HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 6,1988_2
30:0285
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Nov. 15,
1988)
(APPROVED)
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
CLOSED
SESSION
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 1988
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular
session at 7:40 p. m., December 6, 1988 in the Arcadia City Hall Council
Chamber.
Rev. Thomas Farley, Church of The Good Shepherd
Director of Public Works Chester Howard
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
On MOTION by Councilmemb~r Young, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski, and
CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of November 15,
1988 were APPROVED. Mayor Harbicht abstained since he was not present at
the November 15, 1988 meeting.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Harbicht and
CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that
the reading in full be waived.
CITY ATTORNEY
"The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a CLOSED
SESSION pursuant to Governmemt Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions
to the City's negotiator regarding negotiations with the Su's and the
Pellitiers regarding property at 162 E. Huntington Drive. Additionally,
the Agency and Council will be adjourning to a CLOSED SESSION again at
the conclusion of the regular meeting this evening to discuss pursuant
to Government Code Sectio~ 54956.8 the same property and, also, to give
instructions to the City's negotiator regarding negotiations with C.
Cotten concerning the potential acquisition of property at 153 Wheeler
Avenue. Thank. you."
1.
PUBLIC On October 25, 1988 the Planning Commission voted 2 to 1 to approve
HEARING T.P.M. 88-18 subject to the condition that a covenant be recorded
(T.P.M. limiting the dwellings to single-story and 20 feet in height. Since
88-18 an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Commission is necessary
449 W. for it to take action, T.P.M. 88-18 was deemed to be denied. T.P.M. 88-18
Norman Av) is a request for a lot split at 449 West Norman Avenue which would create
(DENIED) two lots having widths of approximately 65.70 feet in lieu of 75 feet. On
V' November 4, 1988 Gilbert Engineering Company on behalf of Virginia Frances
u00~rr' Miller, owner, appealed the decision of the Commission to the City Council.
p~S \ The Planning Department is recommending denial of T.P.M. 88-18.
I
Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open.
12/6/88
-1-
,".'
30:0286
IN FAVOR
Ed Eckert, Gilbert Engineering Co., 3820 East Colorado Blvd., Pasadena,
stated, in part, that he had submitted the appeal letter because it had
been felt that because there had been a 2 to 1 vote in favor of approval,
and since there were not 5 Planning Commissioners present it was not
deemed to be approved. There are several properties on .the same street '~
that are less than 75' in width. It is their feeling. that in splitting
this lot and building two new homes, the area would be up-graded. Council-
member Chandler inquired if there was a problem with the Planning Com-
mission restriction to constructing single-story houses. Mr. Eckert
replied that he had indicated at the time that that might be acceptable,
but after reviewing it, it was determined that it would not be in their I
best interests because of the 40' front setback, that would leave a very
small backyard area. They ask that the one-story limitation not be imposed
Mr. Eckert noted that there were other new homes in the area which had
been constructed on narrow lots. Mr. Eckert stated that with the current
size of homes being constructed in Arcadia, for example, a 3,000 sq. ft.
house with a three-car garage would leave only a 25' rear yard.
Francesca Zummo, 432 E. Lemon, stated, in part, that she is present to
speak for Mrs. Miller, the owner of the property under discussion. Mrs.
Miller lives in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and is unable to be present. Mrs.
Miller inherited the property in 1985 from her family. Mrs. Zummo has been
managing the property since that time. The house was built in 1923. The
house is small and very old and no longer an asset to the neighborhood;
rather it is an eyesore; it is not in keeping with the homes around it.
Mrs. Miller feels that two attractive new homes would look much better
in the neighborhood. Mayor Harbicht suggested that one attractive home
on a larger lot might be nicer. Mrs. Zummo noted that if the lot split
were granted the two lots would each measure 65.70' x 172' with a total
of 11,300 sq. ft. She presented a list of other two-story homes in the
neighborhood on similar size lots. Mrs. Miller requests favorable con-
sideration of her request.
Councilmember Gilb inquired of Mr. Ed Eckert if the home could be built
with the 20' height restriction suggested by the Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Eckert replied they could, but it would be better not to have that
restriction. Two Planning Commissioners had suggested that as a possible
condition. Commissioner Hedlund had not been in favor of the restriction.
