HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 7,1988_2
30:0123
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
1"00",,,
PLEDGE OF
AI~LEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Hay 17,
1988)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
CLOSED
SESSION
1.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Appeal to
Planning
le::~~ of
88-010
525
ampesina Rd.)
(DENIED)
r
,I(, ,J '\\\1(\\
\l' ~
\)'~
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 7, 1988
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular
session at 7:30 p. m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber.
Rev. Thomas J. Cherry, Christian Center of Arcadia
Mayor Pro Tempore Roger Chandler
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of May 17,
1988 were APPROVED. Councilmember Gilb abstained as he was not present
at the May 17, 1988 meeting.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and
that the reading in full be waived.
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney announced that this evening the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency met in a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
to give instructions to the Agency's negotiators regarding the acquisition
of the so-called Cotton property at 153 Wheeler in the City of Arcadia.
Additionally, at the close of this evening's meeting, City Council will
adjourn to a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
to discuss with the City's designated representative subject matter of
salaries and compensation for certain municipal employees.
On March 15, 1988 a public hearing was held before the (Lower) Rancho
Santa Anita Resident's Association's Architectural Review Board to
consider plans submitted by Mr. Ying Shing Wu for a 4,600 square foot,
30 foot high, two-story dwelling with a 630 square foot attached three-
car garage. Based upon the information received at the hearing and
discussion among the ARB Members, the Board found the proposed design to
be compatible with the neighborhood and voted 4 to 0 with one member
absent to approve the proposed dwelling. On April 26, 1988 the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider Mr. Staebler's appeal of the
ARB's decision. The Commission concurred with the ARB's findings that
the proposed house will be compatible with the neighborhood. They voted
4 to 0 with one Commissioner absent to uphold the ARB's action with the
condition that the height of the living room be lowered from 14' to 12'
to comply with the new regulations. On May 11, 1988 Mr. Staebler filed
an appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1366 which denied MP-
88-010; an appeal of the (Lower) Rancho Santa Anita's Architectural
Review Board's approval of a 4,600 square foot, two-story residence
6/7/88
-1-
-<).
-'""
fP
..-fti..
~'.
~
:.t'
f
r
',.,,-
30:0124
and three car garage with the condition that the height of the living
room be reduced from 14' to 12' to comply with the new regulations.
Photographs and a model of the proposed house were circulated to Council-
members.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
IN FAVOR
OF THE
APPEAL
Bill Lewis, 901 Volante Drive, President of the Rancho Santa Anita
Home Owners' Association, stated, in part, the size of new homes being
constructed is a continuing problem throughout Arcadia. Other homeowners'
associations have grappled with this problem. The members of the Archi-
tectural Review Boards are experienced and competent. The problem is with
the resolution governing these matters. Consideration is given not only
to the size of the proposed house, but also to whether or not it is com- I
patible and harmonious to the neighborhood. The Board has its hands tied
-- on one hand, following the resolution, it must approve the project,
but on the other hand, the project is not compatible nor harmonious in
that block simply because of its size.
Bill Spuck, 531 Campesina Road, stated, in part, that he has been asked
by the neighbors on Campesina Road to present the appeal on their behalf.
He is also speaking on his own behalf, since he is the next door neighbor
of the property in question. He called attention to the petition signed
by over 100 residents in the immediate neighborhood asking that this
appeal be supported. The appeal represents the preference of the vast
majority of those who live nearby the -proposed project. He noted that
Council has authority on appeal to review and revise decisions of the
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. He felt that the
Architectural Review Board used improper procedures in that it failed
to record or acknowledge input from concerned neighbors. It gave primacy
to City Code 92-51 rather than City Resolution No. 5287 in its considera-
tion of the subject plans and in the process failed to adequately consider
the key consideration of proportion, balance, harmony and compatibility
with surrounding structures and properties. The Arcadia Planning Commis-
sion stated, contrary to Resolution 5287, which clearly gives it authority
to decide on appeal all matters of authority given to the ARB, that it
should not exercise authority regarding architectural design. The Plan-
ning Commission gave primacy to the City Code 92-51 rather than C~ty Resolu-
tion 5287 in its consideration of the Appeal MP-88-0l0, which was based
on proportion, harmony, balance and compatibility with surrounding
properties and not to setback requirements. The residents are appealing
to Council to restore the proportion, harmoney, compatibility, and balance
of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed new structuree as required
by Resolution 5287.
Valerie Simola, 526 Campesina Road, stated, in part, that she had been
at the Homeowners' Association meeting and that about all that was
discussed was City Codes and size of the proposed structure. Concerns
were raised. She lives across the street and is concerned about the
three-car garage which will be directly across from her living room.
The proposed house is huge compared to the neighborhood. Council should
listen to the people who live in the area who are making this appeal.
I
Ron Staebler, 532 Campesina Road, the appellant, stated, in part, that
he had also attended the Architectural Review Board meeting and had
expressed his concern regarding the setback of the second story and
also the massiveness of the house in relation to the neighbors' houses.
His impression was that the decision was already rubber-stamped and
they were there merely to hear what the Board had decided.
Ed Zareh, 1051 Catalpa, ~tated, in part, that he had also attended the
--
Architectural Review Board meeting. There had not been much time to
review the plans presented. The fact that it met the dimensional code
was stressed. It should be looked at from an architectural position.
He quoted from Cliff May, father of California ranch style: "Good
architecture is something that fits in the neighborhood" ... now some
architects are building monuments to their clients 000 castles and
6/7/88
-2-
I
IN OPPOSITION
TO THE APPEAL
I
30:0125
mausoleums. Resolution 5387 mentions compatibility... and was
adopted to prevent such monuments invading our area. In Section 3
it says: "Good architectural character is based upon the principles
of harmony and proportion in elements of the structure as well as the
relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other
structures in the neighborhood". This proposed structure is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
Edith Post, 519 Campesina Road, stated, in part, that she had not
been at the Architectural Review Board meeting, but had called in to
be sure that her negative vote was registered. She felt that input
had been stifled. Her home is next door to the property in question.
She had lived previously in Altadena in a large English Tudor house,
4,600 square feet. She moved to Arcadia because she wanted a smaller,
less imposing house in the Lower Rancho. She feels that the pleasure
in her house is threatened by the proposed structure ... there will be
large, lighted windows overlooking her backyard and her view of the
mountains and sky will be obstructed. Also construction of such large
houses encourages multiple families and creates more congestion.
Kai Chan, 730 Adelyn Drive, San Gabriel, the architect for the project,
stated, in part, that he had noted that the person living across the
street was dissatisfied with the garage facing his garage. He felt
that in single family homes, garages facing garages was a common occurrence.
