Loading...
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