A one-story house could be constructed; it would be more desirable not to
be limited to that. Mayor Harbicht noted that the motion did not pass,
so the question is still open. Councilmember Chandler inquired when
the 75' minimum lot width was established. Reply - 1949.
Sid Ford, 444 W. Norman, stated, in part, that he lives directly across
the street from the subject property. He would like to recommend that
the lot be split because the property is now a rental and the lot is not
kept up ... newspapers, weeds are always in evidence. There are other
lots close by with 65' widths which have two-story houses. The whole
street basically has small lot widths. Councilmember Chandler inquired I
if Mr. Ford would have any objection to a two-story house; Mr. Ford
replied he would prefer to see a single-story house; but from the develop-
er's viewpoint, the two-story did make sense. Mr. Ford hoped that if
the lot were developed, the trees could be saved.
IN OPPOSITION Harold Ellis,. l504'South Eighth Avenue, stated, in part, that he is
present~upport,the Planning Department in their denial of this
application. "He ,has done some research on the lots in question and
discovered that; most o( the smaller lots had been split prior to the
75' width minimum restriction. At one time that whole street consisted
of large lots ... from Norman to Camino Real; Winnie Way has since been
put in the middle; Sharon was also put in later; both of these streets
have lots with 75' - 80' minimum lot widths. Actually there are a
number of lots in that area which are over 100' width. He feels the
developer and' the property owners are asking for special consideration
. . ' .
even thopgh~~o evidence has been presented of any necessity or need or
~ ~. ~: .!.
12/6/88
-2-
. .'.
~ '.:__,L.';:" .~::. ~:':":l"! ._
~
30:0287
that they are being deprived of any special privileges which are
prerequisite requirements for variance. He feels some of the large
houses built on small lots are overpowering. Here is a lot which is
well proportioned for a big house. In his opinion, this proposed lot
split is inconsistent with Code ... there are no unique or unusual
circumstances.
I
Sandra Pace, 448 W. Winnie Way, stated, in part, that her property
is behind the property under discussion. She supports the denial
of the lot split. She thinks the two-story houses on narrow lots
give a condominium-like effect. If the lot split is approved, the
homes built should be restricted to single story. The setting is
beautiful for a two-story home on the single lot.
No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by
Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED.
Mayor Harbicht commented that this is a situation where a 75' width
. is the minimum lot width in the City; also on this street, as on many
other streets, there are a number of lots which are smaller. Perhaps
the initial reaction is that these lots being considered could be smaller,
too. However, at some time in trepast the City Council ~ecided it wanted
lots to be of a certain minimum width. Also, recently there has been an'
expression of concern on the behalf of many of the residents about over-
building. He does not feel just because other lots on the street are 65'
width lots, that this particular lot split should be approved. He does'
not feel bound by what some might perceive as a precedent for 65' lots
on this street. This lot is a very buildable lot as it is. In granting
a lot split generally we are looking at a situation where there is some
unsual condition that would make it fair to have a smaller than required
lot. However, this does not seem to be an unusual situation. He sees
no reason to split this lot into two sub-standard lots. He feels Council
should adhere to the standards which have been set up.
Councilmember Young said she agreed with the Mayor's comments.
also feels Council should uphold the standards of the City and
with the Planning Department's recommendation.
She
she agrees
Councilmember Gilb noted that every lot on that street is 65' width.
This lot split would make those lots uniform. There is always talk
about building large houses on small lots; here is a large lot which
the owner is trying to make into two small lots. He suggested that
Property Maintenance look into the matter of the upkeep of the lot in
question. He cannot find for the appellant in this matter.
I
Councilmember Lojeski also noted that the other lots on the street are
65' widths. If he did not see the two conditions that the two Planning
Commissioners put on t~proposed split, he would be against the split.
He also recalled many discussions concerning the large houses on small
lots concept, specifically regarding lots under 65' in width. He would
not be opposed to tresplit if the restrictions were continued that the
houses could only be single-story houses of no greater height than 20'.
He finds it hard to believe that the builder could not build suitable
one-story houses on these lots and still have adequate rear yards. He
does not necessarily think this is a bad lot split. He is not against
the lot split with the restrictions noted.
Councilmember Chandler stated, in part, that this particular lot is out
of proportion with the rest of the lots because it is so much bigger. It
is the only one in the immediate area on that side of the street that is
so big. The proposed two new lots would be a couple of feet wider than
neighboring lots. He agreed with the Planning Commissioners' suggestion
of a restriction to single-story houses. He feels the property is a mess
now; this would be a great improvement. He feels there is no reason to
maintain this big lot. For a sense of fairness perhaps this split should
be approved.
