Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 21,1980 (2) CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I INVOCATION PLEDGE OF AIJ.EGIANCE ROLL CAIJ. MINUTE APPROVAL YOUTH COMMISSION I 25:0142 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1980 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia met in a regular session on October 21, 1980 at. 7:30, p.m. in, the City Hall Council Chamber. Rev. Thomas Cherry, Christian Center of Arcadia. James Grave of Arcadia Boy Scout Troop No. 105. PRESENT: ABSENT : Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None PRESENT: ABSENT : Agency Members Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None On MOTION by Councilman Saelid, seconded by Councilman Gilb'and carried' unanimously the minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 1980 were, APPROVED. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO RETIRING YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS AND APPO INTMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS. j It was MOVED by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Dring and, carried that Greg Ceniceros and Traci Lauderdale be appointed to!the' Youth Commission for the term from November 1980 to October 1981., (They are both from the Sophomore Class at the Arcadia ,High School.), Credentials were presented to each. Councilman Gilb then presented Certificates of Appreciation to the,follow"- ing retiring Youth Commissioners: During this presentation Marc Mueller" Youth Commission Advisor, participated and was commended ,for his efforts' and accomplishments. John Piccari Karen McKenzie (reelected to term until June 1981) Tim Goeppinger Ben Thoma s Annamarie Gondosch Lisa Luchetta Councilman Gilb noted that Janie Richter will henceforth attend the City Council meetings on behalf of the Youth Commission. Mayor Pellegrino announced that there were six awards given by the State to California Reserve Police Officers. Two of the awards were received, by Arcadia Reserve Officers - Emile Moldovan and Michael Daleo - Mr. Moldo- van was presented with a Certificate in recognition and appreciation for" his outstanding service to the community. Mr. Daleo will receive his Cer- tificate at a later date. -1- 10-21"80 TRANS IT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT APPROVED \ ~I/' ~ .' r \t HEAR ING BEST DISPOSAL RATE INCREASE (November 4) / \? \ l// ~ 25 :0143 Reconsideration of amendment of agreement with Wilbur Smith and Associates for transit consultant services. This matter had been continued from Octo- ber 7 for additional information concerning the fixed fee of $2000. The AS s istant City Manager explained that the Consultants have revised the proposed amendment by reducing the fixed fee amount from $2000 to $1000 which is an additional incentive by the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates to retain its senior person, Dan Benson, on the project. Councilman Dring MOVED to approve the amended agreement with the deletion of the fixed fee of $1000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. It was then MOVED by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Saelid and carried on roll call vote as follows that the revised amended Agreement be APPROVED and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Agreement in form approved by the City Attorney. I AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino Councilman Dring None Request of the Best Disposal Company for an increase in its residential refuse collection rates. Staff noted that the current five year agree- ment with the company will expire March 1, 1984. The last rate increase approved by the City Council was effective March 1, 1979. The Consumer Price Index has increased 21% since the last increase. Staff report dated October 16, 1980 sets forth in detail the various services being requested for increases. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and James Green, 305 N. Old Ranch Road, asked how much was realized the last time a 28% increase was granted the Company. Robert Andrews, attorney for the subject company, responded in part that he did not have the exact figure but that from 1970 to 1979 there was one increase granted which amounted to 70~ on a residen- tial unit ... that with the increase being requested the amount would mean approximately $200,000 to $210,000 per year to Best Disposal. Mr. Green continued in part by submitting increases granted by other cities within the area .. none were the percentage being requested by Best. He felt the request is unusually high. Ed Passmore, 1109 Columbia Road, referred to utility rates which are con- stantly increasing, the excessiveness of Social Security and the like... that SOmething has to be done about the economy of the country. He felt Best Disposal is entitled to some increase and in response to a comment by Councilman Gilb concerning the increase in fuel costs, insurance and labor costs which Best is experiencing, Mr. Passmore said in part that he has had to make cutbacks too and the situation is not the same as two years ago. During the consideration Mr. Andrews submitted in part that Arcadia is unique in that there are many very large lots with a lot of shrubbery; that it is not uncommon for a resident to put out 8 to 12 containers along with plastic bags. He noted that they pick up anythi,ng. The cost of I dumping was also explored and he said in part that governmental entities must start to realize that dumping is an upcoming problem '" he felt that it is time to start thinking in terms of buying incineration systems and reclamation plants ... that much refuse is coming in from the East Coast where it costs between $35 and $50 for curbside service ... and that dumps back there are charging up to $40 per ton. Councilman Saelid said in part that the City is endeavoring to obtain the very best service possible for the residents and for the least amount of money.. that he felt some consideration is due because of the increase in gasoline costs, diesel fuel costs, is warranted, but he has difficulty with a 40.6% increase '" that this must be reviewed to ascertain what is rea sonab le. -2- 10-21-80 I HEARING E I R (Redevelop- ment Area) f' r'\G- I!l \'1.