Neighbors behind were concerned about privacy because of the second story
of the house. Compromise is that the rear wall will be raised to six
feet from three or four feet high. Also landscaping and trees will be
increased as a buffer. He feels that the neighbors who are against the
construction are against the size of the house rather than the specific
design of the house. Size has to do with numbers and not necessarily a
harmonious situation. He feels that this proposed structure will improve
the quality of the environment of the area; there are already several
two-story houses in the area. He showed slides of homes similar to his
proposed structure and presented a model of the proposed house and
described the changes which had been made to increase its compatibility
to the neighborhood and neighbors.
Bill Wyman, 507 Monte Vista Road, stated, in part, that he is the Chairman
of the Architectural Review Board and gave a brief history of the Board.
The advantage of an ARB is that they have been able to maintain the good
standards and good quality of the homes we now have in the area. The owner
and architect have designed this house to conform to the new architectural
requirements of the City... they have agreed to several changes to
accomplish this. It complies completely with all the new ordinances in
effect now. The house is well designed. They also presented landscape
drawings. If a home is well designed and complies with the new ordinance,
then the ARB is assured that the home will be compatible and in harmony
with other homes in the area even though the other homes are one-story
or smaller in size. There is no reason to not approve the plans and there
is every reason to approve them.
Jim Rostron, 422 Monte Vista, stated, in part, that he has lived in his
present home for 37 years and has served on the ARB for nearly 25 years.
When the plans were first presented by Mr. Chan, he remarked that it was
a very large home -- at that time it was about 5,200 sq.ft. He also suggest-
ed that Mr. Chan check with the Planning Commission with respect to the
new ordinance being considered, which has subsequently been adopted. He
felt the house was large but that it was a good design and there is not
and never has been a prohibition against two-story homes in the area.
He had mentioned to Mr. Wyman that he would approve the plans if he
were present at the meeting. (He was out of the country at the time
of the meeting.)
6/7/88
-3-
30:0126
Shen~ Chan~, 1140 Singingwood Drive, stated, in part, that he requests
Council to deny the appeal because the owner had presented his plans
to the Architectural Review Board which had approved them and that the
Board had members who had a great deal of expertise in building and
architecture for a number of years. In addition, the Planning Commission
has approved the project; therefore, we know it is in compliance with
the City codes. The owner of the property had checked with the Planning
Commission as to whether the project would be approved before closing the
deal on the property. The project, when completed, will probably raise
property values. Although the present occupants may not care about this,
their children will probably benefit. He felt the Architectural Review
Board hearing was properly conducted. During the public Planning Commis-
sion hearing, the architect, Mr. Chan noted some of the points of opposi-
tion and has made modifications to the project. I
David Robinson, 144 Alta, stated, in part, that he does not live in the
area under discussion. He is attending at the request of the applicant
for the permit, Peter Wu (Ying Shing Wu). The applicant is not in this
as a developer, investor or spectulator. This house is to be his residence
probably as long as he lives. This is his dream house ... or his modified
dream house. The land costs alone would make it unprofitable to go into
it as an investment. Another point is, when this project is finished,
considering the land costs, demolition, removal of a concrete backyard,
landscaping, etc., the cost will be three quarters of a million dollars.
This project has been a history of concessions by Mr. Wu and his
architect. The size of the present proposed house has been significantly
reduced. The suggested changes have been made pleasantly and promptly.
He feels the neighbors really want Mr. Wu's house to be an image and
likeness of the other homes on the street ... a ranch style house. One
of the neighbors commented to him that the other houses on the street
flow downhill as does the street; this project will disrupt that flow.
He feels the real objections here are the height and the fact that it is
not ranch style.
Mary Wu, representing the Wu family (Ying Shing Wu) is asking for the
right to build their dream home. This is not a finance nor a profit
project. They want to live harmoniously with.:the neighbors. Please
deny this appeal. From the beginning of this project, the family has
done everything possible to comply with the building codes of the City
of Arcadia and also agreed to the requests of the Architectural Review
Board. From her memory of that meeting, there were only three issaes
raised: 1) the color of the roof tile, 2) the height of the backyard
fence, and 3) the windows. As citizens they have obligation to obey
the law and be protected by the law. They have complied with the law and
now they ask to be allowed to build their home. Compatibility does not
mean that every house has to look alike.
REBUTTAL
Bill Spuck, 531 Campesina Road, stated that as noted previously, the
primary concern is one of size. Their argument is that the project is
excessive precisely because of size. It is unrelated because of
architectural style. With regard to the ARB, it represents the
community... over 100 signatures have been presented of neighbors
who say they don't agree with that size and that style.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED.
I
Mayor Harbicht inquired of staff what the width and depth of this lot
is? Answer: 85' x 170' - 14,458.5 sq. ft. or 1/3 of an acre; 50% of the
front yard is allowed to be paved, by code. This was brought up at the
Planning Commission meeting.
6/7/88
-4-
30: 0127
MOTION
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler to DENY this appeal and sustain
the Plauning Commission's and the Lower Rancho Santa Anita's Architectur;1,l
Review Board's approval of treproposed 4,600 square foot, two-story
residence and three car garage at 525 Campesina Road and direct staff
to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Council's decision
and findings in support of that decision incorporating the two foot
adjustment that was conceded to -- that height size from 14' to 12'.
('IL.,
Councilmcmber Gilb seconded the motion and placed it on the floor for
discussion. Councilmember GiIb said it was a difficult subject, because
in the first place the home, itself, meets all the criteria that the
City has laid out and even more than that. The reference that was made
to the Architectural Review Board, he has to say that the many years he
has been around and been involved with property owners and Associations~
that this ARB in this area is one of the most competent and dedicated.
The house in itself and the design could have been larger according to
City Code. It comes down also to a matter of who likes ranch style and
who does not. There has been a Tudoc style house erected in his neighbor--
hood and he does not like it, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The property owners' association do the best they can, but the people who
have put up the money for the property actually improve the value of the
other properties. The three car garage is pretty necessary now because
everybody has three car garages -- it is better to have three car garages
than a two car garage and leave one car out in the driveway. That is
the way style is going. The lady who moved there in 1972 -- well, that
was 16 years ago and things change in 16 years. With regard to the
meeting they had with regard to the size of homes -- this home certainly
meets all of that. What it does not meRt is that i.t is not a ranch/stY]L
house: ... it's a different style of house and will be imposing on that
block, but it could have been bigger than it is according to code. Mr.
Spuck was talking about the impact on the neighborhood of the style of
the house. \ole don't want every house exactly the same, but we are not
used to that much change. It is a difficult thing for the impact on a
residential area that these new houses will be coming;maybe every house
on the block will look like tho t. There are so many nCl,.,T homes coming
into our conununity. On behalf of the Architectural Review Board and
knowing how dedicated they are and how they looked into this and the
Planning Commission denied the appeal, I would not see anything new that
,,,ould make me change my mind and I would have to find for denial of the
appeal.
I
'1 ,-lOR
dAH f} tCH'i'
III would like to comment on Rome of the points that \o.'ere made. I am goil!g
to vote to deny the appeal and I would like to explain how I have eome to
this decision. I would like to comment on some of the things that were
said here and there were references to whether this ,was a developer or
a resident. That's really unimportant. Someone owns a piece of property,
they have property rights to do the same things on that property as the
next-door neighbor does. So those kinds of arguments, whether it's a
deve]opl2T or a residr::l1t, the fact that this person is going to reside in
the house has absolutely no bearing on this. And if he wasn't going to
reside in the house it has no bearing. We are concerned with property
rights. We don't try to determine whether tre person who has made the
application is a good person or an evil person. It's unimportant, and
it's unimportant how long they have lived there or how long they have
owned that piece of property. I think everyone of us, many of uS are
ln~g terlD residents,I know 1 am, but if I were going to leave this
community and go buy a piece of property in another community, I think I
would react pretty violently if someone were~ say to me:'well, you have
only been here a few months so you have lesser property rights than the
guy next door because he has been here longer than you'. That's not
true. If I own that piece of property I have exactly the same property
rights as the one next door. So what 1 am saying is, is that whether
it's a developer, whether the person has owned the property a short time
or whether the person who is making the appeal has owned his property a
long ~ime is really unimportant. Another thing that comes up time and
time again when we have these things before us, is the issue of two-story.
The fact is that every piece of residential property in Arcadia has had
I
6/7/88
-5-
HARBlCHT
(cont'd)
YOUNr::
30:0128
"the right to be two-story since the 1940's. We are coming up on half
a century that they have had that right. That's not an issue. They have
always had that right. Every person in this room who owns a piece of
property in Arcadia in a residential zone has the right to build a
second story on his home or to tear his home down and build a new one
which is two-story. I think that I can understand why somebody doesn't
want a two-story next to them if they've become used to being able to
look over the roof at the mountains, but the fact is that that has been
a luxury that they have had, but it's not something that is being taken
away from them. Somebody made the comment that they don't think bigger
is better. You know, I might even agree with that, but that doesn't matter
because it's not your property. If you think smaller is better, then you
can build a small house. But if somebody else thinks bigger is better,
then he has the right to build a big house. The question here really iSI
is that America is a free county and we only restrict people's rights
when they are going to cause harm to somebody else. And we have to measu
the amount of harm that i~ being causedly the amount 0: restriction that
we are making on somebody's freedoms. That's really k1nd of where we ar
Sort of juggling that. I can understand the emotional response, I don't
want a house that looks different than the one that is there .,. or looks
different than my house. I might even agree with it. But we have to deal
with property rights and the purpose of the .zoning laws, the purpose of
the architectural review board is to protect properties from harm by
their neighbors by what they are planning to do. In your area we have
an extra level of government, if you will, where we have an architectural
review board. The architectural review boards were originally put in,
and the whole intent was to prevent people from building too small a home
or a home that didn't measure up to the standards of the neighborhood.
Now is has kind of gotten turned around and we have a lot of concerns
about homes being too big, or out of character with the neighborhood and
I think that that's true. There can be homffi that are too big and out
of character with the neighborhood that could cause harm to property
values. But in this case, I don't see where the harm is. As a matter
of fact, as far as econiomics go, I think that we are going to see a
positive effect on the neighborhood. We can't use just subjective
judgment; we have to look at this on an objective basis, and the object-
ive basis I am looking at is, what real harm would accrue if this house
were to go in. I look at the design, and again my opinion is no better
than anyone else's, but I look at this and I see that the architect
has made every attempt to comply with the new ordinance, which Mas an
ordinance that was put in and it was hammered out over literally months
of public hearings, to try to cut down on the apparent bulk of the houses
that were built. Some of the things that were done, was to make the
houses as they went up, go in, was to break up the front facade, have
step-backs, these kind of things. I look at the design here and every
one of those things has been done. And I think that he has not only
complied with the letter of the new ordinance, but really with the spirit
of the new ordinance. I don't see here any attempt to fit it into the
largest possible building envelope that he can, I see an attempt here
to try to do exactly what the new ordinance was designed to do. I
feel that that ordinance went in with a lot of hard work and a lot of
consideration and that this home probably is an outstanding example of I
what we were hoping to accqmplish with that new ordinance. And so, agai
while I agree with the emotional response, I just can't in good conscienc
vote to deny the person the right to build this home without seeing what
harm is going to come to the others."
Councilmember Young said she would not repeat everything that has been
said. She, too, will vote to deny the appeal after a lot of soul
searching. She thinks the Mayor has expressed a lot of good thoughts
that she agrees with. But she:wants to compliment the Architectural
Review Board. She thinks they have done a very good job. She does
feel that change is hard to take when you are a neighbor and the neighbor-
hood is changing. It is hard to take. One of the things that Council
tries to look at is the aesthetics. This is a two-story house; but not
all one-story houses are ranch houses; some of them are contemporary and
some are Cape Cod. This house needs some big trees -- some tall pines
or some big camphor trees put in front of the house; it would break it
up to' blend with the neighborhood. She has looked at the landscape plan and
can not identi.fy everything, but she does not see any large trees. To
her, talking about proportion ... a two-story house needs tall trees.
To her, that would be more aesthetically appealing. She will vote to
deny the appeal also. 6/7/88
-6-
LOJESKI
I
MOTION
2.
PUBLIC
HEARING
ARCADIA
GATEWAY
CENTRE
I~:~~~~~a-
tions)
CONT'D
to June 21,
1988)
"j-.'2
/
O\~
~\~
30:0129
Councilmember Lojeski said that he, too, after reviewing all the
material in front of him and hearing the testimony again tonight,
felt he has no basis to agree with the appeal request. He, too,
will cast a vote to deny the appeal. A lot has been said about
architecture -- what one person likes and one person dislikes. He
can identify with his own situation -- when he built a Spanish style
home among a street of a multitude of styles -- he built a two-story
home among a group of single story homes. He can identify with this
type of a situation when it comeS to Councilor to the Planning Commis-
sion and if he were to put some name tag on this style of architecture
with what we've seen in the community that has .been excessive and garrish
with turrets, spires and whatever; this type of architecture does not
show that. A new ordinance has been hammered out regarding size in
relationship to the lot and talked about setting back the second story
of multi-storied homes. He mentioned at that time that architects
should go back and sharpen their pencils and break up the monotomy of
stark straight walls. He looks at what is in front of him as being,
perhaps, transitional architecture. Not Tudor, not ranch style, but
something in between. Treatment of setting windows back, design of
three car garage -- things have been broken up and set back. He commends
the architect for it .,. he listened to the Board and attempted to
design something that would be compatible. He does not find it
excessive or garrish and has to agree with comments in the Planning
Commission meeting. Unfortunately, this is a no-win situation. We've
heard testimony from long-term residents .,. their first experinece
with ARB and homeowners' meetings and he challenges them to get in-
volves with these processes. If they don't like the people on the
ARB, others can get on the Board and help make decisions. He thinks
the house will fit in nicely with the community... it is well within
the property rights mentioned by Mayor Harbicht ... it could have come out
much closer to the property lines. They have attempted to create some
setbacks and have designed a very nice home. On that basis, he cannot
support the appeal.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DENY the appeal and sustain
the Planning Commission's and the Lower Rancho Santa Anita's Architectural
Review Board's approval of the proposed 4,600 square foot, two-story
residence and three-car garage at 525 Campesina Road and direct staff
to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Council's decision
and findings in support of that decision incorporating the two foot
adjustment that was conceded to -- that height size from 14' to 12'.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Consideration of MM 88-005 for parking modifications for the Arcadia
Gateway Centre, 776 parking spaces in lieu of 908 parking spaces re-
quired (4.36 parking spaces per thousand in lieu of 5.09 required)
and an increase in the number (198 compact spaces in lieu of 155
allowed) of allowable compact spaces (20% allowed by code) at the
south side of Huntington Drive between Second and Fifth Avenues
(Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates, Ltd., applicant).