12/6/88
-3-
2.
3.
3a.
ROLL CALL
3b.
MINUTE
APPRVAL
(Dec. 6,
1988)
(APPROVED)
3c.
GRANT -
REMNANT ARA
PROP. TO CITY
(APPROVED)
...
., 1.\':>
f \~q~_-z..
\I
30:0288
Councilmember Young noted that they needed to be fair to all the citizens.
There are ordinances which call for 75' lots ... just because other City
Councils divided lots, is no reason for this Council to do so. She feels
they should uphold the standards.
Councilmember Gilb said with regard to the proposed covenant for single-
story houses, it had been his impression that the developer did not want
to build single-story houses. Mayor Harbicht said the builder apparently
preferred to build two-story, but probably would build single-story.
Councilmember Lojeski noted that he feels Council has to look at the size
of the other lots on that particular street. Approval for smaller than I
75' lots has been granted in other areas, cul-de-sacs, etc. Mayor
Harbicht noted that the fact that the property is a mess is immaterial.
That problem can be taken care of. He feels the big lot should be main-
tained. Perhaps this is the time to draw the line. He feels the property
will eventually be developed as a large lot. Council should encourage
quality development. He feels it should be developed with one house
rather than two houses. He is going to vote against the lot split.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the appeal of T.P.M. 88-18 for
a lot split at 449 West Norman Avenue be DENIED and find:that the proposed
map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans and find
that the proposal injuriously affects the neighborhoold wherein said lot
is located.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Young and Harbicht
Councilmember Lojeski (for reasons stated in discussion)
None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Hillary Williams, 723 South Second Avenue, spoke of his interest in
"contingency planning" such as the''Red Cross disaster control group";
also, in connection with this subject, he is contacting those persons
who may be available to make 5-minute video tapings. He reported his
attendance at the Senior Citizens' Commission meetings; Memorial Day
and Veterans' Day services at Fair Oaks Cemetery; and again, his desire
to have a contingency planning discussion. In conclusion, Mr. Williams
presented various papers to the Clerk for the perusal of Councilmember
Gilb.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
I
On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED on
roll call vote as follows, the Minutes of the meeting of December 6, 1988
were APPROVED. Chairman Harbicht abstained since he was not present at
the December 6, 1988 meeting.
After years of land acquisitions and subsequent sales to private
developers, the Redevelopment Agency has retained fee ownership in
several remnant parcels. The creation of these remnant parcels was
largely the result of the Agency acquiring properties. of which the
fee interest extended into the adjacent street right-of-way. When the
Agency sold these properties, it granted everything to the developer,
except the portion of the property that extended into the adjacent
street right-of-way. Descriptions of these remnant parcels, together
with a map showing'their locations are included in staff report
12/6/83
-4-
30:0289
dated December 6, 1988. According to Redevelopment Law, redevelop-
ment agencies are not allowed to pay for the normal maintenance of
buildings, facilities, structures or other improvements which are
publicly owned. Since these parcels require ongoing maintenance,
Agency staff recommends that they be given to the City.
I
It was then MOVED by Member Gilb, seconded by Member Lojeski and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency grant in fee the five remnant parcels depicted and described
in Attachments "I" and "II" of staff report dated December 6, 1988 to
the City of Arcadia; and that the City of Arcadia accept the same five
remnant parcels from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency; and that the Re-
development Agency/City Council AUTHORIZE the Executive Director/City
Manager to execute all documents pertaining to this transaction.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
3d.
RETENTION ~
OF CO- ro.,'
COUNSEL ,,0\,
(Attny. ~ \
Richard
Terzian)
(ARA vs.
Bong)
(APPROVED)
It was MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the retention of'Attorney
Richard Terzian of Adams, Doque & Hazeltine as co-counsel in the case
of ARA vs. Bong at the hourly rate of $195.00.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
~!
3e.
OWNER/
TENANT PART'N
OPPORT.
(Su &
Pelletier)
(162 E.