- I 25:0144 It was MOVED by Councilman Saelid, secmded by Councilman Haltom that the public hearing be closed. THIS MOTION lATER WITHDRAWN AS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT DESIRED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Councilman Haltom submitted in part that Best has a contract to fulfill and noted that an increase in commercial rates is not being requested which indicates to him that residential is absorbing the additional cost of the commercial. He also questioned the fact that an escalating clause was not part of the contract. Mr. Andrews responded to this and said in part that the opposite of Councilman Haltom's remarks is true - that they have increased commercial rates. Councilman Saelid said he would like to have some information as to what the commercial increases have been so he could ascertain what share of the burden is being asked of the resi- dential property owners. Councilman Saelid then MOVED to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting (November 4). Seconded by Councilman Haltom. In agreeing with the observations made by Councilman Haltom relating to fulfillment of the contract Councilman Dring referred to a request made by city employees to accelerate increases in their contract. This was declined by the City Council on the basis that there was a contract which was to run another year. This to him was a wise and prudent de- cision. He felt that renegotiation with Best at this time would not be wise. He would like to see the financial statements for the last two or three years ... also information on the impact of the unionization of the company employees. Councilman Gilb explored in part the background of the company -- the trust placed in it by the City and vice versa .. He noted the price of fuel these days, the insurance, etc. He would like to review figures at 5%, 10% and on up ... an escalating scale. Roll call vote was then taken on the motion to continue the hearing. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None The Planning Director explained the draft Environmental Report for the proposed General Plan, Redevelopment plan and zone change for the East Huntington Drive redevelopment area .. that this hearing has been sched- uled in order to afford the public the opportunity to comment on the po- tential environmental impact and/or mitigation matters which may be asso- ciated with the proposed project. If the proposed changes are made sub- sequent environmental documents may be required for future proposed con- struction projects. Following this hearing the final environmental im- pact report will be prepared for the City Council's certification at a subsequent meeting ... the final EIR which must be certified by the Coun- cil consists of the following: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report for any corrections, additions or deletions thereto. 2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR. 3. List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR. 4. Responses of the City to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Staff noted that the Planning Consultant assisted in the preparation of the EIR. representing said consulting firm. firm of Beland and Associates He then introduced Kay Beyer, Kay Beyer, 627 S. LaFayette Place, Los Angeles, stated in part that the project under consideration is a 40 acre redevelopment project bounded on the north by the freeway, on the south by the railroad right-of-way, -3- 10-21-80 MAYOR PELLEGRINO SHERRY PASSMORE 1109 Columbia Rd. MAYOR PELLEGRINO PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR 25:1'145 on, the west by Second Avenue and on the east by Fifth Avenue. Chiefly among the uses are a 300 room hotel and various garden offices, two or thr~e stories in height, and mid-rise offices five to eight stories in height. There are uses which are proposed to remain which will not be alt~red by the project which includes the Derby R~staurant and the Dat- sun dealership. She' felt the level of detail provided in the report is sufficient to take care of the majority of uses which would be envision- ed. Traffic is the most significant impact that the area would have to deal with and that they have prepared a worst case analysis in terms of total traffic in the area. Air quality impacts are related directly to the traffic impacts. She then said io part that there are approximately 40 dwelling units in the area at this time with no exact number of resi- dents living in the project area. They will be offered benefits and assis- tance by the agency to relocate them and made reference to the State law which is very specific about this. I In response to questions by Councilman Dring concerning the concept of abandonment of Third Avenue staff advised that it has not been discussed with Republic Development Company; that it is a little premature at this time. The City Manager submitted in part that the Third Avenue frontage along Huntington Drive in order to aggregate and make for a commercial use needed to come about but a means of ingress and egress must be pro- vided for those units on Third Avenue during the interim, so the question of closing a portion and opening a portion has been up for discussion but has been held in abeyance contingent on the developer's proposal which would be acceptable to the City Council. It was also submitted by staff that it is so serious that Council should reconsider the work it is go- ing to do on Third and Santa Clara. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and the following testimony was submitted and reported herein in full as required: "This is a public hearing, so at this time I will entertain opening the public hearing for those in favor of this item on the agenda. Those opposed? I would like to ask some questions, I'm a little confused regarding what the notice in the newspaper and your agenda stated was that this was to conclude an EIR which would cover the zone change, general plan change and a redevelopment plan change. I do not know how we can speak to one without the others because by State law no change can be made in the re- development plan unless it conforms to the zone and the general plan of the City. I wish to ask if the proper notices were sent to the proper owners of property within the area; how long ago this notice was put in the newspaper; how many weeks it has been running that this would be a hearing and how long according to the law for EIR reports we have to make our writing? Excuse me, Mrs. Passmore - I don't think we are going to memorize all your questions - I think we should take two or three of them at a time if we are going to address them. We'll address this to Mr. Woolard or our City Manager. I I think I can answer most of the questions. First of all, again the action that is being taken tonight does not in itself approve either a general plan change, a redevelopment plan change, text change or zone change. This is strictly for the preparation of this environmental impact document which is to help the Council in making those future decisions. This particular hearing was noticed in accordance with the