Staff report presented. The code's parking requirements are not
always appropriate when applied to certain situations, for example,
some offices do not require four spaces per thousand square feet of
building area; but there are other office uses which may require more
parking. The code requirements attempt to average out extremes and
provide sufficient parking to accommodate changes in occupants. An
office use which has more spaces than needed may move and a new office
use may move in which may require more parking space than that used
by the previous tenant. If you base the parking on the minimum needs,
sooner or later there will be a parking deficiency. The Planning
Department does not recommend approval of the requested modifications.
Mayor Harbicht inquired how many spaces code would require. Staff
replied for uses now known require 908 spaces. Mayor Harbicht inquired
if the same ratio were used as on the earlier modification granted, how
many spaces would be required? Staff answered 844 spaces. The request
is for 776 spaces. Councilmember Gilb stated that we are talking about
spaces we know of now... we don't know who the tenants will be ... is
-7- 6/7/88
3.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Appeal
.of
Planning
Camsln
Approval
of T.P.M.
88-006
(Lot Line
Adj us tmen t)
(Ace Civil
Engineering)
(APPROVED)
~\-1
0";' '0 rJ t^
~ '. "\ ' ~ .
30: 0130
that correct? Answer: what we know and what is anticipated in
the buildings to be constructed. Councilmember Gilb noted that
this is a modification of a modification.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
George Grosso, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates, Irvine, CA, stated
that he had two requests: 1) a request for a two week continuance
regarding the parking modification, and 2) if that is granted, that
they be permitted to bring to staff the following day, the proposed
elevations for design review for the office building.
Mayor Harbicht inquired if anyone present wished to speak tonight
rather than return in two weeks.
No one else desiring to be heard, it was MOVED by Councilmember LOjeSki'l
seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows
that the public hearing be CONTINUED to the next Council meeting on
June 21, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Proposed elevations for the design review may be presented for Agency
approval remembering that they either have to come up with additional
parking or reduce the square footage of the building.
By a 3 to 2 vote, the Planning Commission at its May 10, 1988 meeting
approved Tentative Parcel Map 88-006, a request for a lot line adjustment
(two lots will be created from two existing lots) for the property
bounded by Santa Anita Avenue, Floral Avenue, Foothill Blvd. and
Tindalo Road. On May 17, 1988 the City Council appealed the Planning
Commission's approval. The Planning Department is recommending approval
of TPM 88-006, subject to the conditions outlined in staff report dated
June 7, 1988. The allowable uses are determined by the City's zoning
regulations. All this property is zoned C-2 which permits general
commercial uses and is the City's least restrictive commercial zone.
Councilmember Gilb reiterated that this hearing does not have anything
to do with what is going to be on the property. Mayor Harbicht noted
that under Item 13 e, the Council is going to be considering an urgency
ordinance that will preclude the granting and issuing of any use permits
on commercial property within 150 feet of residentially zoned property.
This will affect this piece of property, as well as other properties in
the City.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
Fred Weitkamp, 10724 White Oak, Granada Hills, stated, in part, that he
was representing the applicants for the lot line adjustment. This is
simply an application for a lot line adjustment; not an application for
rezoning or for any particular use. He showed a radius map to illus- I
trate his remarks. The property is bounded by Santa Anita Avenue,
Floral Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Tindalo Road. The property is
zoned C-2; there is a Unocal Gas Station on the corner; he described
uses on the adjoining lot and the other corner properties. This is a
property which is asphalt paved; has weeds on the property; itinerant parK-
ing of autos. He feels it is an eyesore in the area. Mr. Weitkamp
then presented a site plan which had already been approved by the City.
He proceeded to describe the colored areas on the map designating
landscaping, the proposed commercial building, parking and driveways.
Mayor Harbicht inquired what kind of approval had been given on this.
Staff replied that plans were submitted for architectural design
review and those were approved. This has nothing to do with the
uses. Councilmember Lojeski remarked that he thought this was a
very important point. Councilmember Young inquired what uses would
be permitted. Staff replied that it was general commercial... retail
use. There would not be sufficient parking for a restaurant, for
example. Mayor Harbicht interjected that it was important to note
that they have complied with code; they are not applying for a variance
from code. Mr. Weitkamp proceeded to describe the proposed elevations.
-8-
6/7 / 88
30:0131
Mayor Harbicht inquired how this affects the lot split under
discussion. The point is not under discussion at this time. If
the lot line adjustment were approved or denied, the applicants
could still come in with another design. Mayor Harbicht therefore
said they would not discuss the design of the proposed building at
this time.
I
Allan Gassman, 57 Westbury, Thousand Oaks, the architect for the
project, described the lot line adjustment which will create two
lots from the existing two lots. This will mean adjusting the
north/south line between Unocal and the lot to the west. Council-
member Lojeski inquired if the lot to the west would be owned by the
same people who own the Unocal station. Answer - yes. Question was
raised by Councilmember Lojeski as to where cars would be parked --
this was to be referred to the Unocal representative. Councilmember
Lojeski noted that nothing has been done on this property since 1950
or 1960 and that the population and traffic have increased greatly since
that time. The key question is what will eventually be on that property.
Some of these answers will be pertinent to the overall picture. Mayor
Harbicht suggested that they should be talking about the lot split not
what is eventually planned to go on there. Councilmember Lojeski said
he would later like to have his question as to where cars being serviced
were to be parked, etc.
Dennis Gallonio, 476 Naomi, Arcadia, representative of Union for real
estate, stated, in part that very shortly Union Oil will be coming to
the City for permits to expand onto the station. It is a three-bay
station and business is such that they find it necessary to add one more
bay westward and continue on to the building. This would cross that
property line which will be erased by this lot split ... approximately
20 - 22 feet. Cars are entered through the rear on Floral and are parked
in the rear section. They do not anticipate cars being parked on
Foothill. Councilmember Gilb inquired where cars would be parked
which are to be repaired. Mr. Gallonio replied there was an area be-
hind the entrance to the bays, before the property they are going to
acquire; this is where the cars will be parked ... either in the bays
or in the back waiting to go in or to be picked up. Presently Union
owns the L-shaped parcel. The parcel the station is on is leased
property, but there is an option to purchase at the end of the lease,
and the property is presently in escrow. Will expand to the lot on
the west. The plans to be submitted will include approximately 20
feet crossing the present line When plans are submitted, staff will
be looking at the entire property.
