Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 17,1989_2 \ 31:0015 ,:. '.' CODNCIL PROCEEDINGS .",", TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Jan. 3, 1989) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION I SENIOR CITIZENS' ('OMSN. (Miles) ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMSN. (McComas) LIBRARY BOARD (Vanlandingham) M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 The City CvuLciI and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session at 7:30 p. m., January 17, 1989 in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. Rev. Ted Chang, Mandarin Baptist Church Councilmember Mary Young PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None On MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of January 3, 1989 were APPROVED. Councilmember Lojeski abstained since he was not present at the January 3, 1989 meeting. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojes~i and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney announced that "the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met this evening in CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss the existing law- suit of ARA vs. Bong. In addition, pursuant to Section 54956.9(c) of the California Government Code, the City met with regard to the possible initiation of litigation involving property formerly owned by the Peter Kiewit Company. Finally the Council will be adjourning this evening pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) to a CLOSED SESSION at 6:30 p. m. on February 7, 1989 to again discuss the case of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency vs. Bong". PRESENTATIONS ../ On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Harbicht and Councilmember Gilb presented a plaque expressing appreciation for the distinguished service, efforts and accomplishments of outgoing Member of the Senior Citizens' Commission, Bob Miles. ./ On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Harbicht a'.,. Councilmember Lojeski presented a plaque expressing appreciation for v distinguished service, efforts and accomplishments of outgoin~ Member of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission, Harriet McComas. ./ The Oath of Office was then administered by the City Vanlandinghan, incoming Member of the Library Board. Young presented the incoming Member his credentials, and welcomed him to the City family. Clerk to Jesse Councilmember a Commission pin 1/17/89 -1- SENIOR CITIZENS' COMSN. (Hooton) 1. PUBLIC HEARING (C.U.P. 88-029- 1220-1300 S. Golden West Av.) (DENIED) v? ~:v IN FAVOR 31:0016 The Oath of Office was then administered by the City Clerk to Isabel Hooton, incoming Member of the Senior Citizens' Commission. Gouncil- member Gilb presented the incoming Member her credentials, a Commis- sion pin and welcomed her to the City family. On November 22, 1988, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve the Conditional Use Permit which would allow one restaurant of 4800 sq. ft. on the property at 1220-1300 South Golden West Avenue. Orig- inally, the applicants had requested two additional restaurants, one of 1200 sq. ft., and one of 1600 sq. ft., which the Planning Commission denied. The Planning Department had recommended approval of all of thl restaurants. The four conditions, as noted in the cover letter, dated January 17, 1989, were added by the Planning Commission to the staff conditions of approval for the restaurant. This item has been appeale The appellants are seeking approval of the two additional restaurants which were denied by the Commission. They would also like to propose, or have under consideration, the relocation of the place on the site where the 4800 sq. ft. restaurant may be located and, if the additional restaurants are denied, the applicant would like to also have the ability to divide the 4800 sq. ft. restaurant into no more than three separatere~aurants totalling not more than 4800 sq. ft. Councilmember Lojeski inquired what the parking requirements are for a restaurant. Staff replied 10 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Currently there are 318 parking spaces on the site and with the three restaurants that were proposed 352 spaces would have been re- quired for the three restaurants and the rest of the center being developed with retail-type uses. The number of restaurants would not change the number of parking spaces required. Councilmember Gilb noted that it seemed the main difference between the developer and the Planning Commission is that the developer wants approval of the three restaurants and he will then market those restaurants, and the Planning Commission felt they wanted to know what type of restaurants are planned before they approve a permit, mainly because of the traffic. Staff noted that also the Commission wanted to see the center going and then see what kind of parking problems may result with the large restaurant in operation as well as the other retail uses that may be on the site. Possibly there may be retail uses that