Huntington
Staff has been in contact with the Su and Pelletier families, the new
owners of the property at 162 E. Huntington Drive. The owners' primary
development options remain; 1) rehabilitating and occupying the property;
2) exchanging the property with the Agency; and 3) working with Mr. Sam
Falzone should he proceed with development of his property to the east;
and 4) selling the property to the Agency if they can find a replace-
Dr)ment property to buy within the City of Arcadia. Rehabilitating the
property is not an acceptable option. Regarding a land exchange, the
Agency does not now own any comparable property to trade for the subject
property. Regarding the possibility of working with Mr. Falzone, at
,\,/~his time the Agency awaits formal submission of concept plans by Falzone
\X~ Development Company for an office project on the southeast corner of
~/1) Huntington Drive and Second Avenue. Staff could encourage, but not
\~ recommend, requiring participation as partner and/or tenant by the Sus
~ and Pelle tiers in the Falzone Development. As to the Agency purchasing
the property, the owners and staff are close to an acceptable purchase
price. However, in the event these negotiations are not succ~~~ful,
the Agency should resolve the owner participation issues discu~sed here.
I
Mayor Harbicht requested and received from staff a brief elaboration
on the owner/tenant participation opportunities involved in this instance.
"
,
,
It was then MOVED by Member Chandler, seconded by Member Lojeski and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency DENY the development proposals of rehabilitation and land ex-
change being considered by the Sus and Pelletiers as outlined in staff
report dated December 6, 1988 for the reasons stated; that the Agency con-
tinue negotiations to acquire the Su/Pelletier property and that the Agency
include the Sus and Pelletiers in any mailing of Requests for Proposals
for future development of the property at 162 E. Huntington Drive, and
encourage discussions between them and Mr. Falzone should he develop his
property for a period of one year after the Agency acquires the property.
','
~
.'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
"
: i"
-5-
12/6/88
", \,
'i'i'
'I.
,.1;;"
. "
);'
., .
(
3f.
ADJOURNMENT
4.
5.
Sa.
HEARING
SCHEDULED J
(Appeal of
H.O.P.
85-124 -
136 W.
La Sierra
-Limo Serv.)
30:0290
The meeting adjourned to 7:00 p. m., DecemDer 20, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 20, 1988 to consider the appeal
of Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of one of the conditions
of approval of Home Occupation Permit 85-124 which permitted the opera-
tion of a limousine service at 136 W. La Sierra Drive, subject to the
condition that only one limousine be allowed on the premises.
I
5b.
WORK
ACCEPTED
(Job No.
643 -
LeRoy Av.
& Sewartee Ln)
HEARING
SCHEDULED
(Jan.3, .1989)
5c. ",'\l
FINAL MAP ~J9 APPROVED Final Map 45902 for a proposed 10-unit residential condominium
Tr. 45902~" I"V ~project at 134-138 Bonita Street (L and D Engineering on behalf of
(134-138 ~\P~~\~ Joseph and Laurel Erpenbeck, owners and developers of the site). All
Bonita St.) outstanding conditions of approval as outlined in staff report dated
December 6, 1988 shall be conplied with to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
b{?
'x" I
ACCEPTED the construction. of lighting improvements on LeRoy Avenue
from Santa Anita Avenue to El Monte Avenue (Job No. 643) (Raymor
Electric, Inc., contractor); AUTHORIZED final payment be made in
accorda ce with the contract documents; SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 3, 1989
a public hearing for Council to hear and pass on the report by the
Superintendent of Streets together with any objections.or protests
which may be raised by the property owners to be assessed; and"
AUTHORIZED the Superinentdent of Streets to notify the affected
property owners.
5d. ~
FINAL MAP ~\~PROVED Final Map 46164 for a proposed 8-unit residential condominium
Tr. 46164 ,Sv; project at 46-50 Alta Street (L and D Engineering on behalf of William
(46-50 ~' I"v Wietsma, President of Wietsma Properties, Inc., a California corporation,
Alta) ~\~ ~owner and developer of the site). All outstanding conditions of approval
~~v as outlined in staff report dated December.6, 1988 shall be complied with
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
5e. J>
REMNANT ,~ ACCEPTED from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency five remnant parcels
PARCELS ~~ described in staff report dated December 6, 1988, and AUTHORIZED the
(ARA/ h\~ City Manager to execute all documents pertaining to this transaction.
City) \
I
5f.