I
Joe Logsdon, 919 Rodeo, stated that he had lived in this area for 60
years anq realized that no matter how long one lived in the area, a
man had property rights. They came before Council and did the right
thing. He is proud of the City of Arcadia .,. it is a City of Homes
not mini malls. For mini malls, go to Pasadena .., but there are
troubles ... winos .,. places where they say there are 30 cars and
there are 65 trying to get out at 5:00. If you come down Foothill
at 4:00 on a race track day, you'll get home about an hour later. You
have to go on Floral, Rodeo over to Foothill to miss the five-way
stop light at Foothill and Santa Anita. Young lawyers going to Los
Angeles on the bus park their cars on Floral and Tindalo where they
sit all day long. Where will those cars be parked? There are runors
already about putting a car wash at the Union station. He has waited
hours to get home. Now he has to go through the rich area to get home
because he cannot get through the poor area. The Santa Anita area is
still a beautiful area .,. we do not need another mini mall.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED.
6/7/88
-9-
4.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Street
Lights -
(Le Roy Av
El Monte to
Santa Anita)
(APPROVED)
p
,S y::
~
30: 0132
Councilmember Gilb noted that Council is not approving a mini mall
tonight; only a lot line adjustment.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember
Lojeski (with comments following) and CARRIED on roll call vote as
follows that the appeal be DENIED and the lot line adjustment be
APPROVED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Councilmember Lojeski commented that although he does understand
exactly what is in front of Council this evening, in observing some I
of the pictures and diagrams presented this evening, the ultimate
question here is what is going to happen-- whether it is that corner
or any other corner in Arcadia -- when the situation is commerical
property that abutts residential property. With this, he is agree-
ing to simply change a lot line. He wished to go on record that he
is also going to lead the charge and approve Item 13 e which is an
urgency ordinance which will give the City Council and Planning Commis-
sion time to study the impacts of this type of development that close
to residential property with the ultimate hope of going to a Conditional
Use Permit so we know exactly what is going to go in there. He does not
want to see the residents become victims of something that could have
been prevented.
Councilmember Young also wanted to go on record that she favors the
lot line split; she, too, will favor the lot line split but will vote
for the urgency ordinance for further study.
Councilmember Gilb said that is why the urgency ordinance is going in.
There are enough problems on that corner ... there is so much traffic ...
parking ... old cars behind the station that were supposed to be moved.
Any development there will be scrutinized. The developers have to under-
stand this is not going to be easy.
Mayor Harbicht commented that he thinks they have to recognize that
the land, although having been empty for a long time, is not going to
lie fallow... it is going to be developed some time. What is before
Council this evening is simply the lot line adjustment. Question is
does Council want it developed as one big development or two smaller
developments.
As to what is proposed, it would suggest that it would be proposed
to be two smaller developments. As a matter of fact, the way the land
is now, it could be developed into two smaller developments. The ques-
tion is L-shaped development any more desirable than two rectangular
developments? He thinks it is a moot question ... it is a minor thing
...bigger battles may lie ahead. He is in favor of the lot line adjust-
ment.
A petition for insltallaLtion of street lighlts has been received from I..
property owners a ong e Roy Avenue from E Monte Avenue to Santa
Anita Avenue. The Engineering Division has studied the request and
determined that twelve street lights would be necessary to provide the
minimum recommended level of lighting for this street. Past City
practice for street lighting has been that 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 be annexed to the
Lighting Maintenance District Zone "E" and the costs would become part
of the property tax bill. The petition from the 65 benefitting property
6/7 /88
-10-
I
I
5.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Security
Bars -
Comm'l
& Indus'l
Zones
(APPROVED)
r If>
p: B\":J
cPr1ii
5e- GO, (51
30: 0133
owners indicates forty-four in favor (68%). The City will advance
the property owners' 25% share of the installation cost from the
Capital Outlay Fund which will be reimbursed to the City with 7%
interest over a lO-year period through the provisions of Chapter 27
of the Improvement Act of 1911. The property owners also have the
option of a one-time cash payment of their share of the installation
cost when project costs are confirmed. The project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act. Hearing notices have been posted on each property and published
in the TRIBUNE. Staff recommends approval of this petition.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
Robert Hsu, 184 Le Roy, stated, in part, that he was concerned
that the proposed distribution of lights along Le Roy Avenue is not
even. He felt that there would be less intensity of light on one-
half of the street. Apparently there will be 5 lights on one side
and 7 on the other side. The Director of Public Works explained
that the lights were usually installed along lot lines since owners
do not like to have street lights directly in front of their homes;
also consideration had to be given to power lines, gas lines, etc. He
suggested that Mr. Hsu come into his office and he would go over the
plans with him.
John Greaves, 117 W. Le Roy Avenue stated, in part, that he had
circulated the petition. One of their problems has been the wash
which runs to Naomi. Requested that lights be installed close to the
wash for purposes of protection. Otherwise the proposed lights seem
to be evenly distributed. He is looking forward to having the lights
installed.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember
Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Superintendent
of Streets be AUTHORIZED to proceed with the installation of street
lighting on Le Roy Avenue from El Monte Avenue to Santa Anita Avenue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
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 insure compatibility and satisfactory
appearance. A report was presented by the City Attorney. The Fire
Chief was present to answer questions.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
Bill Connolly, 815 E. Camino Real Avenue, inquired if this ordinance
is passed, how long a period of time would be permitted for outside
security bars to be removed? Staff replied that would be one year to
remove them ~r move them inside.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED.
The City Attorney stated that the motion and vote were to be made
when Ordinance No. 1885 was presented later in the meeting under
Item 13 d.
6/7 / 88
-11-
6.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Dial-A-
Ride Fare
Structure
Change)
(APPROVED)
y/?
y\
7.
30: 0134
In 1985 passenger fares for Dial-A-Ride were increased from $.50
for a regular ride and $.20 for seniors and disabled to the current
levels of $.85 and $.40 respectively. The fare increase was needed
due to the end of the Proposition "A" Fare Reduction funding and the
beginning of the Proposition "A" Discretionary program, a smaller
amount of funding was available to operate Arcadia Dial-A-Ride
program. Additionally, the Proposition "A" Local Return balance
(55 Fund) was at an insufficient level. Since the end of the $.50
and $.20 fare Arcadia Dial-A-Ride ridership has dropped from 246,000
to this year's (FY 1988) projected level of 157,400 or a 36% decrease.