meet the parking requirements but may generate a lot more than is typical and in that case the center may not accommodate additional restaurants. Councilmember Gilb inquired if the restaurant would be a family- style, sit-down type restaurant. Staff replied they would not be fast-food type establishments. Councilmember Young noted that as yet Council does not know what type of restaurants are planned ... the applicants do not have specific restaurants in mind. Mayor Harbicht noted that the Planning Commission approved 4800 sq. ft. of restaurant space. The applicants' third request was that they be allowed to divide that up into three restaurants if the other I two were not approved. That would have no effect on the parking requirements. Councilmember Chandler inquired if the Planning Depart ment had been in favor of all of the restaurants which the developer had asked for. The Planning Commission denied the basic request, but he woadered what the basic reasoning was for wanting to allow it. Staff replied in most of the shopping centers with a variety of uses, it has been found that parking needs are not equal to the sum of individual uses because of the nature of the businesses ... they have different peak periods. Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open. George Kutcharian, 55 East Huntington Drive, representing the appellants, stated, in part, that the total square footage of the shopping center is roughly about 239,580 sq. ft. which is close to 5i acres; the build- ing area is about 60,180 sq. ft.; the market space is 28,000 sq. ft. and the proposed bank is about 3.584 sq. ft. (The market and the bank combined will be about 32,000 sq. ft. which roughly will occupy about 52% of the center). He feels that a shopping center of this calibre 1/17/89 -2- I I IN OPPOSITION 31:0017 and on this site, with several multiple tenants, will not have an effect on the 34 parking space deficiency, because the peak business hours are different. In response to Councilmember Gilb's question, he replied that the big restaurant will be a family type restaurant, meeting City requirements and the others fast-food oriented restau- rants. They feel the two peak times of the day for the restaurants (lunch and dinner hours) will not conflict with peak hours of the other retail stores. They feel if the shopping center is fully occupied, it will bring more revenue to the City; better outlook for people coming into the City; property value will go up; safety and sanitation conditions will improve and it will be a plus for the community. Councilmember Chandler noted that Mr. Kutcharian had stated that the other two restaurants would be fast-food, take-out type restaurants. Mr. Kutcharian replied that was true, since with square footage of 1200 or 1600 there is not much space for seating. Councilmember Chandler inquired if there would be three Chinese style restaurants, or if that had been decided. Mr. Kutcharian replied that the high demand from his clients was for restaurant space. Councilmember Chandler said it was his understanding, then, that the proposal was there would be one large family-style, sit-down restaurant and two smaller fast food, to-go restaurants. Mr. Kutcharian agreed. Councilmember Lojeski said the question about the style of food in these restaurants had not been answered. Mr. Kutcharian replied that it had not been decided "', it depends on the outcome of this meeting. Councilmember Lojeski noted that the hours of operation start at 8:00 a. m. and wondered if they planned to serve breakfast. Mr. Kutcharian said they don't plan on serving breakfast ... main concentration would be on lunch and dinner. Staff noted that the plans the Council were looking at were not the same plans the Planning Commission saw. On Planning Commission plans the area was identified as "restaurants"; Council plans indicated "eating establishments", If they are to be "eating establishments" that changes the parking ratio for the whole project which would then be 20 per 1000 sq. ft. "Eating. establishments" are fast-food-type places where normally customers pay for the food before consuming it -- paper plates, higher turn-over; higher in-out traffic; for that reason the parking requirements are figured at 20 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. When the Planning Commission saw these plans, they were identified as "restaurants"; staff report was prepared based on those being "restaurants calculating 10 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. At this time the Planning Director stated staff can not recommend approval of adding the "eating establishments". In reply to a question, staff replied the large restaurant could be considered. -' Ronald Gotschalk, 1160 South Golden West, stated, in part, that he was an attorney representing some of t~e home owners directly across the street from the shopping center. He noted that at the Planning Commission hearing, 27 persons had stated their opposition to this proposed development. The developers had indicated that they did not