ADVERTISE \ APPROVED plans and specifications for installation of 5 street lights
FOR BIDS ~~ on Palo Alto Drive, Golden West Avenue to Magellan Road and 9 street
(Street ~\ lights on Magellan Road from Hugo Reid Drive to Balboa Drive. The
Light'g estimated cost of the project is $42,000. The City will pay 75% of the
Improv.- installation cost and property owners will pay 25% of the installation
Magellan'Rd. cost plus 100% of the future power and maintenance costs through
& Palo Alto annexation to the Lighting Maintenance District. The project is
Rd.- Job categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environ-
No. 649) mental Quality Act. The City Clerk is AUTHORIZED to advertise for bids.
5g. 0
ADVERTISE ~C\'APPROVED plans and specifications for painting traffic striping and
FOR BIDS ~\~ pavement markings on various streets throughout the City. Funds in
(Traffic ~ the amount of $41,800 are available in the Public Works operating
Striping & budget to cover the cost of contracting and materials for this work.
Pave't The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
Markings - California Environmental Quality Act. The City Clerk is AUTHORIZED
Job No. to advertise for bids.
648)
12/6/88
-6-
"
5h.
CONTRACT
AWARD
(Reroof'g 2>~
Orange /. \~
Grove '(
Reservoir
112 - Job
No. 683)
I
51.
WORK
ACCEPTED
(Job. No. /~I\'
577 _ ~ \.b
Signal
Maintenance
Inc.)
30:0291
AWARDED the contract for reroofing of Orange Grove Reservoir No. 2
to the low bidder, Nelson Roof, Inc. in the amount of $58,777.00.
The work consists of removal of all existing roofing .covers, flashings
and cantstrips and installation of new roofing matrials, flashings,
cants trips and roof membrane control joint for entire roof areas. All
informalities in the bid or bidding process are waived; the Mayor and
City Clerk are AUTHORIZED to execute a contract in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
ACCEPTED the work and AUTHORIZED final payment be made in accordance
with the contract with Signal Maintenance, Inc. for installation of
six new traffic signal controllers at locations on Duarte Road. The
final contract amount of $318,506 was funded by 99% Federal Aid Urban
Funds with the balance funded by State Gas Tax Funds. 10% retention
payment becomes due and payable 35 days after the recordation of
Council acceptance and will be released by the Director of Public
Works on completion of all corrections of record.
5j.
CONTRACT' AWARDED the contract for landscape maintenance to Duke's Landscape
AWARD s~service of San Gabriel in the amount of $214,940.00 for the period
(Landscape ~ 2/1/89 to 1/31/90; $223,580.00 for the period 2/1/90 to 1/31/91; and
Maintenace $234.515.00 for the peripd 2/1/91 to 1/31/92. The Mayor and City Clerk
Duke's Land- are AUTHORIZED to execute a three-year contract in a form approved by
acape Serv.) the City Attorney.
5k.
RECLASSIFI-, 10B APPROVED reclassification of Police Department position of Senior Steno
CATION - \~~~Clerk to Senior Typist Clerk. Approval of this reclassification has
(Police Dept. been recommended by the Personnel Board.
Sr.Steno Clk )
51.
BUS. LIC. I
FEE REFUND
(Student
Filming)
BUS
~ " (;tJS~
l,..\V
I',
6a.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1897
(ADOPTED)
p~1',P\
\
APPROVED refund of buaineas license fee for student filming in the
amount of $180.00 to Maureen Iser, U.S.C. School of Cinema-Television
student.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER
YOUNG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GILB AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS
FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembera Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Ordinance No. 1897, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
AMENDING THE R-l REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM FIREPLACE ENCORACH-
MENT IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK' OF 1'-0" "(T. A. 88-003)
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Gilb
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1897 be and
it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
12/6/88
-7-
6b.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1898 ,/
(ADOPTED)
6c.
ORDINANCE /
NO. 1899 V
(INTRODUCED)
6d.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5455
(ADOPTED)
If(: pD
6e.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5456
(ADOPTED)
\R:pD
30:0292
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Ordinance No. 1898, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
DIVISION 1 AND 2 OF PART 2, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III REGARDING PRIMA
FACIE SPEED LIMITS".
It was MOVED by Counci1member Gilb, seconded by Counci1member Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1898 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
./
The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the. content
and read the title of Ordinance No. 1899, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADDING SECTIONS 9250.3.3.1 AND 9252.2.5;1 TU'THE
R-M AND R-1 REGULATIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 9252.2.11.2 TO REQ~tRE A
.. ,
MINI~ 20' -0" SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE STREET SIDE OF, REVEltSF -$:,QRNER
LOTS (T .A. 88-004) :; .' '. ,i .
It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No.
1899 be and it is hereb~ INTRODUCED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
None
None
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title
of Resolution No. 5455, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, C~IFORNIA, ACCEPTING REVENUES AND APPROPRIATING
SAID AMOUNTS RELATING TO THE STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONS
PROGRAM (LOCAL POLICE TRAINING IN CORRECTIONS)".
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5455 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Counci1members Chandler, Gilb,
None
None
Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title I
of Resolution No. 5456, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A POLICE DEPARTMENT
RANK REORGANIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO COVER SUCH REORGANIZA-
TION". .
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Counci1member Lojeski
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5456 be
and it is hereby ADOPTED.
Mayor Harbicht inquired of staff what the money was for,. Reply was
for salaries to increase number of ranking officers.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
-8-
; !:.,;'
, .I(
1Z/6:/88
. "'If .
;'... ','1 .
. .
,',:.",
, .1'
. .~&,
6f.
CLAIM OF
R. L. PAGE
(DENIED)
30:0293
Claim of R. L. Page.
6g.
CLAIM OF' Claim of Twentieth Century Insurance Co.
TWENTIETH
CENTURY
INSURANCE CO.
(DENIED)
I
6h.
CLAIM OF Claim of M. G. Van Der Geugten.
M. G.
VAN DER GEUGTEN
(DENIED)
7.
8.
LOJESKI
(SA & Htg.Dr.
SE Corner Dev)
GILB
(Lyndon)
HARBICHT
(Light Rail
Line)
I
~s'?
On recommendation of the City Attorney, all of the above claims.were
DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember
Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
None
None
Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
In reference to the strip shopping center development at the southeast
corner of Santa Anita and Huntington Drive, Councilmember Lojeski
questioned the lack of a wall or screening behind the development on
the alley to screen the garage doors of the apartment houses. In
response, it was noted that there is parking off of the alley for the
development and this area is also one of the three entrances to the
shopping center.
Councilmember Gilb requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of
Bud Lyndon, who passed away today, December 6. He is survived by his
wife and son, Wayne, a long time fireman. It was also noted that
Mr. Lyndon taught swimming to many Arcadia children.
Mayor Harbicht reported that in a recent meeting with official~ of the
City of Pasadena he learned that Pasadena is planning to run i:!"light
rail line through their city from Los Angeles. Several route!i".are
under consideration all of which will roughly parallel Colorado. The
current plan calls for the line to terminate in East Pasadena between
Colorado and Foothill, west of Rosemead. Mayor Harbicht noted that the
plans at this time are tentative; in the study stage. The Mayor also
related that the question of Arcadia's interest in the line was raised
at the meeting, in continuing the line out to Arcadia to terminate at
Fashion Park or the Race Track. It was also suggested at the meeting
that betting revenues and sales tax revenues would increase ... and
access by the public to the line at that point would be easy...
would Arcadia be interested in exploring tmmatter further? At
the conclusion of the ensuing discussion it was the consenSus of
Council that Arcadia would not be interested in having the terminus
for the line in the City; but if the line goes beyond Arcadia we
would be interested in having one or two way stations along the
route in the City. The Mayor will communicate this interest to the
City of Pasadena.
12/6/88
-9-
'-
. I ,< _:..:.: .~:.::-::.~ __....
GILB
(Christmas
Decorations)
9.
ADJOURNMENT
(December 20,
1988)
ATTEST:
30:0294
In response to a question from Counci1member Gilb with reference to
City funds for street Christmas decorations, the City Manager replied
that the Christmas decorations in the business areas are financed by
the business community through their associations. A brief discussion
ensued as to the feasibility of the City contributing part of the
funds for the decorations ... this would coordinate the program and
help the associations. Council concluded that this recommendation could
be put forth at the time of budget consideration next year.
At 9:00 p. m. Council entered a CLOSED SESSION, RECONVENED and
ADJOURNED at 9:55 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., December 20, 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.
I
/L~
rt.
R. C. Harbicht, Mayor
I
12/6/88
-10-