Because of this dropoff in ridership, the City has reduced the amount
of Proposition "A" Local Return money needed to operate the Dial-A- I
Ride over the past three years. The reduction in the use of Proposition
"A" Local Return funds has given the City a reserve of approximately
$1,155,326 as of the end of this fiscal year. Because of the Proposi-
tion "A" Local Return Fund balance being stable and the change in
Proposition "A" Discretionary funding guidelines, the City is able
to reduce Dial-A-Ride fares without expending any additional City
funds. Staff recommends reduction of the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride fares
to $.75 for a regular ride and $.30 for senior and disabled riders.
This change, if passed, will be effective July 1, 1988.
Councilmember Lojeski noted that since government is usually accused
of raising taxes and rates, it is good to be able to lower rates.
Mayor Harbicht inquired if the fare for senior and disabled riders
could be placed at $.25 rather than $.30 and still be financially
feasible. Staff replied that it could.
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED.
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember
Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the change in
Dial-A-Ride fare be APPROVED to incorporate $.75 for a regular ride
and $.25 for senior and disabled riders.
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Councilmember Gilb inquired what age was a senior. Staff replied age 62.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Henrietta Loeffler, 942 Arcadia Avenue, stated, in part, that she had
been doing her homework with regard to the rose garden and the proposed I
new senior center. She mentioned that she had letters from the Universi
Women and from Congressman Moorhead from which she quoted excerpts.
There is a great feeling about the rose garden ... when one arrives
from the west, one sees the County Park and the rose garden with the
museum building near it. There is also the question of the legality
of building any other type of structure there according to the convey-
ance of property from the United States to Los Angeles County to the
City of Arcadia ...the property is to be used for recreational, park
and playground only. All structures to be related to that type of
function; otherwise the property will revert to the United States.
The type of building the Council is contemplating, incorporating
offices, would be questionable. She feels there is room on the City
Hall campus to accommodate a senior center. This would make the
destruction of the rose garden unnecessary. She noted in this
evening's agenda, the matter of the acquisition of the Armory site
is being considered. She sees ~o reason to consider the rose garden
6/7 /88
-12-
30:0135
as a possible site if the Armory property is to be available.
Mayor Harbicht replied that the Armory site would not, in any case,
be available for at least five years. Also noted that the use of the
rose garden property for a senior center was a legal purpose. Also,
he felt the rose garden was not necessarily an asset to Arcadia
because it was not being kept up. They would like to keep as many
of the roses as possible and perhaps if the senior center were on
that location, some of the seniors could volunteer to care for the
roses.
I
Edward ~. Barrett, Fashion Park Villas, 596 W. Huntington Drive, stated,
in part, that he was here to request some means of placing tickets on
cars that are parked in fire lanes. At the condominium complex in
which he lives there were to be no units in the back ... but that has
changed ... they have no guest parking now. There has been a murder
in the complex. They are anxious to prevent cars from parking in
that area which is a fire access area. They have talked to the Fire-
Department and the Police Department about this and have not received
satisfaction; and have posted about 36 warning notices. The City
Attorney noted that Item l3b on tonight's agenda will deal with this
problem. It will make more efficient the implementation of City Code
requirements concerning blockage of fire lanes. By making the municipal
Code and Vehicle Code uniform in terms of posting requirements, both
Fire and Police personnel will be able to issue citations. This is
an remedial provision with appropriate signage to enhance the flex-
ibility of enforcement through utilization of the Municipal and
Vehicle Code provisions aimed at precluding obstruction of fire lanes.
Mayor Harbicht suggested that Mr. Barrett contact the Fire Depart-
ment if he has further questions. Councilmember Young asked if this
means the condominium management or Board of Directors have authority
to have cars towed away. The Fire Chief said they did have such
authority. It is, however, their responsibility to have the cars
towed away.
I
Herb Fletcher, 175 W. Lemon, stated, in part, that at the present
time in his area there is an attempt to form a homeowners' associa-
tion. He wished to inquire about the rules of forming a homeowners'
association. Councilmember Chandler replied that a majority of the
homeowners was necessary. The City Attorney suggested that Mr. Fletcher
might contact the City Attorney's Office or the Planning Director's
Office for further explanation. Basically, forming a homeowners'
association has no relevance unless and until City Council, by
ordinance, applies resolutions and gives it the authority. That
is not generally going to happen unless there is a substantial number
of people who want this. The current organization is only in the
preliminary stages. Mr. Fletcher inquired about property rights, for
instance, would 24 homeowners not have property rights; but 25 would?
Councilmember Lojeski said it would have to be a cohesive area, perhaps
two blocks, perhaps a much larger area; but still a cohesive unit. The
City Attorney said some homeowners' associations are private organiza-
tions; some which are created and try to get jurisdiction under the
authority of the City Council. But a small group of people can agree
to a CC & R between themselves and have reciprocal rights, obligations,
etc. That is different from a larger group which the City Council would
impose certain requirements upon. Mayor Harbicht noted that Mr.
Fletcher had brought up a matter which probably could not be solved
tonight, but which concerned him. There is need to discuss specific
procedure for forming a homeowners' association. Some people are
losing their property rights because suddenly they are part of a
homeowners' association and suddenly the rules are different. Anyone
considering being a part of a homeowners' association has the right
to understand what the changes may be and those promoting it have the
obligation to let everyone know exactly what the effect will be. He
is concerned about people passing petitions either for or against a
homeowner association and feels that Council should determine what
should be included on that petition. When they obtain the signatures
6/7/88
-13-
~~\
8.
9.
9a.
ROLL CALL
9b.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(May 17,
1988)
(APPROVED)
9c.
DESIGN
REVIEW
(Derby
Direct-
ional
Signs)
(APPROVED)
f'{,
f\r\ ~
~ ' 'd--
9d.
DESIGN
REVIEW
EXTENSION
(Des arch
Design
Group)
(APPROVED)
:}q
q'"\ ,J;
\' \~
30: 0136
of x number of people, how does Council know what these people have
been told or not been told. Homeowners should know what they are
getting into. Mayor Harbicht would like to request a report from
the Planning Director on what is involved now and what conditions are
required to establish a homeowners' association. Mr. Fletcher added
that he had been to a meeting concerning the formation of a home-
owners' association. The principal reason for this apparently is
that homeowners feel they are being victims of new developments. He
had suggested that the architectural review boards have authority
only over the large developments. They did not seem to be in favor
of this.
Bill Connolly, 815 Camino Real, inquired about the recommendation for
acquisition of the Armory site. He understands the five year clause, but I
he wonders if this will be a final sale; if the matter is settled?
Council replied that the matter is settled.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED,
the Minutes of the meeting of May 17, 1988 were APPROVED. Member Gilb
abstained since he was not present at the May 17, 1988 meeting.