have any specific restaurants in mind; any proposed tenants in mind; no negotiations pending; yet were seeking approval for three restaurants., There has been a substantial runor (not corroborated) that one of the establishments being considered was a Madam Wong East rock and roll Chinese type nightclub; that representations to the Planning Commis- sion were false. The developers were asking for commitments for three restaurants; but were unable to give the names of any of the proposed restaurants; they should have a letter-of-intent to indicate exactly what is being planned. The homeowners had been informed also that Von's Pavilions owns the old Pantry Market site and that they have a 13 year lease; it is possible that it could remain vacant for the 13 years; Von's has not committed itself to what it intends for the site; there was runor of a restaurant-training use. Mayor Harbicht noted that Council was not considering this particular area at this time, so this is not relevant. Mr. Gotschalk further stated, in part, that the homeowners were also concerned about this area because it has almost become a dump; people leave trash, old refrigerators, etc. behind the stores; there is a problem with rats, etc. Mr. Gotschalk also stated that, after the Planning Commission meeting, the developers had said they were satisfied with the decision and would not appeal. Mayor harbicht said that had no effect on the developer's right to " 1/17/89 -3- 31:0018 appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council, which he had done. Mr. Gotschalk reiterated that the developer is attempting to market these leases and he does not feel he will be doing this in the interests of the people of Arcadia. He sees a situation of potential abuse if Council, ,grants a permit without having the correct informa- tion beforehand. -- ~ Ettinger, 818 Naomi, stated, in part, that the surrounding area includes a number of condominiums and is a high density area ... it is difficult to even cross the street. These restaurants will make the situation much worse. He asked Council to consider the high density I of vehicles going in and out of the area. He also said the area behin the former Pantry market was like a City dump ... something should be done to clean it up. Allen~, 1231 Golden West, #13, Shelter Isle Village Condominiums, which contains 30 units, said they have a number of people who are con- cerned. The Planning Commission denied treapproval of the two additional restaurants and he did not see that anything had changed. He inquired if restrictions that were put on the 4800 sq. ft. restaurant by the Planning Commission such as hours of operation, noise level, etc. would still be enforced. He also felt that parking for three restaurants, two of which would be fast-food, will be a problem. This has been heard and decided upon before and it was decided the area just couldn't carry the traffic with that many restaurants. This is his concern and that of a number of residents in the area. Councilmember Gilb inquired if many residents used that area for a parking lot at night. Mr. Hogg replied perhaps 2 or 3 in their 30 units did so. There are other condominiums and apartments in the area. A number of cars seem to be parked there. There is an abandoned car there. People use the area behind the buildings as a dump. Rusty Graftman, 1140 South Golden West, stated, in part, that skate- boarders break car windows in that parking lot; it's a trash dump. If restaurants do go in, he does not feel they will do a large business because there are already a number of fast-food restaurants in the area. Rebecca Fortschneider, 802 West Naomi.#D, stated, in part, that she is President of the condominium association. There are 30 units and a minimum of 60 cars that enter and exist on Naomi across from the Pantry. They have parking and traffic problems and a problem with the traffic pattern. There was discussion about lunch and dinner traffic to and from the proposed restaurants. As far as the dinner period, they are having difficulty driving cars in and out on Naomi now, due to the traffic coming from Von's Pavilion; they do not want to see this in- creased. It is even difficult to cross the street. REBUTTAL Carol Graftman, 1140 South Golden West. stated, in part, that the developers of the shopping center have let it deteriorate. There havel been breakins into the Pantry market; windows are broken; the doors are boarded up. She wonders what kind of control the developer will have of the shopping center when the tenants are in. George Kutcharian, Broker of the Georgio Realty, stated, in part, that the equipment left on the premises belongs to Von's who have an existing lease on the premises; the present developer has no jurisdiction. The developer has not negotiated with Madam Wong rock and roll club or any- thing like that. No commitments have been made. They intend to put some honorable family kind of restaurants in ... something that will help the community. They are making every effort to get the center open. It's true it is becoming a dump site. He noted the traffic flow will be mainly from Duarte Road because the center faces Golden West and Duarte Road; the traffic problem on Naomi is because of the shopping center facing Naomi. He reiterated the restaurant will be a family restaurant in accordance with the laws of the City of Arcadia. 