten replied that was not true; she was speaking against building it on that location; against destroying the rose garden and moving the Museum building. Councilmember Lojeski noted that the discussion at this time was only about moving the Museum building. Mrs. Kasten said her assumption was that the reason for moving the Museum was to free the land for something else. Councilmember Lojeski replied that had not been decided. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First Avenue, stated, in part, that he is a Director of the Historical Society and represents the position of the Board of Directors of the Arcadia Historical Society which is to leave the building where it is. Respectfully requests that the City Council reconsider its decision. He gave a brief background of the work and efforts of the Society with regard to the Museum. Over $29,000 cash has been spent to prepare the site and building; nearly $49,000 donated in labor, material and services. He mentioned a few of the people who had made such contributions. This amounts to about $80,000 spent so far. He presented the opinions of two contractors with regard to moving this second class building to a different site. Nick Pokrajac advised that this second class building will be hazardous to move...roof is leaking and his advice is to keep it at its present location. Ben Smith advised that the City Engineer should examine the building especially the center beams and suggested a steel or wood column be used to prop up the building. The problem of the leaking roof has not been worked out because of the uncertainty about the move. Mr. Smith also advised against moving the building. Mr. Maddock continued that it did not seem prudent to take a second class building where a lot of work has been done and move it to another site and spend a lot more money in the new location. For $42,000 probably 800 sq. ft. or so of new construction could be accomplished. It is the position of the Board of Directors of the Historical Society to leave the building where it is so that they may continue their work on the building ... work which is currently at a standstill. He urged Council to reconsider its decision. Councilmember Lojeski inquired if this was a decision of the Board or a postion of the membership? Mr. Maddock replied it was a decision of the Board. 1 Bill Dillon, 131 W. Forest Avenue, stated, in part, that he is a Director of the Historical Society and that it was a unanimous decision that the building should not be moved. The Society had wanted to repair the roof, but were told not to because of the possible move. The leaking roof has created considerable damage ... one beam is sagging ... he wondered if this had been taken into consideration in plans for moving the building. He would like to receive a copy of the specifications if the building is to be moved. AlIi Roysher, 1784 S. Santa Anita Avenue, stated, in part, that she wished to quote an article from the Spring 1988 Newsletter: "The City Council has authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals from architects for the purpose of designing a Senior Center building. The Center, which will be located at the Arcadia Rose Garden will be designed to meet the needs of Arcadia's growing senior citizen population. The building will also house the administrative offices of the City's Recreation Department. While the actual design for the Senior Center has not yet begun, preliminary concept plans call for the building to be approximately 17,000 square feet in size, and will include a diding/multi-purpose room, game, craft, meeting and reading rooms, kitchen facilities and administrative offices.11 5/17/88 -7- COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI 30:0113 Mayor Harbicht had asked the Council to reconsider this matter of moving the Museum. One of the reasons given for moving it was the comment that it was not an attractive building. He had attended the Society's open house recently and had thought that the building was quite attractive... moving the building to another site would not change the appearance that much in any event. Our anticipated pride in our proposed new Senior Center is one thing, but we are also proud of our Library. As was pointed out earlier, the Library was designed for a particular site and he does not think the Museum building would be any more consistent with the Library than with the proposed Senior Center. As a matter of fact, with the present plans, the Museum building would probably be behind the Senior Center. Another item is the question of the cost. The City Engineer has estimated $42,000 to move the building. This then wastes all the money that has been spent on the building to this date. A great deal of time, effort and money has gone into the building and getting the building sited where it is now. There have been significant contributions by volunteers. He mentioned a number of contractors who have contributed labor and materials. To move thel building would mean throwing all of this away and he feels this would be unfortunate. Another possible reason for moving the building would be the possiblility of interfering with the Senior Center placement. This is a 4, acre site; the Senior Center will comprise about, acre. There will still be 4 empty acres there and there should be no problem to place the Senior Center without interfering with the Museum building. He would not think the Senior Center would be placed on the back of the lot on the spot where the Historical Building is now. The parking would have to be in front of the building; he feels it would be preferable to have the parking area behind the Senior Center. Actually there could be dual parking for both of the buildings. If it is a matter that this is an unattractive building it will be hidden hehind the Senior Center anyway. He can't think of a good reason to move the building and asked the Council to reconsider the matter. Councilmember Young agreed and was concerned about the possibility of moving this or any building toward the back corner of the Library... makes it seem like a stepchild. Also, it would alter the architectural plan for the Library site. She would be more enthusiastic if plans had indicated placing it in the