Pursuant to the January 5, 1988 Disposition and Development Agreement
between the Derby Restaurant and the Agency, the Derby Restaurant
was given prior approval to erect two directional signs and lights
in the new Northside Project public right-of-way east of the Souplantation
Parcel. The signs are not to be in excess of 3 feet high and 2' x 2'
in size and are subject to Agency Design Review. An Encroachment
Permit has .been prepared to allow the Derby Restaurant to erect such
directional signs. The location and elevation of the proposed signs
are described in attachments to staff report dated June 7, 1988.
It was MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Gilb and CARRIED
on roll call-vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
APPROVE the Design Review for the proposed Derby Restaurant directional
signs with the conditions as outlined in the Encroachment Permit; that
the City Council APPROVE the Encroachment Permit subject to mutual
agreement between Southern California Edison, the Derby Restaurant
and tht Department of Public Works on the final location of the
directionai signs.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
Resolution No. ARA-126 requires an applicant for Agency Design
Review to obtain a building permit and/or begin construction on
the Agency approved project within one year of that approval.
Desarch Design Group obtained Agency approval of its proposed 10-
unit condominium project at 127 - 39 Alta Street on April 22, 1987.
On May 17, 1988, the applicant tried to obtain the necessary permits
to build his project but could not because the ARA-126-imposed one
year time limit had expired. The applicant has therefore requested
6/7 /88
-14-
30:0137
a time extension. Staff has reviewed the plans submitted in May,
1988 and compared them to those originally approved in April, 1987.
The current plans are generally consistent with the previously approved
plans and actually contain several design upgrades.
It was MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Gilb and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
AUTHORIZE an extension of the Desarch Design Group Design Review for
a period of 6 months and APPROVE the modified design as submitted.
1ge.
ADJOURNMENT
(June 14,
. 1988)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The meeting adjourned to 5:30 p. m., June 14, 1988.
10.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
I
6/7/88
-15-
11.
lIa.
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(June 21,
1988) n~
f~1'-
lIb.
HEARING
SCHEDULED ,J
iJa"e 21,
1988)
llc. ,,-&1.\
CDBG 'Y \.;.1
REIMBURS-
ABLE
CONTRACT
lld.
ADVERTISE
FOR BIDS
(Resurfacing
of Second
Av. - Job
No. 63l).
r\5~"\
lle.
ARMORY
SITE
ACQUISITION
f-IS30
1If.
~DERBY
~ RESTAURANT
f\' (Encroach-
'} \ ment Permit
(\ for direc-
tional signs)
llg.
FIRE DEPT.
DISPATCH
TRAINEE
POSITIONS
30:0138
CONSENT ITEMS
SCHEDULED for June 21, 1988 consideration of proposed Operating Budget
for Fiscal Year 1988-89.
SCHEDULED for June 21, 1988 consideration of T. A. 88-001 to amend the
subdivision ordinance to 1) establish minimum lot width for R-1 and
R-M zoned corner lots of 85'-0"; 2) change Sec. 9113.6 relating to
modifications on tentative maps and tentative parcel maps to provide
for approval by the Planning Commission; 3) amend Sec. 9115.12 relatinl
to time extensions for tentative maps to be consistent with the State
Subdivision Map Act.
AUTHORIZED the Mayor to execute Community Development Block Grant
Reimbursable contract for 1988-91.
APPROVED plans and specifications and AUTHORIZED the City Clerk to
advertise for bids for resurfacing of Second Avenue from Colorado Blvd.
to Bonita St. - Job No. 631. The estimated cost is $116,000 which will
be funded from State Gas Tax Funds. The project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pur-
suant to Section 15101, Class l(C) of the guidelines for implementation
of said Ac t.
AUTHORIZED the purchase of the property known as the National Guard
Armory site, 260 West Huntington Drive, for the amount of $1,400,000
and AUTHORIZED the City Manager to execute the Purchase Agreement and
all other documents related to this transaction, subject to approval of
minor revisions as to form by the City Attorney.
APPROVED the Encroachment Permit for the proposed Derby Restaurant
directional signs, subject to mutual agreement between Southern California
Edison, the Derby Restaurant and the Department of Public Works on the
final location of the directional signs.
Fire Department reque~t for approval of three dispatch trainee POSition)
which have been included in the Department's proposed budget for Fiscal
Year 1988-89 at an estimated cost of $72,909 for salaries and benefits.
r. ,,~ ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER .
O' P e v-S,)n GILB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE
\r-' AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Councilmember Lojeski inquired in regard to Item 11 d) whether or not
the street was to be ripped up again in the new commercial development
area. Staff replied that the work generally consists of cold planing
parts of the existing street surface, construction of an asphalt rubber
stress absorbing membrane interlayer and resurfacing with asphaltic
concrete.
6/7/88
-16-
~
~
30:0139
12.
BOARD &
COMMISSION
APPOINTMENTS .
~ It was MOVED by Counc~lmember Chandler, seconded
I ~1hO Lojeski and CARRIED that all current members to
A'. ((e- 0 <,.\::. pointed for two-year terms ending June 9, 1990.
f\p (' e- as follows:
BJ.
CITY MANAGER
RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD
by Councilmember
this Board be reap-
Board members are
Don Hage
James Helms
William Kuyper
Robert M.,rgett
Jack Saelid
1
D.fV
1\'. r'
:\
B~' It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that Howard Giffis and Harriet McComas be reappointed to
this Commission for four-year terms ending June 30, 1992.
ARCADIA~BEAUTIEUL COMMISSION
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED that Linda Daggett be appointed to this Commission for a
four-year term ending June 30, 1992.
Counci1member Lojeski recommended Roland Kelly for consideration. A
contact will be made to inquire if he is still interested in serving
on this Commission.
I i I?
/>-', I-
\2iJ
LIBRARY BOARD
It was MOVED by Mayor Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED that Marilyn Daleo be reappointed to this Board for a four-year
term ending June 30, 1992.
PARKING PLACE COMMISSION
Q\o."c.
\ It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Counci1member Young and
r~'" J CARRIED that Jeff Johns, Bardella Mason and Gordon Penharlow be reap-
pointed to this Commission for four-year terms ending June 30, 1992.
f\ "
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED that William Wong be appointed (upon acceptance) to this
Commission for a four-year term ending June 30, 1992.
PERSONNEL BOARD
0\
'( ~,
S;O '
1\', '?~ I" \)d'
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED that Richard Erhardt and William Knight be reappointed to this
Board for four-year terms ending June 30, 1992.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that Joe Ciraulo be appointed to fulfill the unexpired term
of Robert Hillman ending June 30, 1989.
.1
PLANNING COMMISSION
5Yl
C-O~ It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young
~\~q and CARRIED that Lawrence Papay be reappointed to this Commission for
p." \l a four-year term ending June 30, 1992.
RECREATION COMMISSION
() v'"
lA" \'-
.sr-'
~O~ It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Chandler
and CARRIED that Pat Gibson be appointed to this Commission for a four-
year term ending June 30, 1992.
SENIOR CITIZENS' COMMISSION
C;"
1\.: S r ' s to
I'" {" '\"'I
.:/
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that Julie Hopf be appointed to this Comm:Lssion Dor ,a
two-year term ending June 30, 1990.
6/7/88
-17-
f.V
.?
J>..'
()x,
sl"'
("Or<'
c/'1
'i"
.Y& ,
-\ ..'f\
. \.:;> .rf' '?
p....,? uo
13.
13a.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1882
(ADOPTED)
13b. J
ORDINANCE v'
NO. 1883
(INTRODUCED)
13c. j
ORDINANCE
NO. 1884
(INTRODUCED)
30:0140
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, second by Mayor Pro Tern Chandler
and CARRIED that Esther Barnes and Henrietta Loeffler be reappointed
to this Commission for two-year terms ending June 30, 1990.
It was MOVED by Mayor Harbicht, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Chandler
and CARRIED that Graham Berry be appointed to this Commission for a
two-year term ending June 30, 1990.
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb that Marie Schmitt be reappointed
to this Commission for a four-year term ending June 30, 1992.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that John Tarazi be appointed to a four-year term ending
June 30, 1992.
1
CITY ATTORNEY
/
The City Attorney presented, 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 Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1882 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content and
read the title of Ordinance No. 1883, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS
3150.2 AND 3150.2.1 REGARDING POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANES (FIRE
ACCESSWAYS)".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1883 be and
it is hereby INTRODUCED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content and 1
read the title of Ordinance No. 1884, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY rOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 7540.7, TO AUTHORIZE A CROSS-CONNECTI
CONTROL PROGRAH".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1884 be and it
is hereby INTRODUCED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
6/7/88
-18-
1
J3d. I
ORDINAi'lCE
NO. 1885
(INTRODUCED)
13e.
URGENCY
ORDINANCE
NO. 1886
(ADOPTED)
13f.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5411
(ADOPTED)
F\ F!CV~
rC(tc .s
W1"
13g.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5414
(ADOPTED)
y\OI.o..3
30:0141
The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content
and read the title of Ordinance No. 1885, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND ADDING A PART 6 TO CHAPTER 7 OF ARTlGLE VIII
OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SECURITY BARS, METAL GRATES AND
SIMILAR SECURITY DEVICES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as foIlo~s that Ordinance No. 1885 be and
it is hereby INTRODUCED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
/
The City Attorney presented, read the title and read Ordinance No. 1886
in its entirety, entitled: "AN URGENCY ORDINAi'lCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, PRECLUDING THE GRANTING AND ISSUANCE
OF ANY USE PE&~ITS, VARIANCES, BUILDING PE~1ITS, OCCUPANCY PERMITS AND
ANY OTHER ENTITLEMENT FOR USE APPLICAllT.E TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED RETAIL
USES IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY."
The City Attorney noted a correction to be made changing "between 12: 00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m." to "between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m."
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Urgency Ordinance No. 1886
be and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Coullcilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No. 5411. entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH!C
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CITY OF ARCADIA WATER RATES AND
FINDING THE RATES WILL NOT EXCEED THE ESTJMc~TED AMOUNT NECESSARY TO
FUND OPERATION OF THE CITY WATER SYSTEM".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Coullcilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5411 be and
it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb. Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No. 5414, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FORM TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA DIAL-A-RIDE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5414 be and
it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
6/7/88
-19-
14.
15. ADJOURNMENT
GILB
(Myree
Gudus)
YOUNG
(Ernest
Burland)
LOJESKI
(Raymond
N. Ellis)
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:
30:0142
MATTERS FROM STAFF
I
The City Manager introduced Luis Zaragoza who will be covering City
Council meetings for the ARCADIA TRIBUNE. He is replacing Debbie
Weintraub who is now with the ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER.
The City Attorney requested a CLOSED SESSION at the Conclusion of this
meeting as announced earlier in the meeting.
./
Adjourned the meeting in memory of Myree Gudus who was born in Brook-
haven, Mississippi in 1915 and came to California in 1946. She was
affiliated with the Bank of America for 40 years and retired as Chief 1
Escrow Officer. She was very active in community affairs; she was
President of the Women's Division of the Chamber of Commerce; a Charter
President of the Arcadia Altrusa Club; the President of the Arcadia
Business and Professional Women's Club and in 1975 was named Woman of
the Year. She was President of the Arcadia Historical Society; a Member
of the Historical Society Commission; she was a Charter Member of the
Tournament of Roses; a Member of the Friendship Club; and President of
the San Gabriel Cancer Society. She was very active in the Sister City
program. As a matter of fact she was Chairperson of the Sister City
Commission when we went to Newcastle in 1976 to twin the cities and she
led the group that went down there. She passed away after a very long
illness on May 27 and she is survived by her husband of 50 years, Ed.
Funeral services were private.
../
I would like to adjourn the meeting in memory of Ernest Burland who was
a 25-year resident of Arcadia. He passed away about 10 days ago and the
services were last week. He was a long-time management employee at Sears
with an expertise in credit. He is survived by his wife, Doris, who has.
been very active in community activities, and three grown children, Susan,
Amy, and Tad. He was considered to have had a successful kidney
transplant about eight years ago but passed away of a heart attack.
./
Adjourned the meeting in memory of Raymond N. Ellis, former Monrovia
Chief of Police who passed away Thursday, June 2, 1988, from the effects
of cancer. He was 64 years old. Chief Ellis joined the Monrovia Police
Department in January 1952 after serving a short time on both the Glen-
dale and Los Angeles Police Departments. In Monrovia he rose through
the ranks to be appointed Chief of Police May 1, 1971. Chief Ellis
guided the Department through some difficult as well as some very pro-
ductive times before he retired on February 22, 1979. That same year he
accepted a position with the Santa Anita Race Track and attained the
position as Assistant Director of Operations. One of his primary respon-
sibilities was that of coordinating traffic control with the Arcadia
Police Department and California Highway Patrol. Chief Ellis distinguished
himself by his involvement in numerous professional and civic affairs. He
was a graduate of the F.B.I. National Academy, a member of the Interna-
tional Association of Chiefs of Police and was President of the San
Gabriel Valley Peace Officers' Association in 1972. Additionally, he wa
a member of the Monrovia Kiwanis Club and served as President in 1972,
1973, and 1974. He was a member of the Monrovia Elk's Lodge, President
of the Santa Anita District YMCA - Board of Directors in 1975. He had
been affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America and was on the Police
Science Advisory Committee for Pasadena City College, Citrus College and
Rio Hondo College. Chief Ellis is survived by his wife, Sherry; son,
Stephen and daughters, Karen Ingram and Laura Ellis. Services were held
this morning.
City Council adjourned to a CLOSED SESSION, reconvened and adjourned at
11:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., June 14, 1988 in the Conference Room for a
Study Session 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.
/~~
R. C. Harbicht, Mayor
-20-
k