1/17/89 -4- I . .~' ;."~-, i\, v' I 2. PUBLIC HEARING CilBG ftrnns PROJECTS q989-90) (APPROVED) 3(PUr. r\ I 3. PJ.lBLIC HEARING (Appeal - Dreamscape Limousines !l.O.P. 85-124 136 W.LaSierra Brooks (l:i~NIED ) . \'lOP ~' 31:0019 .,"".,.; No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Counci1member Chand1e~~ seconded by Counci1member Young and CARRIED. ' " ' '.'~:F . Counci1member Gi1b stateq that, after listening to the public hearing and going over the minutes from the Planning Commission, he did not see any reason to change the decision of the Planning Commission. Other than the business at hand, the City should do something about cleaning up that area. He does not want to approve three restaurants unless he knows what they are to be. The decision of the Planning Commission will stand if Council denie~ the appeal. In the ensuing discussion of the motio~ and the conditions thereof, Counci1member Gi1b then MOVED to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Commission APP~OVING Conditional Use Permit 88-029 for one restaurant not to exceed '4,800 square feet with conditions of approvl!~ ;'s set forth in Planning Cdminission Resolution 1396',and APPROVING the relocation of the 4,800 square foot restaurant to the ,'l ' ~ "c" building position as shown on the plot plan. Seconded by Counci1- member Young and CARRIED on roll call ~bte as follows: ' . ' ~ : . . , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b; Lojeski, Young and Harbicht No~e Non~ The City has been advised by the Community Development Commission that Arcadia will be receiving approximate1y'$233,324 in Community Develop- ment Block Grant_ (CDBG) Funds for fiscal year 1989-90. The CDC has notified s~aff that the City must submit'their 1989-90 cost and project summary to the County no later than February 10, 1989. The status of current projects and proposed future p~ojects is' outlined in staff report dated January 17, 1989. In reference to the area on the north side of Huntington, Counci1- member Lojeski noted that there had previously been some discussion of screening the City water towers (north of Santa Clara). No formal report had been received on the matter from staff. Staff replied it had been de~~ded that tree planting would probably be the best method of screeningi This has been accomp1ish~d and ad4itiona1 planting can be done if necessary. Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing op~~. No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Counci1mem~~r Chandler, seconded by Co~~ci1member Young and CARRIED. It was then MOVED by Counci1member Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as i~llows that the allocation of funds as outlined in Cost Summary attach~d to staff report dated January 17, 1989, be APPROVED and that ~h~ City Manager be AUTHORIZED to execute the' Memos of Understanding which are submitted to the County after a specific project is for~11y approved by the City and P1anninl! Dep~rtment. . , . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , Counci1members Chandler, Gi1b, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht " None None The Planning Commission at its November 8, 1988 meeting voted 5 - 0 to deny a request by Mr. and Mrs. Brooks 'appealing a condition of approval of their Home Occupation Permi~, Originally, the applicants had receiv~~'a Home Occupation Permit i~'1985 for a limousine service with the co~~ition that only one limousine be kept on the premises. The business expanded and ad4itiona1 1imousi~es were acquired and'kept on the propere,., In October 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Brooks were notified that 1_' ) they were,,;J;l6"f' in compliance with the '1r~gina1 conditions of approval; 1/17/89 -5- IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION 31:0020 they appealed that decision to the Planning Commission which sustained the condition limiting them to one limousine. The Planning Commission noted that the limousines should be stored in a commercial area rather than a residential area and that three limousines were too intense for the property. Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open. Elizabeth Brooks, 136 W. La Sierra, appellant, stated, in part, that in 1985 when they applied for the Home Occupation Permit they had one limousine. They did not realize there were any conditions attached. The 1986 permit listed two limousines; the 1987 permit listed three I limousines. They had received decals and permits for three cars. When they applied for the 1989 permit, they were notified that it had come to the City's attention that they were parking three limousines on the property and two would have to be removed. She felt they should have been notified when they applied for the decals and permits for the two additional cars. She felt the complaints received from neighbors had resulted because they had been trying to make their operation more efficient trying to make room for a garage in the rear of their property; it was not intended to be a permanent way of operating. Their son was also detailing cars for other neighbors; he is now back to construction work; this was a temporary situation. The limousines are stored in the back yard and are out of sight until they are moved out to pick up customers. The neighbors on the adjoining properties have all spoken or written in their behalf. The loss of their permit will be a serious problem and may force them out of business or possibly into bankruptcy. They ask permission to retain the cars and operate as they have for the past four years. Mrs. Brooks presented to Council a petition signed by eleven of her neighbors, in addition to two letters and one which had been mailed, stating there are no objections to the three limousines. Mayor Harbicht noted that in regard to the Home Occupation Permit, and a permit in 1986-87, those were actually business licenses; not renewals of the Home Occupation Permit. Councilmember Gilb noted that he had received complaints on weekend car washing in the front and moving around of cars; he understood there were 10 cars' on the property. Mrs. Brooks replied they had had 10 cars in the past; now 7 cars. The cars are driven through the back of the garage and stored in the back yard. Four people living there drive four separate cars. John Horn, 142 W. La Sierra, stated, in part, that he lives on the adjoining property. He felt the Brooks had resolved the problems by eliminating some of the cars and discontinuing the washing of cars in the street. He did not feel there was any hardship for anyone because the limousines were out of sight in the back of the property. Requested Council consideration of their right to have their three limousines. I He would recommend that Council draft up a City ordinance limiting the amount of cars for private small industries in a residential area. Councilmember Gilb noted that an ordinance is in effect which limits the number of cars parked in the open to four vehicles. Dean Horstman, 116 W. La Sierra, stated, in part, that this is a residential street; not a commercial zone. He noted that the Brooks had a wide driveway on which they could park as many as 10 cars. Now the number is down to 7. Three limousines are out on weekends and four cars in the driveway; when the limousines return there are four cars to move ... this disrupts the neighborhood. Also they wash the limousines on the street; they detail cars on the street. He feels it is an eyesore. The neighbors were willing to accept the Planning Commission's allowing one limousine to remain on the property. Since the Brooks have appealed this, some of the neighbors have signed a petition requesting that the City Council revoke permission to garage any limousines at this address and stating their reasons thereof. The petition was presented to Council. 1/17/89 -6- IN REBUTTAL I " I 31:0021 Councilmember Gilb noted that Council had also received a letter from Mrs. Paul Minvielle, 137 W. La Sierra in opposition to the appeal. Elizabeth Brooks, 136 W. La Sierra, stated, in rebuttal, that they had been washing the limousines in front during the past couple of weeks in September because of work being done on the rear of the property; they have not been in front since; limousines are not brought out in front until they are ready to leave; at that time only one car is moved out of their way. No cars are moved around when the limousines return at night; they are backed in with only the parking lights on. Councilmember Gilb inquired if they had a car detailing business as well. Mrs. Brooks replied they did not; her son was doing that for neighbors while recuperating from a fractured ankle; it is no longer being done. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Mayor Harbicht and CARRIED. Mayor Harbicht commented that the City does not allow commercial operations in a residential area. Home Occupation Permits are allowed if the occupation is virtually invisible to the other residents of the neighborhood. The letters and petitions for and against are not relevant; this is not a popularity contest. The very nature of a Home Occupation Permit is that it is not offensive; if even a significant minority of the neighborhood is offended or has the use and enjoyment of their residential property decreased, then that is not a proper home occupation. He feels that one limousine should not be considered offensive; three are too many. He is in favor of denying the appeal and letting the action of the Planning Commission stand. Councilmember Young agreed and also felt that one limousine could be permitted and stated further that the action of the Planning Commission was appropriate. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Mayor Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the action of the Planning Commission be upheld; that the request is contrary to the welfare, peace, quiet and enjoyment of the surrounding property of the neghborhood and inconsistent with the requirements of the Arcadia Municipal Code and that home occupations should remain compatible with residential neighbor- hoods; that one (1) limousine be allowed to be maintained on the property; 60 days allowed for making other arrangements for the other two (2) limousines; and that staff be directed to prepare and bring to Council a resolution setting forth these requirements. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None 1/17/89 -7- 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Variance for Temp. Trailer Use - 512 W. Duarte Rd.) (APPROVED) 31:0022 This is a hearing to consider a request for variance from Building Code regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow the temporary use of a trailer at 512 West Duarte Road, Our Saviour Lutheran Church. The church is requesting authorization to use the trailer for temporary Sunday school classroom. It will be used for Bible classes on Sunday mornings from 9:00 to 11:00. This until their proposed classrooms are completed. The Planning Commission at its January 10, 1989 meeting conditionally approved the Conditional Use Permit which was for expansion of the Church's permanent facilities. The Building Division requires the occupancy of this temporary unit be limited to 27 people and the Fire Department requires that sprinklers be installed subject I to their approval. The Planning Department recommends approval of this request for a nine (9) month period, that is, until October 17, 1989, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Building Division and Fire Department. Mayor Harbicht declared the hearing open. Michael Lettau, 868-A Fairview, Head Elder at Our Saviour Lutheran Church, was present to answer questions. Councilmember Gilb inquired how long the temporary trailer would be needed by the church. Mr. Lettau replied nine months to one year. Councilmember Gilb remarked that sometimes temporary use extends for a long period of time. Staff replied a limit could be placed on its use. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the variance for temporary trailer use by Our Saviour Lutheran Church, 512 West Duarte Road be APPROVED for a period of one year; if a time extension is re- quired for the trailer, a written request may be made 30 days prior to the deadline. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmemers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None I 1/17/89 -8- 5. I l./\\()N. Ol.l.- .\&, ~'. \" Sf'lV\<- \1" I 31:0023 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Herb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, stated, in part, that in the past he- has at times been critical about the lack of communication between the Council and the residents. If Council will communicate better with the residents, more interest might be created in the community. He cited the low voter turnout for Council elections as an example. He noted that the Directors of the City of Pasadena are concerned with communications with the public and have engaged a Communications Director for the City of Pasadena. His job will be to improve internal communications, but they are also interested in communicating with the public. He is not suggesting that Arcadia create such a position, but perhaps more emphasis on communication could be made. Paul Herr, 515 E. Wistaria, stated, in part, that since he last spoke to Council, the City of Duarte has unanimously passed a no-smoking ordinance. This is modeled after the Pasadena ordinance. He presented a copy of the ordinance to Council. He feels this ordinance addresses a couple of issues which were raised at the last meeting, i. e., small restaurants (restaurants under 50 feet in size are exempt); it is for indoor only and does not address outside areas, such as Santa Anita Race Track. The Pasadena ordinance has been in force for about four years. He noted that the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce was strongly in support of the ordinance and at his request they wrote a letter stating this to Council, which he read and then presented to Council. He feels that businesses can work with this ordinance. In reply to a question raised whether second hand smoke was dangerous, he quoted a report from the Surgeon General of the United States which stated, in part, that involuntary smoking was hazardous and could cause lung cancer in the non-smoker as well as the smoker. He feels this model ordinance is a moderate approach. Councilmember Gilb inquired how this ordinance was enforced. Mr. Herr replied by force of public opinion which he felt was strongly against public smoking. Councilmember Gilb said he has spoken to a number of people in the City including several re~taurant owners and found out that most of the restaurants already had designated smok- ing and non-smoking areas and that a number of people thought there were already too many