provisions set- forth in the State Guidelines. There was a notice published in the paper, I don't have the exact date. How long ago? It was published at least thirty days prior to tonight's meeting. _u_ 10-21-Rn SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNmG DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE I PlANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR IELLEGRmo HERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR 25:0146 Was it published once or was it published once every week? It was published once. I think by law you are supposed to publish it once a week for thirty days before. That's not what the State Guidelines call for. The Health and Safety Code calls for it - anytime you do a redevelopment plan change. We are not doing a redevelopment plan change - we are doing an environ- mental impact report. When it gets to that particular type of change that additional noticing will have to be done in accordance with the laws governing those types of amendments. There's going to be lots of subse- quent public hearings again for the general plan, for the redevelopment plan, for text amendment and for the zone change and all of these things have different types of noticing requirements. S~me are setforth in State law such as what you mentioned regarding redevelopment plans. Others are contained in the 'City codes. This was noticed in accordance with the State Guidelines governing enviropmental impact reports. Okay - I am still at somewhat of a loss to see what you hope to gain to- night. The public has been asked to comment on an open-end plan or a change that is not concrete. There seems to be some issues that were not addressed in the economic or the EIR in regards to the economic an- alysis or the impact of this plan in the EIR for the redevelopment area as such. Meaning that, you need to, by law, put a report io how the taxes and the property base in the area is going to affect different various taxing agencies. As you know and I hope our public will wake up to find out, that even though values in property may increase because of a project area the taxes received from those value increases do not go to our City, does not go to our Police Department, our Fire Department or, our schools. It goes right back to your redevelopment agency and I believe you are supposed to notice the County of Los Angeles and any other taxing agency that may be affected by this redevelopment whether it is good or bad to invite them to report on your EIR report. We have sections 33369 of the Health and Safety Code which provides for any expenditures of City proper- ty or money, or efforts that you need to do in regards to this plan and I don't see how you can talk about it because you don't know what you are going to do yet. At the time that this is considered it is supposed to be in the EIR for evaluation. In other words, if the citizens of Arca- dia are going to use any City funds, or you as a city, to do anything with- in the project area we are supposed to have that information at the time tha t we consider an EIR report. Otherwise we can't make the proper an- alysis. Excuse me, Mrs. Passmore, if you are going to insinuate certain criteria I wish you would take a pause for our staff to reciprocate at least one or two of your questions instead of going on and then coming all the way back. Okay. I don't think I can respond, at least not entoto. Again, we are deal- ing with an environmental impact report on what is in essence a fairly broad and general document, which is recognized by the State and in the guidelines they state that by nature an environmental impact report on something such as a general plan amendment does have to be somewhat broad and general and this is why there may be subsequent environmental documents required for specific projects in the future that may occur within this -5- .10- 21-,80 PLANNING DIRECTOR con't SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR PELLEGRINO PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR 25:0147 area. The questions you are ra1s1ng regarding shifts in taxes and stuff is not something that is normally addressed in an environmental impact report. It is when it is in regards to a redevelopment project. It has been in other cities and there have been lawsuits because of that fact - the fail- ure to address the proper issues. All I want us to do is if we are going to go into something that we do it legally and do it as right as possible. There is also another issue that was failed to be addressed here. I did- n't have time because I just found out about the EIR report tonight to really go into it deeply but I noticed the sources that you invited to speak to this EIR and some of the most important ones that needed to ad- dress the project or the EIR were not asked to comment and one was our school district. Another was our police department and our fire depart- I ment for the City of Arcadia. There is going to be an impact regarding, if a hotel comes in, police and fire services. What we need to understand is if there is going to be development in the area there is going to be required extra services there. Are we going to, as a city, ask the re- development agency to provide funds to the City to take care of the in- creases in those costs of services. We have to think about these things before we start adopting open-ended policies and projects that we don't know what we are really adopting yet. We also need to see regarding the neighborhood impact what will happen - okay, to the schools around and the people living in the area. It states very specifically as she stated before me there are specific rules and guidelines that must be addressed when you are dealing with moving or removing residents to another area. In that vein the Project Area Committee, which by law is supposed to rep- resent moderate-low income homeowners in an area was also supposed to have been inVited to make comments on the EIR and I notice they are absent here. Any other organizations within the area should have been asked to make comments regarding the EIR. Many of them were not invited to speak to it. As taxpayers of this City we need to address ourselves to a tool which can change not only the economic base of a city but the physical-base of a city and we need to do it with counting all our facts and knowing where we are going and I suggest that possibly in the future if you are going to have as you said other public hearings which you need to do by law that you include a little bit more information and you include the proper people to be notified so they can come and address you properly. The County of Los Angeles was not even sent a notice of our EIR and there are specific guidelines in the redevelopment law that they are also supposed to be notified when something like this happens. Is that true, City Manager or Mr. Woolard? Again, we are not dealing with redevelopment law in this thing. Environ- mental impact reports were sent out to most of the agencies, County Flood Control, they were sent to police and to fire departments. Their comments will be included as part of the final environmental impact report. I'm sorry - okay, if they were sent to them, they are not on the list. I That is correct - the final impact report requires this listing of the agencies. The draft EIR does not require this listing be provided and so it is not, the list that is in the draft is not an all encompassing list as to who received and commented on this report. Will the public then after you receive those reports be able to view them in time to make their final comments? Also, I would like to know what the legal time limit is in order to make our comments in writing regarding the EIR? Does it start from..tonight or after you adopt it? Or, what are your guidelines here? Well, I think the, it is kind of an ongoing deal but the intent of the original published notice was that there would be the period of time from -6- 10-21-80 PLANNING DIRECTOR can't SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY I PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE CHARLES GILB I Counc ilman PLANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE 25:0148 that publication date to the time of tonight's meeting at which this matter would be heard, during which people could make written comments regarding the environmental impact report and if they didn't make written co~ents then of course they would have the opportunity at this meeting to make verbal comments or questions such as you are doing. How many days is that from the time you first noticed? Well it has been an excess of thirty days from when we first noticed. What is the legal requirement? I am trying to find out how much time....... There is no legal requirement. They state, suggest thirty days and I think the Council has by resolution, indicated that the City should have a thirty day period but there is technically no legal requirement. So, in other words this is the last time anybody can address you regard- ing this E IR report? Unless Council holds the hearing open and continues it, that's correct. Okay, well, r'll try to give you some short comments. Bascially, going into redevelopment we've had an area declared blighted. Basically we've got most of, a lot of the area belongs to the City and if the City has allowed its property to go blighted and is using that as an excuse to bring redevelopment in, I think we should recheck our value system. Re- cently there was an appellate court decision regarding it, which recon- stituted and tightened up the definition of blight. Within that appel- late court decision from the Supreme Court of California it states very specifically the role of government as it should and should not be and I will only read you basically one sentence of the whole review by the judges. It says, Private enterprise may embark on such speculatively, competitive enterprises under present laws, public entities may not. Now, if you are in turn handing Republic Development Company or Hometel your blessing to develop on behalf of the City I would suggest that for pro- tection of the City and the taxpayers within the City you ask Hometel or Republic Development to put an indemnity clause within your contract. In other words, anything that they may do on behalf of this project that may cause a lawsuit to be brought should be taken care of at their expense and not the City's. Because if you are going to give them full rein to do the development and to negotiate we need to protect the City and the taxpayers on sometimes unfair situations that arise and in sometimes il- legal situations. So I'm asking that within your last comments or any adopted contract or agreements to sell, negotiations, that you ask that the City be indemnified from any lawsuits. I just wonder what that has got to do with the EIR? Perhaps I can comment on that. The process that the City is going through in this environmental impact report and the changes that may be made do not directly have anything to do with Republic Development Company and only kind of indirectly the redevelopment process. These changes if made, will result in the general plan amendment and zone changes, etc., which would have to be followed by anybody, be it Republic or any property own- er within the area who seeks to develop their own property. It is just like making a zone change in any othe; part of town. Be it through re- development or totally private inve?tment, guidelines are being set up that they would have to follow. - Are you trying to say that you will hold a separate EIR for the redevelop- ment when that zone change is within the plan? And you will also hold -7- 10-21-80 PASSMORE can't PlANNING DIRECTOR SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR PELLEGRINO SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR PELLEGRINO SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR PELLEGRINO SHERRY PASSMORE MAYOR PELLEGRINO PlANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR PELLEGRINO MS. BEYER Consul tant Beland & Associates RICHARD HALTOM Councilman MS. BEYER 25: 0149 some more EIR reports, so when you do your redevelopment we will address EIR's to each specific development or is this to be the broad covering of it all? This is hopefully to cover it all - to cover the development of that area and the impacts resulting from that development, be it one way Republic or be it private sector. I just would like to remind you that there are specific laws designating what you can do and what you can't do; who can vote and who cannot vote. Mrs. Passmore, are you insinuating that we would do something that wouldn't do or ....... Not knowingly. I am just suggesting that there are already.. okay, I things that were left out that should have been in here, that should have been addressed by law and whether, I'm not stating that you knew that you did it or anything else, I am just bringing it to your attention so it can be taken care of. I'm sure that you are aware that the City has a staff that's aware that there is the right way and the wrong way to do things. I am also aware that cities do do things and get in trouble once in a while too. Not with the public that we have. Yes, with our public. That's why this decision right here before me was brought because the City had a different idea of what blight versus what the Supreme Court said what was blight. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to this amendment or this public hearing in the audi- ence? One th ing I in favor or volved in. issue. would like to submit - it is really not a question of being against, it is really a fact finding hearing that we are in- There are really no pros or cons on this on this particular Thank you. Ms. Beyer did you want to add something? I wanted to take the opportunity and I guess it has somewhat gone by but Mrs. Passmore referred to a part of the EIR which is on page 59 which is the list of organizations and persons consulted. I think it is important to understand this is intended to be the list of organizations and persons consulted during the preparation of the document itself, not those persons to whom the document was to be circulated. These were just people that we consulted for information on possible effects and about the project itself. We are having a little problem here in that some of us think that we have I a sewer situation and some of us don't but that is inconsequential. What is a consequence is the only place I can find that the EIR has addressed the sewage disposal is on page 43 and unless there is a lot more than I can see there they haven't addressed it to any degree that tells me anything. I mean they haven't told me that the sewers are or what their capacity is or that they will take a hotel or whatever we are going to throw up on Second Avenue or any of these other buildings; if they would take the sew- age from these buildings without causing a problem further down the line in the sewage system. What I'm saying is how can they make this evalua- tion when we are having our sewer study and the study has not come back? Understood. The specific kinds of questions you are asking or what happens to the particular sewers in the project area? I could refer you to Appen- -8- 10-21-80 MS. BEYER can't COUNCILMAN GILB r'm, PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN HALTOM DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS COUNC ILM>\N HALTOM CITY MANAGER I COUNC I4fAN GILB, DIRECTOR PUBL IC WORKS 25:0150 dix E which is a memorandum from your Public Works Director, pardon me, your Assistant City Engineer. The appendices are not numbered - it is Appendix E which is about two pages from the back. Existing sewer system will adequately service the proposed development. Granted, that we will know a great deal more when your sewer plan is completed but based on the findings of your City Engineer we felt we had sufficient information at this time to say that there is no identifiable significant impact right now. In other words, is that what you're saying that as of is no impact but depending upon what the building is. saying, Councilman Haltom. this minute there Is that what you're What we are saying is that we showed the project description including the numbers of square footages of the hotel and the office structures and what have you to the City Engineer and based on what he knew of the conditions with the sewers and what he knew of the existing loading of those sewers that he could not determine a significant impact from the proposed project. I think the bottom line on this is that based on the size of the sewers that are in that location, the existing and potential amount of sewage which would be generated by the maximum development could be accommodated in that size of sewer line. But you don't know how much sewage is passing through. I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm arguing no different with the EIR than I would with a housing development. What I'm saying is if you don't know how much sewage is going through the lines how can you make an evaluation? And, if you do know how much sewage is going through the lines then why are we paying for an evaluation? We ca n have our consultants analyze this project area in their computer modeling of our sewer system but based on our experience and the size of lines that are in the area and the grades that those lines were installed to, we feel that they are adequate for the proposed development. Now, more ana'lytical analysis through this computer model is being put together by our consultants. If there are any problems we're going to know of it early December when they complete this. Will we know before we have passed this EIR? Don't get me wrong I'm not against the study for the sewage thing, I think it's a great idea, I think we really need it. What I'm saying is - won't the information that we gain from that be pertinent to this and if it is pertinent can we have the information accelerated - 'in other words ask them to study this specific area and the laterals that encompass this area so that we can know because it could significantly cost us a lot of money if we find out after we de- velop the area that we have to change the sewage system in that area. I don't know how the sewage system is layed out. ........the engineering thing is the responsibility of the developer. I understand but I think what Councilman Haltom is saying is)the sewage lines over there are adequate to take it but where does it go from there and if it all meets together in South Arcadia ..... Our sewage goes into County trunk lines on Live Oak, then the County Sani- tation District handles it from that point on providing the treatment, wa- ter reclamation, what have you, but insofar as the environmental impact report if you approve the report you're not locked into it. If we find, based on the sewer deficiency in the Master Plan Study, there is a possi- ble problem there, then we will address it then and each developer is go- ing to be required to take whatever remedial action we deem is necessary so that we are not saddled with a serious problem. CITY MANAGER The same would hold true, Councilman Haltom, if we had a subdivision tract map come in and the lines that were adjacent to the tract were at capacity. -9- 10-21-80 CITY MANAGER con't COUNCILMAN HALTOM EDWARD PASSMORE 1109 Columbia Rd. COUNC ILMAN DRING PLANNING DIRECTOR 25:0151 It would be the responsibility of the developer to bring a parallel sewer to a point where adequate capacity downstream exists in a line where he can enter and that determination is made at the time you know the precise land use and the calculations are made and we're required to have approval of the Sanitation District and they approve the connections to the sewer and it would be brought out at that time as part of the overall development plan'. Thank you, that's what I wanted to know. My understanding is that this is the last chance to talk about any impact on the environment in this neighborhood and since that's it, I figured I better say something off my heart. The next 20th century is gone on the environment for this neighborhood. I think perhaps one of the ugliest things in town is the freeway where it is elevated and while riding along on the elevated portion freeway there are two things that have struck me as absolutely ugly and frightening and destroying the beauty of Arcadia. One is an absolutely beautiful building called Towne Center but it is ugly amongst our trees, all by itself standing up there. It is a shock. The other thing is what we have done to our mountain. We've just chewed it to pieces, destroyed the beautiful natural greenery shrubs up there we had at the top of the mountain and we are putting edifices up there. And my understanding is this undefined plan is going to put some more highrise up. When I get up on my roof to work on my antenna and I look at the trees and I look at the mountains it's beautiful to see all these trees and nothing sticking up above them. I think it's a dastardly thing to do to our town to stick anything up above the trees. You've got enough land over there; two stories that stay below the trees. plant trees and build below them. That's my very personal feeling about environmental impact physically. The second thing is I've heard years and years and years and I agree the City has very competent, highly professional staff. I do not know why we waste all our money hiring consultants to do all this stuff. I wish you would stop that and just do your own. I mean it's not going to be much different. Than you very much, I Maybe it's Tuesday and I'm tired but what is this EIR doing for us? I would guess we could have had one made up for a 15 story building or a bunch of them or whatever we want so we can get what we want - there is not a heck of a lot of argument there but what is it doing for us? We're going to turn around and need, I believe the term is, site specific environ- mental impact reports when we know what the heck we're doing and that's the problem. I still can't figure out what the heck we're doing and this testifies to it. What does this do for us? This is the wonderful world of State regulations now. The State says that you have to prepare an environmental impact report for any project and they use a broad definition of project, such as a general plan amend- ment, tex,t change, or any project which may have an impact on the environ- ment. Therefore we thought that this change in the area may have an im- pact, therefore we had to prepare this document. It's possible that the results of the environmental impact report could have shown that the sew- age capacities would be exceeded by this maximum development. That air pollution under some other circumstancesmay have been made intolerable f' , or example, if we were considering a plan, of some sort that was going to generate some sort of air pollutants. In our particular urban setting with this type of development it would be probably somewhat rare to find a project that would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. I -10- 10-21-80 PLANNING DIRECTOR con't MAYOR PELLEGRINO I PIANNlllG DIRECTOR COUNC Il~IAN GILB PLANNlllG DIRECTOR HEARING CLOSED FlllAL EIR TO BE PRE- PARED I HEARlllG Appeal (Baker) APPROVED f', \.10))' 25:0152 The net result of this was to go through this exercise to find out if there were any substantial environmental impacts. If there were to identify them so that when the Council goes through its subsequent hearings that those adverse impacts would be taken into consideration. You can approve and certify an environmental impact report that finds that the project will have a half dozen substantial adverse impacts. Then it becomes the burden of the Council to make sure that those impacts are mitigated and considered when it takes the next subsequent steps. This document is of itself re,ally." it's a reference document which is to be used by the Council as an aid in arriving at future land use and zoning decisions. Did that answer your question, Councilman Dring? What's our next step now? The next step would be for the staff and the consultants to prepare the final environmental impact report. Again, we would incorporate into that final impact report the items I think I indicated in the cover letter to the Council which is this draft, comments which we've received from the various agencies and stuff that have received this EIR" persons who have commented on the draft and our responses to significant environmental points which may be raised by the public here tonight, the Council, the Commission and any other agencies that have reviewed this. That final environmental impact report would be brought back to the Council I would hope at the next regular meeting. If not, then the following meeting and at that time the Council could certify that the environmental impact report has been prepared in accordance with the State Guidelines and then that document will then be this, say somewhat official document that will be used by the Council in again looking at future land use decisions in this area. So then, Mr. Mayor, there is no action to be taken by the Council at this time other than to direct the staff? I think just direct the staff to prepare the final environmental impact report." It was MOVED by Councilman Saelid, seconded by Councilman Gilb and carried on the following roll call vote that the public hearing be CLOSED. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None It was then MOVED by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Saelid that staff be directed to prepare the final environmental impact report pur- suant to State guidelines. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None Appeal of David W, and Janet V. Baker from the decision of the Planning Commission in its denial of an application to allow an easterly side yard of 9'6" and a westerly side yard of 5'0" in lieu of 10'0" required for a proposed second-story addition at 229 E. Floral Avenue. The Commission voted 4 to 1 with two members absent to deny the request. It was felt that there were other alternatives for adding on; that the preservation of the neighborhood's integrity was necessary and that privacy should be main- tained between properties. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Mr. Baker explained the entire situation - that his family is increasing and the house just is not large enough; he cannot afford to relocate and having lived in the City for some 21 years he does not desire to move out of the City. He explained in detail what is proposed - that they have been working on the design for quite some time. He has discussed this with all of his neighbors and sub- -11- 10-21-80 HEAR ING TRACT NO. , 40780 APPROVED~ ,'9' r \ '-0\' (,~ 25:0153 mitted a petition signed by the following four neighbors stating that they felt the addition would be an asset to the neighborhood. Jeannette Gordon Colleen A. McCrary Jane Asenc io Roberta J. Hunt 220 E. Laurel Avenue 224 E. Laurel Avenue 232 E. Laurel Avenue 230 E. Laurel Avenue In response to questions Mr. Baker said in part that there is a large oak tree in the front yard... and with the different roof design the problem will actually be alleviated. Some discussion held on the privacy aspect and Mr. Baker said it would not be a problem. Michael Pilcher, 322 E. Newman Avenue, expressed concern that a family such as the Bakers could be placed in a situation where they might have to leave the City because they have outgrown their home. He spoke in favor of the request. I Dona~Shelnutt, 225 E. Floral Avenue, said he had seen the design and that it was more appealing to him than others which have been approved. He felt there should not be a problem with maintaining privacy. Edward G. McLee, 233 E. Floral Avenue, spoke in favor of the request and that his property will not suffer any damage by the 9-1/2' instead of 10' for the sideyard ... that the addition will not be offensive and would be compatible with the neighborhood. No one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Saelid and carried unanimously. It was then MOVED by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Haltom and carried on roll call vote as follows that the appeal be granted; that this particular modification application be approved; that it not be considered by the property owners that similar modification requests will be approved; that in this particular application Council has found several factors - the narrow lot limits the design alternatives; that strict compliance with the Code would probably result in a less attractive front building elevation; that the addition has been designed in such a manner so as to be an inte- gral part of the overall design of the dwelling which makes the applica- tion unique and that approval of this application would prevent an un- reasonable hardship. Prior to the roll call vote Councilman Saelid commented that second story additions are particularly troublesome to him " that he fully endorses the concept of a greater setback for two story homes rather than just the 5' setback .. and that he thinks Council should review each and everyone of this type of application rather than it becoming a policy of the City that when there is a 50' lot there is automatic approval. Roll call vote was then taken on the motion. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None I Tentative map of proposed Tract No. 40780 - for a 13 lot subdivision at 616-634 Camino Real and 623-633 W. Norman Avenues. The staff report in- dicated that properties to the north, south, east and west are presently developed with single family dwellings and zoned R-l and that with the exception of one all lots meet requirements. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Gordon Maddock, 909 S. Santa Anita Avenue, said the developers are in agreement with the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission/that it is hoped to start con- struction as soon as possible -- within a 12 month period. Mr. Maddock answered questions as propounded by the Council. The applicant, Chris -12- 10-21-80 25:0154 'Bade, 2416 Florence Avenue, also said he understands and agrees to all the conditions. James Barrows, 611 W. Camino Real, said in part that ,the new development will improve the neighborhood and spoke in favor: Arthur Bucchieri, 1442 Melanie Lane, also spoke in favor. Lorena Aunger, 646 W. Camino Real, west of the subject property, said in part that when the development is completed herproperty will face four backyards ... and that her fence has been damaged and in parts knocked down by the work which has gone on thus far on the subject property. She would like it repaired or replaced. Following consider~tion of this the developer said he'would replace the wooden fence. I No one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Council~n Haltom and c~r~ied unanimous~y. It was further MOVED by Councilman Gilb, seconded by Councilman Haltom , ., .' . and carried on roll call vote that the Negat'ive -Declarat-ion be approved and filed; that Council finds the'project will not have a significant effect on the environment; that the tract is consistent with the General Plan and the waste discharge will not result in a violation of the exist- ing requirements and that the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve the subdivision agreement ... and that the tract be APPROVED. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None HEARING Tentative map of Tract No. 40892 propo~ing,a 6 unit residential condo- TRACT NO. minium at 25-31 East Colorado Boulevard. The staff report indicated, the 40892 subject site is designated as Multiple Family (R-3) and i's surround~d APPROVED by single-family dwellings, (R-l and R-3),'mixed residential us~s (R-3) C, <i')!lJ and a duplex (R-3). Planning Commission conditions of approval were set ?:::D forth in the report. " Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Bill Donahue"owner of, the property east of the subject property, stated'in part that he is in favor of the development and that it would be an' asset to the neighbor- hood. No one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION' by Councilman Dring, seconded by Councilman Saelid and carried unanimous" ly. It was further MOVED by Councilman Dring, 'seconded by Councilman Gilb and carried on roll call vote as follows that the project be APPROVED, subject to conditions; that the Negative Declaration be approved and filed; find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environ- ment; that the tract is consistent with the General Plan and that the waste discharge would not result in a violation of the existing requirements set forth in the Water Code and that the Director of Public Works be AUTHORIZED to approve the Subdivision agreement. IHEARING TRACT NO. 41006 APPROVED AYES NOES ABSENT : Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None ~" J I'l)r.Y --::) Tentative map of Tract No. 41006 proposing a 12 unit commercial condomin- ium at 805 W. Duarte Road. The staff report indicated it'is zoned C-2D and is surrounded by R-3' development, parking lot and vacant property zoned C-2, a retirement hotel and bank zoned C-2D. It has a General Plan desig- nation of commercial. Conditions of approval by the Commission'were also, set forth in the report. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and Tom Stewart of Lorne Phllips & Associates, representing the applicant, said they are in accord with all' the conditions and, that they expect to start construction in approximately six months. No one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on . -13- 10-21-80 HEARING Plumbing Code (Nov. 4) ~ ROLL CALL , ~I V, ZONE VARIANCE WORK ACCEPTANCE ,;?'--." \,,\Q\pq'~ 25:0155 on MOTION by Councilman Saelid, seconded by Councilman Dring and carried unanimously. It was further MOVED by Councilman Sae1id, seconded by Coun- cilman Gi1b and carried on roll call vote as follows that the tract be approved subject to conditions; that the Negative Declaration be approved and filed; and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; that the tract is consistent with the General Plan and that the waste discharge would not result in a violation of the ex- isting requirements set forth in the Water Code and that the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve the subdivision agreement. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Sae1id, Pellegrino None None The City Council scheduled this date for a public hearing for consideration I of the Uniform Plumbing Code (1979 Edition). Staff advised that in addi- tion to the requirements in the Uniform Plumbing Code certain local amend- ments are proposed. These were explained and it was noted that a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mayor Pellegrino declared the hearing open and no one desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilman Gi1b, seconded by Councilman Dring and carried unanimously. It was then MOVED by Councilman Dring, seconded by Councilman Haltom and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Negative Declaration be approved and filed and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and that the City Attorney prepare Ordinance (No. 1711) for introduction at the next regular meeting (November 4). AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Sae1id, Pellegrino None None The City Council then recessed in order to act as the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: ABSENT Members Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None Member Dring made reference to a request made some time ago concerning the Mayor's participation in Agency matters and the General Counsel said in part that historica11y,as far back as he could find, when an opinion is written it is sent to the Council Member of the Agency Member making the request... it is not disseminated to all members unless so requested. Member Dring will be supplied with a copy. Mayor Pellegrino said in part that he has checked with the General Counsel every time a redevelopment matter has to be acted upon and follows his direction. It was MOVED by Councilman Dring, seconded by Councilman Haltom and carried unanimously that the meeting adjourn to November 4. The Agency reconvened as the City Council. I CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED Planning Commission Res. 1149 granting a zone variance to con- struct a single family dwelling on a site with an existing single family dwelling at 637 W. Lemon Avenue. ACCEPTED work performed by Sully Miller Contracting Company in Phase III of the Baldwin Avenue street improvement - Job No. 479 and AUTHORIZED final payment pursuant to the terms of the contract. -14- 10-21-80 ,1\ ~ f ~ \ '1 WORK ACCEPTANCE I DIAL-A-RIDE AGREEMENT MODIFICATION (Nov. 4) ~ \' '. \tl:~' ORDINANCE NO. 1712 P DOl' ;'( Y I RESOLUTION NO. 4917 (November 4) 25:0156 ACCEPTED work performed by Sully Miller Contracting Company in the Annual Street Maintenance project - Gutter Construction, Job No. 500 and AUTHOR- IZED final payment pursuant to the terms of the contract. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GILB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DRING AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLGlS: AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None Staff advised that the agreement with the current Dial-A-Ride operator, San Gabriel Valley Cab Company, will expire on November 1, 1980 and a modification extending the agreement was recommended which would allow sufficient time for the implementation of service by the new operator, It is expected to present the new agreement with Community Transit Sys- tem to the City Council on November 4. It was MOVED by Councilman Saelid, seconded by Councilman Haltom and carried on roll call vote as follows that the modification be APPROVED and that the City Manager be AUTHORIZED to execute same in form approved by the City Attorney. AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None Councilman Dring commented that he had occasion to use the current ser- vice recently and that it was excellent and Councilman Gilb also commented that the way the current operator is continuing with the knowledge that someone else has received the contract is commendable. The City Attorney presented for the second time, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1712 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AMENDING ARTICLE IV, CHAPTER 2, PART 3 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO DIVISION 4 DECLARING THE COMMERCIAL EX- PLOITATION OF LEWD MOTION PICTURE FILMS AND LEWD PUBLICATIONS TO BE CON- TRARY TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE, AND A PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE: MAKING ALL LEWD MATTER AND PUBLICATIONS POSSESSED IN SUCH PLACES A PUBLIC NUISANCE PER SE: PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO ABATE THE SAME: AND PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF COSTS OF ABATEMENT." It was MOVED by Councilman Dring, seconded by Councilman Saelid and carried on roll call vote as follows that the further reading of the full text of Ordinance No. 1712 be waived and ADOPTED, AYES NOES ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None On recommendation and explanation by the City Attorney this resolution will be on the agenda for the next regular meeting. (This relates to the protest of Yellow Cab Company re the selection of a Dial-A-Ride op- era tor) . Council then adjourned and reconvened as the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. The General Counsel submitted and summarized the content of a proposed agreement between the Agency and Goldrich & Kest Associates concerning selection of sites for no more than 175 dwelling units for senior citizens and handicapped persons. (j ~J I~O( It was MOVED by Member Dring, seconded by Member Gilb and carried on roll call vote as follows that the Chairman and the Executive Director be AUTHORIZED to execute the agreement, AGREEMENT Goldrich & