HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 1,1988_3
'30: 0259
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE V
APPROVAL
(Oct. 20.
1988)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES. ./
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
CLOSED
SESSION
I
1.
PUBLIC
HEARING
(Appeal -
Plan.Coms'n
Approval of
Dwelling -
1035
Hampton
(DENIED)
Rd.)
j.)~
-(\1)
\cf'
,'-<
0'0
\'''~
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEEtING
NOVEMBER 1. 1988
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a
regular session at 7:30 p. m.. November 1. 1988 in the Arcadia
City Hall Council Chamber.
First Counselor Reid Gunnell. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints
Councilmember Charles E. Gilb
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Young
and CARRIED. the Minutes.of the Adjourned and Regular meetings of
October 20. 1988 were APPROVED.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young
and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and
that the reading in full be waived.
The City Manager announced that "the City and the Arcadia Redevelop";
,ment Agency met in a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiator regarding the
potential acquisition of property at 112 North First Avenue and the
Agency's negotiation with Grand Avis of Arcadia and to discuss negotia-
tions with S & W Corporation regarding 162 - 164 East Huntington Drive".
The Planning Commission at its meeting of September 17. 1988 voted 5 to
o to adopt Resolution 1390 approving a two-story 7,137 sq. ft. home with
an attached 4-car garage at 1035 Hampton Road (MP'88-023) and over-ruling
the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' appeal. On'October 1. 1988. the
Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association appealed the Planning
Commission's decision. The owners proposed a plan which called for a
dwelling with a maximum height of 34'9" with the main ridge a height
of 29'6". The Planning Commission hearing was continued from August 23
to September 13 in order to permit the owners' and Association time to
resolve the differences. At the Commission's September 13 meeting,
the owners submitted a revised elevation in which the maximum dwell-
ing height had been reduced to 32'7" and the main ridge reduced to
28'. This is a 1'6" reduction. The Planning Commission was con-
cerned with the visual impact of the proposed dwelling::and with ",the
concerns expressed by those in opposition to the project. The Com-
mission subsequently approved the project but required an additional
l"reduction in the dwelling's height. The maximum height approved
by the Commission was limited to 31' 7" with the main ridge being
reduced to 27' and the turrets also reduced an additional foot from
the owner's revised plan. The net result is that the maximum building
height was reduced 3'2" and the main ridge height was reduced 2'6" from
-1-
11/1/88
IN:'FAVOR
OF APPEAL
30:0260
the applicant's original proposal. Following ,the Commission's
September 13 meeting, while drafting the:Commission's resolution,
it Was noted that the Commission did not state at which point on
the curb the 35'. above curb measurement was to be taken. Because
the owner and opponents of the project might subsequently disagree
as to the point on the curb from which any building height measurement
should be taken, the resolution was drafted to achieve the intent of
the Commission without reference to the curb. From notes and recollec-
tion of the meeting, the Commission's intent waS to require the lowering
of the dwelling an additional foot below that shown on the applicant's
revised plan. The Commissioner who made the motion was called to be
sure that Was his intent. He confirmed. The resolution Was drafted
accordingly and adopted 5-0 by the Commission at its September 27
meeting. The transcript of the Commision's motion clearly sets
forth their intent which is reflected in the resolution and adopted
by the Commission.
Mayor Harbicht noted that the Council had been supplied with the
testimony given before the Planning Commission, various letters
pertinent to this matter as well as the Resolution adopted by the
Planning Commission.
I
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, President of the Rancho Santa
Anita HOmeOwners' Association, presented a short history of the situation
and explained why the HOA was unable to act in time. Petitions for and
against the project have been circulated around the neighborhood... he
feels roughly 80% of the residents are against the project as presented.
The special committee formed at the suggestion of the Planning Com-
mission was also against it. He referred to Resolution 5288 which
forms rules and regulations for development in that area. It was ;felt
the proposed house is too massive in design with a high roof line and
additional turrets and ridges towering even higher. It is designed to
look even more massive than actual dimensions suggest. Also it is on
top of a knoll for' an additional 8 - 10 feet. There are also objections
to the proposed materials. He presented pictures of similar structures
built by this developer and outlined differences between those houses
and the proposed structure. The special committee suggested a compromise
allowing the developer to choose his design, colors, building materials,
etc. and set the building height at 835' (sea level) .,. between 5' and
6' difference of opinion. The last offer from the developer was about
10" higher. The Planning Commission lowered the major part of the house
an additional l' so it is now 2' lower than in June. He does not feel
that 'is a compromise. He felt the building pad could be lowered be-
tween 3 and 4 feet perhaps by being "scrapped" off. Perhaps another
foot or two could be taken out of the structure itself. This:'compromise
would not be disruptive nor would it stop the development. Asked Council
to give everyone involved a compromise. Councilmember Gilb noted that
the original height of the building was 292' and is now down to 27' so
the developer ,has dropped it 22' from the roof line down. Mr. Brown
replied that in the June 10 meeting they were offered 3' off but the
neighborhood did not want that ... and it's now at 22'.
The lot elevation is roughly 8 - 10' above curb. He reiterated that
perhaps the building pad could be scrapped to be level with the curb.
The present house is to be torn down; bulldozer could cut building pad
4' deeper. Further discussion ensued regarding the various proposed
heights. Councilmember Young noted that the property is on the uphill
side of the mountain; if the lot is dug down 4' it will be lower than
the houses on either side. How will it look and what will the drainage
be? Mr. Brown replied the Association will bypass the issue of the
materials, etc., but they want the house to be no higher than other
houses on the street ... whether they lower the house or scrape the
pad. This is a compromise.
I
H. R. Stoke, 1040 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that the Mayor had
inquired about fue height of the proposed building. He said it would
be 42' high ... now the range is somewehat up to 42'. They want it to
be compatible with other houses on Hampton Road and other houses in
11/1/88
-2-
I
I
IN
OPPOSITION
30:0261
the Upper Rancho. He feela the neighborhood is faced with an excessive,
massive, oversized house which is not in harmony nor compatible with ,"
the neighborhood. Made further reference to Resolution 5288 regarding
development and intended to protect neighborhood ... they are seeking
that protection. He also gave a brief history of the pertinent meet-
ings. The Committee recommended to the Commission that it select a
height of 35' above the curb line. The Director of Planning suggested
that there should be a maximum elevation so there is no problem with
the slope of the street. Mr. Stoke felt that the Commission had not
adequately considered Resolution No. 5288 in its deliberations; the
Commission merely dropped the building height by 1', wherever it was
located on the site. Rules of development in this part of the City
include Resolution No. 5288. Motion by Commission was no more than
what WaS offered by the developer. He does not feel this is really
a compromise. This project does not meet the standards of accept-
ability to the neighborhood. Councilmember Gilb noted that Mr. Brown
has said the house was not harmonious, but that had to do with the
height of the house; therefore he did not understand why a similar
house on Singing Wood was harmonious; but this one was not. Mr. Stoke
replied there were several circumstances differentiating the two houses.
Councilmember Gilb said it seemd to him that the only remaining issue
was the height. Mr. Stoke said there were several other issues offered
as compromise.
Bob Henkel, 1065 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, he has been on
the review board for approximately 1i year and he has some background
in building. He spoke again about the problem of the height of the
proposed house... the need to get the roof line down to a point where
it is not objectionable. He feels it is possible to lower the roof
'line in this case. Other property Gnlers in the area have done this.
Councilmember Gi1b again'inquired if the problem here was to lower
the roof not to place the house in a lower position since the drive-
ways, landscaping and entryway are already in place. Mr. Henkel agreed.
Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa stated, in part, that he is urging the City
Council to uphold Resolution 5288 in terms of the criteria established
for review of these kinds of projects. He feels the biggest factor to
be considered is the massiveness and harmony and compatibility with
adjacent structures. He does not feel it will be harmonious and
compatible if there is a significant change in the elevation and roof
line with adjacent structures. He hopes that Council will uphold the
requirements of Resolution 5288.
Mack Turner, 1130 Fallen Leaf Road, stated, in part, he is on the Board
of Directors of the Association and he feels the major difference be-
tween this proposed building and the Singing Wood building is that the
Singing Wood house is down mountain on the south side of Singing Wood;
the one on Hampton is on the up mountain side to the north. The new
houae will block the view of some of the adjacent houses. He hopes
Council will vote to uphold the appeal.
Fred Jose, 1004 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, the Homeowners'
Association and the Architectural Review Board are in place to review
new development in the neighborhood and unless, them are abuses, should
be upheld by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He wants
Council to support the Homeowners' Association. He does not feel
there are any abuses in this situation. Councilmember Gilb noted
that this project had gone to the ARB and it was not heard in the time
allotted, therefore, according to the rules, it was considered to be
approved.
Richard Ashworth, Attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Owen, applicants and
home owners, 1112 Fair Oaks Avenue, South Pasadena, stated, in part,
that the question of compromise has come up. The two sides could not
agree on a compromise. The matter was brought back to the Planning
Commission who made a determination and compromised on both positions.
They are willing to accept that compromise. Firstly, he referred to
engineering section drawings (Exhibits F & G) ,which show the angle
and show that if 'one stands on the curb, the height of this house is
11/1/88
-3-
30:0262
in relationship to other homes on the block. The Planning Commission
took that into consideration. Second, is the question of the trees.
Mr. Brown alludes to a tree on this property. The Planning Commission
in finding No.2, states that other trees on the street do block the
view of the mountains. Third, is the question of compatibility. They
asked the Planning Commission to consider two other homes: 754 Singing
Wood approved by the HOA December 21, 1983 and 905 W. Footbill approved
by the HOA on July 22, 1984. They feel those homes are compatible
homes. Mr. Owen did not state that he intended to replicate the house
at 10 Las Flores. That residence was 'mentioned only in reply to a
question about possible types of materials. Some of the materials
may be similar to those used in that house. Another question that
Was brought up had to do with the use of the property. The term I
"developer" has been used. Mr. Owen is a real estate developer by
profession; this is his own home; he does not intend to build this
home for resale; this home is designed for use by his family. Mr.
Owen is not acting as a developer; he is a home owner asking that this
particular house be built. Mr. Stoke had stated at one point that his
committee had been threatened with civil action. This is not correct.
Mr. Owen has a 5-0 vote in favor by the Planning Commission with
compromise from both positions. They are happy to accept the Planning
Commission decision.
Rick Owen, 1035 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that although he is a
developer by trade, he does not plan to build this house for specula-
tion; he and his family plan to live in it. Councilmember Gilb in-
quired if the present compromise was as far as he was willing to go.
Answer affirmative. The Director of Planning inquired about the
difference in elevation of the front doors of the existing house vs.
the proposed house. Mr. .Owen replied the front door level of the
proposed house would be the Same level as it is now; the rest of the
house will actually be lower. Present house has a conventional floor;
proposed house will have a slab floor. The main floor will be 18"
lower.
John Macardican, 1320 Glencoe, stated that he would be proud to
have this home in his neighborhood.
Martin Wright, 1434 Sanna Margarita, atated, in,part, that he has
followed this process from the first meeting and from that point to
this meeting this evening; a lot of turmoil has been building involving
the whole neighborhood. Mr. Stoke lives across., the street and is
concerned about his view of the mountains; Mr. Wright wondered how
much time Mr. Stoke spends in his front yard trying to see the mountains
over Mr. Owen's house. There had been trees on that property which
towered far above the top of the house. Mr. Stoke could not have
seen the mountains at that time or at this time. He feels Mr. Owen
should be allowed to build his home. Perhaps Mr. Stoke feels the
proposed house would be intimidating. Mr. Stoke said earlier that
if the proposed house sat on two acres, he would feel differently
about it. Mr. Owen should not be penalized for being on the north I
side of the street; the house will be compatible with the neighborhood.
Council should look at whether it fits within the criteria of what the
City requires.
James ~. Lee, 965 Fallen Leaf Road, stated, in part, that he urged
Council to support the Owen family's right to build the home of their
choice. (1) Property owners are asked to sign a petition against the
proposed house because some called it "grotesque". In reality, the
style is a time-honored and revered architectural style. (2) Property
owners were also asked to sign the petition because the house was too
massive. This ~ironic and unfair when at least one officer and board
member of the Association which is challenging the Owens lives in a
house which is bigger and is on a smaller lot. This is unfair. (3)
Property owners were asked to sign also because at least one resident
was going to have his view impaired. This is not unusual -- the
majority of the 17 houses on the north side of Hampton Road and a
majority of the 16 hcv.ses on the north side of Fallen Lcaf block the
view of their neighbors on the south side of the street. Neighbors
11/1/88
-4-
I
IN REBUTTAL
I
30:0263
"
who have lived in a friendly manner for decades are now being beseiged
by complaints and petitions. He requests that Council be fair and allow
the Owen fam~ly to build their house.
Milton Miller, 1060 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that, apart from
Mr. Stoke, he is the closest neighbor. He has come to support the, Owen
family in their request to build their house. He stated that the
neighborhood presently contains houses of many different styles. He
walks Hampton almost every morning and the only time he can see the
mountains from almost any house is when he walks up his own driveway
no other house allows a view of the mountains. The height of this ,:;
proposed structure is irrelevant. Perhaps many of the neighbors will
have to see to the appearan~of their homes and yards to continue to
make the neighborhood harmonious after this beautiful house is built.
He urged Council to grant the freedom that American gives to the Owen
family to build their house.
Mike Magana, 1025 Hampton Road, stated, in part, that although he is
a new neighbor, he has lived in Arcadia all his life and that he is in
favor of the Owen home. Council has the responsibility of weighing
special interest objectives against other considerations -- the
imperatives of the law, for one; fairness and equity for two. He
feels the petitioners who have appeared here have been mean spirited
and contemptious of respect for the rule of law. The City should not
satisfy a special interest group.
g. ~. Stoke, 1040 Hampton Road, stated, in rebuttal, that he had not
made comments about fue view and if Mr. Miller could not see the
mountains, then he had not walked down the street in front of the Owen's
house. In reply to the comments about special interests, his only
interest is in not having pushy developers. They ask,for fairness.
Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, that the delay
in originally hearing the proposal had been occasioned by the illness
of Ed Daniell. They had explained this to the Planning Commission.
He understood that 10 W. Las Flores was offered by Mr. Owen as an
example of the materials of choice; but if that is not what the house
is going to be he will be glad to look at another set of materials.
Resolution 5a88 addresses materials; he tried to avoid addressing
materials with the compromise. He had heard indirectly that Mr. Owen
did intend to build and sell. He asked Council to note the neighbor-
hood petition count.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION
by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and
CARRIED.
Councilmember Chandler stated, in part, that recently the City Council
passed a rule that says that the highest a home Can be built, according
to the size of the lot, is 35 feet throughout the City... so that is
the maximum height. That height is measured at the grade level of the
pad that the home is being built on, not from the curb nor from sea
level. So, as the general City law goes, this house is less than the
maximum height required. He feels that a home that does clearly fall
within the prescribed laws is a difficult one to deny by just trying
to stretch the interpretation of the rules. We are not living in a
socialistic type of society... the main objective of our type of
government is to give individuals as much freedom as possible. There
is no decided evidence that this home which falls:,within the purviews
of the laws of the City, is going to hurt anybody else's rights. He
will vote .to deny.'
Councilmember Young stated, in part, that she agreed with Council.
member Chandler, She feels when one talks about harmony in a home,
it is in the eye of the beholder. A house of stone is new to this
part of the country; it is a change. Sometimes people who have lived
in an area for a long time don't like change. This house conforms,
has no problem with relation of size to the piece of property and meets
every City Code; it is hard to turn it down. She will also vote against
the appeal.
11/1/88
-5-
30:0264
Councilmember Lojeski stated, in part, that he agreed with' Council-
member Young that many times we are getting confused with harmony
and architectural styling; this type of styling is a change; time will
tell if it is good or bad. In thiscsituation, the developer and
architect have worked within the parameters of the City's Codes;
there are no modification requests; no modification for height of the
structure; second story setback, rear or front yard setbacks -- all
conform to City Code. It was Council's job to hear the presentations
tonight and to read the literature concerning it. He has no basis with
which to deny this project. He, 'too, will 'vote to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Gilb stated, in part, that he probably knows more about
,this area than anybody because he has lived there a long time. He has
some problem with the Tudor style -- but that is only his personal I
opinion; this has nothing to do with his decision as a Councilmember.
We have all types of houses now. The Association itself, as a police
network for the area, has done an excellent job. John Schiavone asked
him to note ~at he was in favor of the project. A number of people
in the area had, told him they were not against the house per se; they
wanted a number of concessions on the house. He had recently voted
against a house on Columbia Drive because he had felt it was too large
for the lot. He noted that he has never seen such a turmoil over a
house in the years he has lived in the area. There are no modifications
being requested for the house; some concessions have been asked for from
the owner; the roof line has been lowered by 2! feet. It is unreasonable
to ask this owner to dig down 3 - 4 feet into the gorund when their
driveways and front yard are already laid out. He is going to vote in
favor of, the house. He is more concerned about the harmony of the build-
ing materials than the height. He is going to find in favor of what the
Planning Commission decided and against the appellants. He must in
conscience do this.
Mayor Harbicht stated, in part, that he has listened carefully to all
the testimony given tonight and has reviewed the Planning Commission
testimony given on two occasions,plus all the written testimony. He
noted that the Architectural Review Board wanted support from Council
because they had power to make such decisions. But neither the ARB
nor the Council has absolute power -- they must work within the laws.
This_is the land of 'the free -- we don't restrict people's freedoms
unless there is a very compelling reason to do so; Council certainly
won't do it because a majority of the people don't like what is being
proposed.'. He is a conservative. He does not think government' on any
level should inject itself into people's lives unless there is a very
good reason to do'so. Perhaps if someone's actions will bring economic
harm to someone else or what they are going to do is so outrageous that
it will do' irreparable hanm to the quality of someone's life. He does
not see that here. Addressing a few specific points, he went on to
mention the matter of this house blocking someone's view of the mountains.
The property owner has the right to build a two story house and the fact
that he is going to exercise that right should not cause someone to
become angry because they are losing their view of the mountains ...
they should be happy that they have been able to ,1oak..at ,thee mountains I
sll the previous years.' The comment had been made that this house 'is
out crcharacter with the neighborhood. Virtually every home in the
Upper Rancho is architect designed and is unique ... there are many
different styles. He believes the character of this neighborhood is
that each house is special. This is the finest residential area in
the City snd he does not believe that building this house will detract
from that status at all; Whether or not he likes the style is immaterial.
The question is, is it outlandish or outrageous or will it destroy
neighborhood values. He does not see that it is -- certainly not to
the point where they should take away someone's property rights. He
is going to vote to deny the appeal.
11/1/88
-6-
I
2.
PUBLIC
HEARING
FJ~ T.A. 88-003
\: (Fireplace
Encroach. in
Side Yard
Setback
(APPROVED)
(Escabl. 40%
Bldg.: Floor
Area to Lot
Area Ratio)
(NO ACTION)
I
IN FAVOR
30:0265
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DENY the appeal
and APPROVE the proposed two-story 7,137 sq. ft. home with attached
four car garage at 1035 Hampton and direct staff to prepare an
appropriate resolution in support of that decision, particularly in
support of the decision that had been made previously by the Planning
Connnission.
Councilmember Gilb inquired about the height. Councilmember Lojeski
answered it was to be in accordance with the Planning Connnission
decision.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
Mayor Harbicht connnented that "Arcadia is known as a Connnunity of
Homes and, as a connnunity of homes, it is almost implicit thatcit is
a connnunity of neighborhoods. I hope that we all recognize that this
was an argument of issues and they were issues upon which reasonable
people might disagree. I am hoping that the neighborhood will now
come back together and welcome the new neighbors; the neighbors won't
hold resentment against those who opposed what they wanted to do.
This- has run its course. Everyone has had ample opportunity to express
his feelings and it has now been decided. I think it is time to mend
fences and I hope that the Association will continue ,and that the
neighborhood will continue as a neighborhood".
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AND THEN RECONVENED
Consideration of Text Ame'ndment 88-003 to amend "Exception 3" of
Section 9252.2.4, 9252.2.5, 9252.2.11.1 and 9252.2.11.2 of the
R-I zone relating to encroachment of fireplaces in the side yard
setback and adding Sections 9250.3.13, 9251.1.2.11 and 9252.2.14 to
R-M, R-O and R-l zones establishing a maximum floor area to lot area
ratio for all buildings and structures on a lot. The Planning Com-
mission at its September 27, 1988 meeting reconnnended approval of this
text amendment establishing a maximum allowable floor area for all
buildings and structures in the R-M, R-l and R-O zones not to exceed
40% of the lot area and to reduce the maximum allowable encroachment
of fireplaces in the required R-l side yard setback from 2 feet to
1 foot. All the staff reports and minutes from the Planning Com-
mission meeting, the finlings and motions are set forth in the staff
report of November 1, 1988 and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Mayor Rarbicht pointed out that three issues were to be considered:
1) To decide whether or not there should be a limitation on floor
area. 2) If the answer is yes, what percentage should that be? And,
3) The quesiton of chimney projections into side/yard setbacks.
Whereupon the Mayor then opened the public hearing.
Steve Philipi, 804 Balboa Drive, President of the Santa Anita Village
Homeowners' Association, spoke in support of the proposed restriction,
in particular the 40% building area to lot size which he feels is
particularly significant to the Village area where there are smaller
lot sizes than the Upper Rancho and the Oaks. Referring to the issue
of new home construction and the homeowners' association resolution
setting forth standards of approval such as "compatibility", "harmonious"
and "in proportion", while these standards can easily be applied to
room additions and roof replacements, they: are -difficult to ,apply to
new construction. He believes it is important to pass the new 40%
restriction since the homeowners' associations will have to rely more
and more on the Building Code to accomplish their goals.
Harry Rill, 1540 Ryland Avenue, stated, in part, that he Came to
petition Council to set the maximum 40% building size to lot ratio.
The lots on his street are 90 by 120 feet, developed in the late 40's
by a Mr. Turner. A-property was purchased in the neiKhborhood; the
11/1/88
-7-
,~ !'
~ft'
30:0266
house wss demolished snd replaced with a new house of 5,000 square
feet and 35 feet in height. He bel~ves that this is overbuilding
..
on a 9,000 square foot lot and hates.to see the deterioration of
whole neighborhoods.
Herb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, stated, in part, that Council might
want to give a break to a person who would be willing to build a
single story house and then require a person who had a two-story
house to leave more space around it ... then two-story houses might
not seem so oppressive. Mayor Harbicht~responded that Council had
in fact done that when the R-l zoning was revised earlier this year
requiring additional setbacks on second stories. I
Wallace Qua, 1605 Hyland Avenue, with reference to the new 5,000 square
foot home on Hyland, stated, in part, this house is twice the size of
the other homes on the street and ab~ut 2i times the height. The sheer
bulk of the house he feels is out of' context with the entire area. His
only question with respect to the 40% building area to lot size ratio
is ... should it be 30%? . .
Mayor Harbicht noted that this larger house on Hyland was probably
I
or at least in plan check prior to the recent change in the
ordinance reducing height anq~~equiring a. step in the second
, OJ'
built,
zoning
story.
Byron Dickson, 225 West Lemon, stated, in psrt, that he is one of the
people in South Arcadia involved with forming a homeowners' association
in that area ... he is not all that in favor of doing so now. In talk-
ing with the residents about a possi9+e homeowners' association, he
finds they are mostly concerned about"h:f,e!"size fX homes, and not so
much the' architectural style or color.' 'Others he talked to commented
that they are opposed to the formation of an associatiOln:1 because they
believe there will be too much government intervention, that we have a
City Council to make the laws and regulations and he agrees with this
also. He is in favor of the 40% building area to lot size ratio re-
commended by the Planning Commissio~,. .
. '...~.
OPPOSED
Gordon Maddock, 900 South First Avenue, stated, in part, that he .has
been involved in the planning process in bringing new home developments
before Council for 25-26 years. He has always tried to participate in
the decision making process of the Council by his input to help make
a better decision or at least have more facts before a decision is
made. He has three reasons for objeeting to this proposed change at
this point in time. One -- The ordinance was changed earlier this
year ... that change in the ordinance has not had enough time to
really work in the City. In reference to the process in preparation
of the new ordinance, builders and architects were brought together
to work with the Planning staff, they met with the Village Homeowners'
Association to determine what elements of change should be made. A lot
of things were brought together, there were a few differences, Council I
then made the final decision on those few differences. This process
resulted in a good change in the ordinance that addressed some of the .
problems. Architecturally, he believes, it broke up the mass problem
which is spoken of more than any other concern. It did reduce the
building area and as he understands it, building plans are just start-
ing to come in under the new ordinance. This 'new ordinance has not yet
had a chance to really prove itself. '
Two -- This proposed new change in the ordinance would drastically
reduce the square footage of homes and, therefore, the value of the
property. In appraising property, the most valuable part of the
property that is properly improved is the structure itself. The
building is around 75% to 80% of the total value of the property,
therefore, when the size or square footage is reduced, the value of
a piece of property is drastically reduced. The ordinance (text
amendment) now before Council not only affects new con~truction, it
-8-
. ~\1t'.~~", 1;). ,. ,~~'
.1, , -: - 'io,.,~'~.-.
. .:,.('.
11/1/88
30:0267
also drastically affects any remodeling or add-ons and so forth.
Mr. Maddock also brought up the question of what would happen if a
house were destroyed and the owner wanted to rebuild the same house
can. the same house be built on that property with this proposed change
in the ordinance? The ordinance primarily affects, as far as the
numbers he has gone through, those properties under 15,000 square
feet, this is where the most drastic changes take place. To give some
general idea of what happens, some calculations were made by Mr.
Maddock going down to the >,500 to 9,000 square foot range as follows:
I
At the 40% square footage ratio the average property tuns around a 37%
. reduction in the size of the house. At the 50% level it's a 22% reduction
in size, on the average. As an example of an extreme, Mr. Maddock cited
a typical. 60 x 125 foot lot ... such as on Pamela Road or the Naomi's,
with a 25 foot front yard setback using the ordinance previously adopted
and comparing it to the proposed new ordinance under consideration ...
it could be a 52% reduction in the size of the house that could be
built on the property. With a 35 foot front yard setback, it could
be a 44% reduction ... to cite an extreme.
In the Village, while a survey was run, it was felt that homes should
not exceed 4,000 square feet ... or something similar. On a 9,000
square foot lot at the 40% figure it would be about a 50% reduction
in tremaximum size house that could be built. In his consideration
that would be building a box right out to the limit, although that
is normally not done. He feels that that is what is being taken away
from them when you consider something like this, and if you use the
50%, you have about a 38% reduction in the size of the house to be built.
He has felt that in working with new construction they have negotiated
things to keep everything compatible and proportionate and no homes
have ever. gone up to the maximum that could be allowed on a property.
Another possible extreme 'mentioned as an example ... an average sized
property in South Arcadia under the proposed new ordinance of what
could be built -- it would take away from the value of the raw land
from $50,000 to $100,000 -- this is about the range that could be
taken away from some of the properties. This is about a 25-30% reduction
in the value of the lot .,. so a house could not be built, according
to Mr. Maddock.
I
The third orbjective Mr. Maddock stated in connection with the proposed
ordinance is that he does not think that generally anyone really knows
that Council is doing this ... no one really knows the real impact and
effect of it. It affects primarily properties under 15,000 square feet
.which represents about 50% of the residential properties in Arcadia.
He commented that people are being told that this will stop the construc-
tion of the big homes and some of the other changes in the City, but
he does not think people are really aware of what the ramifications are,
and they have a right to know. He feels the proposed ordinance really
limits square footage; it limits value; it affects remodeling and re-
construction. What it does not change is undesirable architecture; the
harmony and compatibility; it does not stop the privacy intrusion of the
two-story homes ... it really does not address these things. It will
slow down new construction for a while -- it will not stop it. It does
not alter all the changes that are going on in the City. Mr. Maddock re-
quested that Council consider not approving any change in the ordinance
for the City as a whole ... not make a blanket statement that 40% or
50% is a number that is good for the entire City. The people should
be made aware of what is happening -- maybe graphically, or at home-
owners' association meetings; let people know what percentage it will
reduce the buildability of their property. Let people know who have
brought homes in Arcadia, and plan to add on to .their homes. He feels
that although legal notice is in the newspaper this is not enough to
let people know what is happening .. a really big effort should be
made to notify people so they can put some input into the matter.
11/1/88
-9-
,'~
;. k .~ -""'1
~!r
30:0268
.,.......
Mr. Maddock commented also that the proposed ordinance is a very
drastic change and he thought a good job had been done on the
previous ordinance.
~h,' ,I' '.. '
_,"J(r;->e--':",- "
Chris Brown, 980 Singing Wood Drive, s't'ated/ln part, that he feels
a City wide rule is tough. In the City there are lots from 6,000
square feet up'to as much as 60,000 square feet"'in certain areas.
He feels property value is established by the bigness of the house
rather than bigness of the lot -- 40% is really too big for a big
lot. Mr. Brown favors setting the building area percentage by the
neighborhood or by the flavor of tha~,nri&hbprhood as opposed to City-
wide one rule. Also he would be in favor 'of,t~e idea of an adjustable
fireplace rule per neighborhood.
:~~
I
Francisca ZummO, 432 East Lemon, has lived in Arcadia since 1964.
Mrs. Zummo-stated, in part, that this change the Council is consider-
ing is a rather drastic measure. Her area, east of Santa Anita and
south of Duarte, will be mostly affU~1ed by ~his rule. Mrs. Zummo
wondered how many of her neighbors are' aware'of the consequences of
the new rule. The Zummo's are considering remodeling and perhaps
adding a 960 square foot addition to their home, which would be
greatly reduced under the new building size restriction .., moving
out of the City would be a financial hardship ... they would like to
stay in the City. ~\;, ' ..
\. t ....11.
~, :.. ';t, ,
Al Corrigan, 517 Santa Rosa Road, chairman~,'Political Affairs Committee
of ,the Board of Realtors, stated, in part, that his committee had
advised the Board that, in their opinion, the vast majority of the
citizens of Arcadia are not aware of the change that has been re-
commended. As s Board they do not take a position as to what the
requirements should be. .Their prima~y concern is that property
owners are not fully informed. They'are also concerned about property
rights and the reduction in property values with the 40% figure. The
Board would propose that the owners of 15,000 square foot lots or less be
advised of ,this proposed change by letter from the Council.
, ,
Michael Bsrthelemy, 613 South Third Avenue, stated, in part, that he
felt the restrictions on the square footage sllowable on a minimum
size lot of 7,500 to 9,000 square feet would affect the property value'
in excess of $100,000. There is a market in the. City for the larger
homes. He believes that many long-time residents of Arcadia have their
life savings tied up in the equity of their homes. Council, he feels,
would be affecting that:"by: reducing or by restricting what would other-
wise be a broader, highest, and best, use" eff their property. He did not
see why the construction of a 5,000 sqpare foot home, that he believed
would be worth in excess of a million!do11ars, represents a deteriora-
tion of a neighborhood or deterioration of property values. The imposi-
ion of the 40% restriction he felt would be s etep backward for South
Arcadia and have a severe impact on property values; new development;
and would slow a much needed face lift for the ,south part of Arcadia.
Robert Bauer, 619 Rosemarie Drive, stated, in part, he would not have I
known a~this proposed change except through,a set of circumstances.
he sold his property... two days after the escrow opened the buyer in-
formed him that he was no longer interested in the property because it
had lost about 50% of its value due to a proposed City ordinance. He
agrees with the previous speakers that this is an unknown ordinance and
property owners should know what is going on~ Mr. Bauer also stated
that he was concerned about the new r~strictionsince it waS not in
effect when he purchased the property' and will change some property
,
values by 50%. He believes 50% or more'of those affected by this
ordinance are owners of small lots. He would oppose any restrictions
and commented that Council should ta~e careful consideration of the
people.
'..
"
'.
1l/l/AIl
-10-
. ~.,
30:0269
Dorothy Qua, 1605 Hyland Avenue, stated, in part, no one has spoken
about the quality of life which is why some people had moved into
Arcadia ... this has been affected by the construction of the larger
homes. She believes a few people are determined .to sacrifice the
quality of a neighborhood for the "almighty dollar". This is why
many are here tonight ... to ask Council to support the 40% reduction.
I
AI Little, business address, 77 Las Tunas Drive, commented that
although change is inevitable, rapid change can be bad. He would like
to see the change reflected in Ordinance 1881 truly tried out so the
public could help make decisions on whether it is adequate rather than
making another change on top of it. The other factor involved, he
believes, is economic ... it will affect everyone. This change will
affect 50% of the lots in the City. He inquired of staff, if a house
burned down would the 40% rule apply to rebuild? Staff replied if a
house burns to 75% or greater they would have to start over. Mr. Little
felt that this would impact the immediate price of all houses .that are
over that ratio. He believes few people in Arcadia know about the
proposed change ... there should be adequate time and proper warning
to inform people so that they may be in on these decisions. He urged
Council to put the decision for the proposed ordinance aside and give
Ordinance 1881 time to work.
Gary Lorenzini, 174 West Longley Way, stated, in part,that his home
exceeds the 40% building size that has been proposed. If his home
were to burn down he would not be able to replace it. This would impair
his ability to sell his home in that a lender would not be willing to
make an 80% loan with that in mind. Knowing that he could not replace
the existing structure a lender might only loan 60% to 75% of the value
of the property. This proposed change will affect a lot of people in
the community.
It WaS then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember
Gilb and CARRIED to close the public hearing.
I
In the ensuing Council discussion it was noted that if this restriction
were put in force, it would affect property values. The 40% restriction
could in effect devalue the City of Arcadia anywhere between $100,000,000
to $200,000,000. These monies will be borne by those who own the
properties. It was noted that the restriction would really only affect
smaller lots... mostly those under 10,000 square feet. There have been
some abuses in the City... these have been addressed in Ordinance 1881,
although some abuses still occur on some of the smallest lots in the City.
Mayor Harbicht commented that he felt the great majority of newer homes
are assets to the community and he believes the City is going through
an automatic voluntary redevelopment .., we do not have any deteriorat-
ing neighborhoods. In reference to the chart, "New Homes As A % of Lot
Area", prepared by the Planning Department, it was noted that if the
City were to go to the 40% limit, 60% of the homes that have been
proposed since the change in the ordinance would be outlawed. That
percentage would have been even higher before Ordinance 1881 was adopted...
it had a modifying effect on the size of the new homes. Other percentage
ratios to lot area were noted on the chart ... two or three were in the
56-57% ratio to lot size on the smallest lots under 7,500 square feet.
Council also noted that telephone calls have been received from citizens
commenting on the loss of open space in the City... the over-crowding.
Other Councilmembers felt also that the restrictions of Ordinance 1881
have not yet had enough time to be effective. The subject of buildnng
replacement under the 40% ratio if a fire occurs WaS considered. . Also
the ramifications of loans to rebuild if the 40% size restriction applies.
Would this be fair? In reference to the chart it was felt that the
percentages quoted do not convey the full meaning ... for example, how
many people are involved? Thoughts were expressed in connection with
notification to the public ... how to communicate with the citizens of
matters that are coming before the Council. Opinions were put foth re-
flecting the serious impact of the proposed 40% building restrictions ...
the property owners getting ready to: retire and sell their property... how
will these people be affected? It was the general consensus of Council
11/1/88
-11-
3.
3a.
FINANCIAL
ASSIST. TO
YOUTH
BASEBALL
LEAGUES
(~PMVW)
~.
~
GO~
~
~~
30:0270
that the text amendment to the code relating to
building floor area to lot size restriction not
this time. Further public input WaS suggested.
see what the effect will be of Ordinance 1881.
the 40% maximum
be considered at
A waiting period to
It was decided that the fireplace encroachment into side yard setbacks
would be the only part of the text amendment to consider at this time;
to exclude consideration of an amendment to the code relating to
maximum building floor area for the present., Therefore, the following
motion was put forth:
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE Text Amendment I
88-003 which would establish maximum allowable encroachment of fire-
places into the R-l side yard setbacks from two (2) feet to one (1)
foot as set forth by the Planning Commission and file the Negative
Declaration and find that the Text Amendment will not have a significant
effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
:'Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
A brief discussion commenced after roll call in connection with the
appropriate vehicle with which to inform property owners of this
matter ... and how to encourage public input. Several suggestions were
explored ... a ballot measure was mentioned as one possibility.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Consideration of' recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission
to provide financial assistance to local youth baseball leagues. Funds
have, been budgeted in the 1988/89 Capital Budget to be used for the
maintenance and improvement of facilities used by local baseball leagues.
The leagues have agreed to purchase all needed materials and provide all
necessary labor and equipment to complete the various projects. All
proof of purchase will be made available to the City. The requests
for funds from the various leagues are set forth in staff report dated
November I, 1988. Staff has reviewed the requests and recommends that
$8,900 be allocated to the various leagues as requested. Expenditures
will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Fund. Staff
will monitor the progress of the improvements. The requests and reeommenda-
ations were reviewed by the Recreation and Parka Commission at..their
meeting October 12, 1988 and the proposal forwarded to Council for
approval.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded bu Counci1member LOjeski
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that staff be directed to
prepare and distribute funds in the amount of $8,900 to provide financia
assistanc~ to local youth baseball leagues as outlined in staff report
dated November 1, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
3b.
FINANCIAL Consideration of recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission
ASSIST. FOR ,J to provide financial assistance for the renovation of Arcadia School
RENOV. OF District playfields. Funds have been budgeted in the 1988/89 Capital
ARCADIA SCH~ Budget to be used in cooperation with the Arcadia School District to
DIST. renovate and maintain various playfields owned by the District. The
PLAYGROUNDS h~' improvements under discussion are outlined in staff report dated
(~PROVED) O~" November I, 1988. The estimated total cost is $22,192. Staff has
tI reviewed the request and recommends that $11,096 (one half of the total
t-v cost) be allocated to the Arcadia Unified School District for these
p"'~ illiprovements. Expenditures will be charged to the Parks and Recreation
11/1/88
-12-
30: 0271
Facilities Fund. Staff will monitor the progress of the improvements.
The:requests and'recommendations were reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their meeting October 12, 1988 and the
proposal forwarded to Council for approval.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that staff be directed to
prepare and distribute funds in the amount of $11,096 as indicated
in staff report dated November I, 1988. .
I',
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None
5.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
6.
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
6a.
ROLL CALL'
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski; Young and Harbicht
None
6b.
MINUTE /
APPROVAL
(Oct. 20,
1988)' ":l
(APPROVED) "
J
On MOTION by Member Gilb, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows, the Minutes of the Meeting of October. 20,
1988 were APPROVED.
6c.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned to 7:00 p. m., November 15, 1988.
7.
8.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
8a.
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(Nov. 15,
1988)
(St.Lights
Magellan
Rd.)
/
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED. FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1988 on petition from
property owners along Magellan Road for installation of street
lights.
8b.
ADVERTISE ~~APPROVED plans and specifications for the reroofing of Orange Grove
IFOR BIDS ,5 Reservoir No. 2 - Job No. 683 and AUTHORIZE the City Clerk to advertise
(Reroofing~ for bids. Funding for the project in the amount of $60,000 is provided
Orange Gr. in the Water Fund for fiscal year 1988/89.
Reservoir
#2 - Job .
No. 683)
8e.
CONTRACT
AWARD
(Live Oak
Well - W.O.
677)
~j.3AWARDED the contract for construction of Live Oak well - Work Order
y\ 677. Contract in the amount of $148,938.00 to be awarded to the low
bidder, Beylik Drilling, Inc. The work consists of the drilling,
casing, development, and testing of the well. The project will be
funded from Water Facilities Development Fund; $175,000 to be
appropriated from the Fund to cover the cost of engineering, construc-
tion, inspection and contingencies. All informalities in the bid or
bidding process to be waived and the Mayor and City Clerk AUTHORIZED
to execute a contract in form approved by the City Attorney.
11/1/88
-13-
8d.
RFP-ENG'G
FIRMS
(Camino Well
1/3 - W. O. '1..2>
682) \~/
Y
(!>
:}8e.
.~ TIME EXT'N
~ I TEMP. TRAILER
~l"~ (112 N.First
(jl:,l-Avis)
tlJ
~..J :'CADIA
'b
DIAL-A- 17
RIDE GRANT \0
FUNDS ~
8g. J:
. "d~\
AWARD OF V
PURCHASE ~.. V~
(Nixon-Egl1 3
Asphalt
Roller)
8h.
AWARD OF
PURCHASE I"
(GMC-LA - ~e 0'r
3/4 Tonf <<
Truck)
81.
AWARD OF
PURCHASE -
(Will Nix
Ford -
1 ton
Truck)
30:0272
AUTHORIZED staff to solicit proposals from qualified consulting
engineering firms to prepare plans and specifications and provide
construction inspection services for Camino Well No. 3 - W. O. 682.
The estimated total cost for this project is $305,000. This amount
was approved in the 1988/89 Capital Improvement Budget and funds will
be appropriated from the Water Facilities Replacement Fund.
APPROVED time extension to April 30, 1989 of utilization of temporary
trailer office for Avis Rent-A-Car at 112 North First Avenue. Plans
for the new building are currently in the plan check process.