government regulations. He pointed out there was another side to this question. Most people who smoked felt they were already being relegated to certain non-smoking areas and that was enough. Mr. Herr said smoking in the workplace should also be controlled. George Bassett, 119 Ilene Drive, stated, in part, that he is a surgeon and is with the USC faculty at Child~en's Hospital and he would like to encourage Council to consider some limitation on smoking in public areas. It is a health hazard whether active or passive. He is not sure that we know the full effect of passive smoking at this time; it may be another 20 years before we know the results of many ongoing studies. He would like to see a message to our children that smoking is harmful through more public controls; to be harder to be a smoker. Pat Healy, 400 E. Wistaria Avenue, stated, in part, that she is a public health nurse and pediatric nurse practitioner and works in the public school system. She would like Council's recommendation and support about the non-smoking areas. We warn our children about drugs, and nicotine is a drug; and it's a serious problem. She thinks there is a lot of evidence against second hand smoke. She would like to see Arcadia stand up for these recommendations. George Good, 1328 Oak Meadow Road, stated, in part, that he is a volunteer for the American Cancer Society and is treasurer for the California Division. The American Cancer Society supports the pro- posal to create a smoking ordinance in the City of Arcadia. There are ordinances in effect which accommodate the needs of smokers and non- smokers. The hazards of second-hand smoke have been documented. People are demanding consideration for the rights of non-smokers and have established legal precedents for non-smoking ordinances. In the City of Arcadia approximately 30 people die each year because of tobacco- related illnesses and 18,000 per year in the State of California. He urges Council to enact the proposed smoking ordinance. 1/17/89 -9- rJ ,\\0 \..0 o~\.. _,(:i S'.' (-,VOJ Sr^() 6. 7. 7a. ROLL CALL 7b. MINUTE APPROVAL (Jan. 3, 1989) (APPROVED) 7c. ADJOURNMENT 8. 9. 31:0024 Richard Orcutt, 1212 South Sixth Avenue, stated, in part, that he would like to see the City Council enact a smoking ordinance in Arcadia and join the more enlightened cities in California who have done so. He works in Highland Park where they have a no-smoking ordinance in the workplace and restaurants. The non-smoking sections at the restaurants are usually the more crowded sections; people wait in line for those sections. He does not think smokers realize how irritating smoke is 'to non-smokers. Since Pasadena passed their smoking ordinance, he drives there to dine out rather than Arcadia, and he believes others do the same. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I PRESENT: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None / MOTION by Member Gilb for APPROVAL of the Minutes of the January 3, 1989 Meeting; also that the record reflect the absence of Member Lojeski from the January 3rd meeting. Seconded by Member Young and CARRIED. The meeting adjourned to 6:30 p. m., February 7, 1989 to a CLOSED SESSION under provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9(a). CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS 9a. ~ ADVERTISE ~O~" APPROVED FOR BIDS( \!::> facility (Police ~ The City Storage February Facility - Job No. 651) plans and specifications for Police Department storage - Job No. 651. The estimated construction cost is $15,000. Clerk is AUTHORIZED to advertise for bids to be opened 13, 1989. 9b. \ CONTRACT ~ \b:3 AWARD \ (St. Light' g Improvements Magellan Rd. & Palo Alto Drive - Job No. 649) (Raymor Elec.) AWARDED contract for street lighting improvements - Magellan Road and Palo Alto Drive - to the low bidder, Raymor Electric Co., in the amount of $35,849. The work consists of installation of 14 street lights and underground conduit. The City is to pay 75% of the installation cost and property owners to pay 25% plus 100% of future power and maintenance cost through annexation to the Lighting Maintenance District. The City will advance the property owners' 25% share of the installation cost from the Capital Outlay Fund which Willi' be reimbursed to the City with 7% interest over a 10 year period. The property owners also have the option of a one time cash payment when project costs are confirmed. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Funds in the amount of $42,000 to be appropriated from the Capital Outlay Fund to cover the cost of the project including engineering, inspection and contingencies (25% to be reimbursed by the property owners). Any informalities in the bid or bidding process are waived, and the Mayor and City Clerk AUTHORIZED to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. ~ 9c. ~~ TREE MAINT. \~J APPROVED Change Order No. 2 to the contract with United Pacific in CONTRACT ~ the amount of $14,782. Council had previously awarded the contract (Change Order to United Pacific to perform tree trimming at various locations in No. 2 - Job the City. The contract included the base bid in the amount of $39,322. No. 645) and Change Order No.1 in the amount of $9,438. for a total contract (United amount of $48,760. The contractor is willing to do additional tree Pacific) trimming work under the same price schedule and waive the 25% maximum (APPROVED) contract change provision. Staff has determined need for trimming 161 1/17/89 -10- 31:0025 additional trees. Funds in the amount of $35,465 are available in this year's operating budget for tree trimming of which $14,782 will " be utilized for this work. Staff is AUTHORIZED to issue Change Order No. 2 in said amount to United Pacific. 9d. Ff EQUIPMENT PURCHASE (Four Sedans) (Police Dep t . ) AWARDED purchase of two Buick Century sedans to the low bidder, O'DonneUBuick in a total amunt of $26,071.20 and two Chevrolet Celebrity sedans to the low bidder, Team Chevrolet in a total amount of $25,347.00. Total expenditure is $51,418.20. Funds are budgeted in the Capital Outlay Fund FY 1988/89 in the amount of $65,200. I ge. ANNUAL RECEIVED and filed the Compehensive Annual Financial Report for the FIN. REPORT year ended June 30, 1988. AUDIT ,15 (June 30'(.'AV\) 1988 r' Year End) ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GILB AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None 10. CITY ATTORNEY lOa. ORDINANCE ./ NO. 1902 (INTRODUCED) The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1902, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA CHANGING THE ZONING FROM C-l (LIMITED COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER AT l48-~58 LAS TUNAS DRIVE AND 141-149 WEST LIVE OAK AVENUE". It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1902 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None lOb. fl CLAIM OF L.ALVARADO (DENIED) Claim of L. Alvarado. The City Attorney noted an error in the report on this claim in that Alvarado was not actually cited by police for violating the Vehicle Code although he did go through a red light. This does not change the recommendation. IlOc. f:CLAIM OF H. McGEE (DENIED) 10d. ~; CLAIM OF W.A.CHIPP (DENIED) Claim of H. McGee Claim of W. A. Chipp On recommendation of the City Attorney all of the above claims were DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Council- member Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None 1/17/89 -11- -{\o~ V . HARBICHT OVV ~Remarked that with regard to the non-smoking ordinance, he had looked (Non- 5\V Cr' at the materials handed out to Council during the meeting and which smoking S~ they took under advisement. He thinks what is voluntarily happening Ordinance is what this ordinance is trying to accomplish. He does not see why Tabled) Council should put another layer of government or another law into (APPROVED) effect when it is happening anyway. Mayor Harbicht made a MOTION to table the consideration of such an ordinance, seconded by Council- member Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: 11. 12. MOTION GILB (Non- smoking Ordinance) GILB (Whitehead) 13. ADJOURNMENT (Feb. 7, 1989 - 6:30 p.m.) ATTEST: 31:0026 MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Lojeski, Young and Harbicht None None I Noted that people in the City should be encouraged to be aware of this problem. He thnks this can be worked out voluntarily. He thought the motion was a good one. Adjourned the meeting tonight "in memory of Helen Whitehead. She was our Senior Citizen of the Year this year and she passed away a couple of weeks ago. She was a resident of Arcadia for twenty-three years and was very active as a volunteer. She was honored May 7, 1988 during the SALUTE TO SENIORS Day when she was recognized as the twenty-second recipient of the Senior Citizen of the Year Award." He read a passage that came from her nomination: "Helen Whitehead, the 1988 winner is an excellent role model for other seniors. At 88 years of age, she possesses a zest for life that touches everyone she meets and in spite of health problems that include a pace maker and removal of one kidney, Mrs. Whitehead continued to devote more time to others than herself. Since 1968 she had been sewing each Wednesday at the Arcadia Red Cross for the disabled veterans. In 1970 she said, 'when I feel at loose ends, I begin sewing for the veterans and have derived much satisfaction.' She was a very outstanding citizen of our community and, as our Citizen of the Year, we were very, very proud of her. I met her at many of the functions after she was elected and she attended them all. We are sorely going to miss her and she did a great job for our City. I would like to close the meeting tonight in memory of Helen Whitehead." At 9:25 p. m. Council ADJOURNED to 6:30 p.m., February 7, 1989, in the Council Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, under provision of Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to discuss litigation, Arcadia Redevelopment Agency vs. Bong, personnel and evaluation of properties. /~~~ I R. C. Harbicht, Mayor 1/17 /89 -12-