parking lot of the Library. Since this is not the case, she would be more inclined to leave the building where it is. Seniors have to understand that we are not limiting our parameters for the Senior Center as to their view or other facets of leaving the building there. They may have to change the design of their walkway, etc. She would anticipate that the design of the Senior Center would be an archi- tectural challenge and it could be outstanding considering the shape of that lot. She would agree to leave the Historical building where it is, with the understanding of the members that there may have to be some give and take on how they have planned the exterior. "The concept of the comment was made about the ugly stepchild, and in relationship to whether it be placed where it is; whether it be placed adjacent to the library; whether it be placed in any other, perhaps better location such as next to the train station, I think that there would always be that stigma. The only way you get away from that is to find a parcel of property which is basically free and clear and the use is submitted to be used for, let's say, the Historical Museum. At this point in time I don't see that situation particularly happening. I look at it from a little different angle. No.1) The structure as it now sits... and as I've heard 1 people talk, is in a total state of disrepair. The roof is falling in; the roof is leaking; the building is sagging. No.1) Here is the opportunity I think, to structurally make the building sound. Unless the Council says . keep the building where it is and we will throw in those types of supportive mechanisms ... I haven't heard that motion made yet. I look at it as a more congruent use adjacent to the library. I have served a couple of sessions on the Library Board; and listening to our librarians; listening to the Library Board; listening to things from the Museum that have historical significance ... are handled and kept at the library... I just find it a more congruent use to be adjacent to the library. I think it is a safer environment. I think, you know, you've got a parking-lotted area; it doesn't have to become paved. It's done. It's there. You've got to create parking. You've got to create accessibility to get in and out of that particular area where it is now. I think the traffic is much more treacherous in that particular area, particularly when you throw another use in the area ... and for those reasons I would be more in favor of moving it. I voted once to do that. I assumed that the vote was there. We took the vote as a Council and now it's back in front of us again. Particularly in light of the fact that initially there were some people in 5/17/88 -8- I 6b. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER & RECREATION OFFICES (A:rchitectural P:roposals - Special Session to be Scheduled) s/:& f\ 1 6c. ANIMALS FOR MED. RESEARCH (Animal Control) (Rpt. Rec. & Filed) ~ 3" Y 30:0114 the community ~ho ~ere telling me that it was going to cost between $100,000 and $150,000 to do this project and our Public Works Director says it's $42,000 ... a great deal of difference in that. I would be in favor of moving it. It doesn't have to look a:rchitecturally insig- nificant or noncong:ruent with the structures around it." Councilmember Chandler said this subject can be argued from either side. At one time he was in favor of moving the museum building to the Library site ... it could have been used concurrently with library business by school children, etc. But at this point in time he is in favor of leaving it on its present site and calling for an architectural plan of a Senior Center that works with that constraint in mind ... that it is at the rear of the lot. He would make a motion not to call for any bids to relocate the Museum building. He inquired of staff whether it is assumed that by not calling for bids this ~ill mean that we keep it there. Councilmember Young said she would second the motion, but would like to add that it has to be understood by the Historical Society that the Council may do things they don't care for in putting up the other building. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote to DENY the request to call for specifications and bids to relocate the Historical Society Museum building, implying that Council is voting to keep the Museum building where it is presently located with the understanding that the landscaping or other exterior areas may have to be altered if another building is constructed near the site. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Young and Harbicht Councilmember Lojeski (for the reasons he stated earlier) Councilmember Gilb Requests for proposals were sent out to twenty architectural firms (including 11 with offices in Arcadia); proposals were received from 12 firms (including 3 with offices in Arcadia). Initial review of these 12 firms with regard to experience with senior citizen facilities is set forth in staff report dated May 17, 1988. It was the consensus of Council that a special session be set up for the purpose of hearing proposals from six of the architectural firms who returned the proposals. Councilmember Young said two of the firms she would like to hear from are: Anthony & Langford Architects and Serar & Associates. Mayor Harbicht stated that although staff had designated eight firms with greater or some experience with senior citizen facilities, it would be rather unwieldy to hear so many presentations. He would like to see, in addition to Councilmember Young's choices, CReG Architects, Inc. and WiC Architects, Inc. After comments from Councilmembers Chandler and Lojeski, the following six firms were selected: Anthony & Langford Architects John Bates Associates CHCG Architects, Inc. WLC/Architects, Inc. Pedersen, Beckhart, Wesley & Stice Architects Serar & Associates/Architects Staff was directed to poll Council for available dates to hear the presentations. Consideration of staff report relating to the dispostion of animals for medical research by the County Department of Animal Control. With regard to the City's Animal Control Services Agreement,there is no contractual or statutory bar to Arcadia directing Animal Control not to allocate animals for medical research. The City Attorney presented an amended report concerning the numbers of animals being discussed. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Harbicht and CARRIED that the report be received and filed. 5/17/88 -9- 6d. SECURITY BARS (Com'l & Indust' . Property) (Public Hearing to be se t ) . ~ . '6 \J\ ?' (J 7. 7a. / ORDINANCE NO. 1882 (INTRODUCED) 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 5413 (ADOPTED) -'\ ; : -\'. ,,fer II' \ 7c. CLAIM OF L. SHAFFER (DENIED) r', 7d. CLAIM OF SO. CALIF EDISON CO. (DENIED) r', 30:0115 Consideration of ordinances regarding security bars applicable to commercial and industrial property. Pursuant to Council direction at the last Council meeting, a draft ordinance has been prepared to prohibit security bars on the exterior of commercial and industrial buildings, and to permit them on the interior subject to certain safety criteria and compliance with the City's design review ordinance to in-. sure compatibility and satisfactory appearance. Also presented was an excerpt from a past staff report describing the ordinance. Modifica- tions recommended by Council can be incorporated and a revised ordinance prepared. It was the consensus of Council that although a public hear- ing is not mandated, it would be good to go through the public hearing process and staff was directed to set up such a public hearing. 1 CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1882, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 6415.4 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING LOT PROMOTIONAL EVENTS NEAR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY". It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1882 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None Councilmember Gilb Councilmember Young inquired if some designation of hours should be included ip this Ordinance. The City Attorney replied that this matter could,be controlled by the permit process. /~ The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 5413, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION GRANTING TENTATIVE MAP 46221 FOR A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1109-1127 SOUTH SIXTH AVENUE WITH CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS". It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5413 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None Councilmember Gilb On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of L. Shaffer was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None Councilmember Gilb On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of the Southern California Edison Company was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None Councilmember Gilb 5/17/88 -10- 30:0116 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 9. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS LOJESKI Related that Beth Costanza has resigned from the Arcadia Beautiful Commission. They are moving to Monrovia ... although the business will remain in Arcadia. A letter accepting her resignation, with regret and thanking her for her time and efforts on the commission would be appropriate. Also commented that two or three Commission members on various Commissions either had resigned or were planning to resign in the near future and inquired abut Council action to appoint new Commissioners to serve these terms. The City Attorney said that the matter should be on the agenda before action is taken. Mayor Harbicht requested that the matter be placed on the agenda to be taken up at the next meeting. Referred to Planning Commission's discussion and approval of T.P.M. 88-006 at the May 10, 1988 meeting. This concerns property bounded by Santa Anita Ave., Floral Ave., Foothill Blvd. and Tindalo Road. He would like to appeal the decision to Council. 1 YOUNG Concurred with Councilmember Lojeski's appeal to Council of T.P.M. 88-006. Added that as liaison to the Planning Commission, she wanted to report some interesting findings made by them. They have found and have asked their staff to look into their findings that in a number of the lot splits they are end- ing up with side yards abutting back yards and, therefore, there is a space differential that citizens are objecting to. On a recent lot split that was approved, there were two lots and the owner was taking a lot off of the back of two lots and that one would face another street. But it created side yard setbacks at the rear of three or four other residences all of which had swim- ming pools so that a two-story house would be looking over the walls. In approving that lot split, they created a deed restriction -- a ,covenant -- which restricted that lot to a one-story house whether the present owner was there or whether it was sold. She thought this was a good way to go. It did, however, point up the fact that this is happening in other lot splits. Also on a new cul-de-sac they ran into the same problem where a side yard was a back yard and in this case the lots were not as large and the Commission denied one of the houses on the lots because the builder was asking for so many variances. With the information that will come back from staff, Council may be able to adjust the Codes to take care of this. Also, in regard to some commercial property, they denied the location of a yogurt type store which was the first store in the building and there were resi- dences across the street. They thought it would be a poor location for that kind of a store, because of noise, automobiles driving in and out, etc. Perhaps more thought should be given to this situation when residential communities are next to commercial developments. HARBICHT Said he recalled a similar situation where a Burger King or similar business was turned down where the Campus Medical center is now and for the same reason. He hoped similar situations would be considered in this light. I""~'" City Council adjourned to a CLOSED SESSION, reconvened and adjourned at 9:10 p. m. to 5:30 p. m., May 31, 1988 in the Conference Room for a Budget Review and to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and Closed Session, if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters and evaluation of properties. /L~ Robert C. Harbicht, Mayor ATTEST: 5/17/88 -11-