I
APPROVED Memorandum of Understanding for receipt of Fiscal Year 1989
Proposition A Discretionary GrantrcFunds between the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission and the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride and AUTHORIZED
the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
AWARDED puchase of asphalt double drum vibratory roller to Nixon-Egli
in the amount of $28,775.24. Funds for this purchase are budgeted in
the Capital Outlay Fund FY 1988/89 in the amount of $44,000.00.
AWARDED purchase of a 3/4 ton truck with utility body to the low
bidder, GMC of Los Angeles in the total amount of: $13.755.58. Funds
for the purchase of the truck are budgeted in the Capital .Outlay
Fund 1988/89 in the amount of $16,000.
~" AWARDED pruchase of a I-ton truck with special body and tailgate to
\ ~ ~ Will Nix Ford of Pomona in the total amount of $16,914.99. Funds for
~ . ~v the purchase of the truck are budgeted in the Capital Outlay Fund
FY 1988/89 in the amount of $19,000.
8j.
8k.
TITLE INSUR. ~
& REPORT ? \
(Rose & \
Garden) \
Considered separately.
AUTHORIZED payment of $6.000 to acquire title insurance and for payment
of the title report applicable to the Rose Garden property recently
deeded by the County of Los Angeles to the City.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 8j WERE APPROVED I
ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER
AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_fl'oV
8j. (j"
AGREEMENT ~ Mayor-Harbicht noted that it had been suggested to Council that this
W/SANWA . '\,~'( agreement be_made with an American bank. The Finance Director noted
BANK ,X that proposals had been received from six banks. Sanwa Bank's price
(Banking X" structure was 28% under the current provider and 19.2% below the next
'Services) lowest bidder. In reply to the question of foreign ownership, it was
noted that Bank of America is 41% foreign owned; 25-50% of the banking
system is foreign owned.
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
11/1/88
-14-
9.
la.
ESOLUTION
O. 5451
(ADOPTED) .
~'\
p&V
. e \J
f .~~ 1\~i:)
l ~('l \"If'
9b.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5452
(ADOPTED)
10.
, 1.
~\~
f
LOJESKI
(Turiace
Roof Clock)
30:0273
It was then MOVED by Mayor Harbicht. seconded by Councilmember
Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council
APPROVE .and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the agreement
with Sanwa Bank for banking services covering the three year period
. January 1. 1989 through December 31. 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht
Councilmember Gilb
None
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Manager presented. explained the content and rsad the title
of Reaolution No. 5451. entitLed: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION" .
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb. seconded by Councilmember Young
And CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Rssolution No. 5451 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
Mayor Harbicht inquired of the Finance Director if he was comfortable
with. these calculations. Reply in the affirmative.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembera Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Manager preeented. explained the content and read ths title
of Resolution No. 5452. entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF,
THE CITY OF ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA. DECLARING IT TO BE OF URGENT NECESSITY
FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY THAT A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR
BE SELECTED THROUGH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING SUCH A
PROCEDURE"~ (Four votes required).
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5452 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
Mayor Harbicht inquired if the City would have to advertise or can we
negotiate with current provider? The City Manager replied it would be
in the best interests for the City to take proposals.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler. Gilb. Lojeski. Young and Harbicht
None'
None
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
v
Noted that they had been given a copy of a letter addressed to Mr.
Turiace. He wondered if anything had been approved with regard to
the position of the clock. The City Manager replied that it had not ,\
besn approved. Mr. Turiace has been informed that the clock on the
roof is considered to be a roof sign and roof signs are illegal in the
City of Arcadia. The Council has no authority to modify that; the only
thing that could be done would be if the City Council decided to change
the City Code to allow roof signs. He has been asked to take the clock
down and to reapply to have it approved for placement on the wall of the
building. Councilmember Gilb noted that he had been over to see Mr.
Turiace and he has decided where to replace the clock.
11/1/88
-15-
LOJESKI
(Tribune
Bldg.)
J
GILB
( Sslter
plaque)
-/
HARBICHT
GILB
(Reibold)
ADJOURNMENT
(Nov. 15,
1988)
ATTEST:
30:0274
, ,
..,'t'
Noted that he had occasion last week to meet the"gentleman who has
been the owner of the Tribune Building who made a comment that the
structural work on that building was completed, but he was waiting
for an inspection from City Hall. Seemed to be taking a long time.
The'Planning Director will look into it.
The Recreation and Parks Commission would like to ask Council if it
would agree to cooperate with the Commission to provide an appropriate
plaque to Richard Salter, Head Football Coach, Arcadia High School.
/
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski
and CARRIED that an appropriate plaque be provided to Richard Salter,
Head Football Coach, Arcadia High School in recognition of 100 victories
at Arcadia High.
The Recreation Director will work with the City Manager to arrange to I
provide a suitable plaque and a suitable time to make the presentation.
Wished Councilmember Young a Happy'Birthday.
Commended City Clerk's Office for performance on Minutes of the
last meeting ... it was a lengthy meeting and they did a good job
turning out the Minutes and transcript.
.j
Adjourned the meeting "in memory 'of Helen A "Bonnie" Reibold who passed
away October 24, 1988 in Arcadia. She is survived by her husband, Conrad.
Connie was on the City Council and Mayor of the City a couple of times.
Also survived by her daughter, Phyllis Andreae of Troy, MI; two sisters,
Marion Jeaplong and Dorthea Kopke, both of California, and,three grand-
children. The Rosary Mass was at 10:00 a. m., Wednesday at Holy Angels
Catholic Church, Arcadia; internment at Live Oak Memorial Park. Bonnie
Reibold was very active ~n this community for many, many years when
Connie was inolved with the Council and I would like now to close the
meeting in her memory."
The City Council adjourned at 11:05 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., November 15,
1988 in the Chamber Conference Room to conduct the business of the
Council and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, if any, necessary to discuss
personnel, litigation and evaluation of properties.
//dd~
R. C. Harbicht, Mayor
I
erk
11/1/88
-1.6-