Loading...
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-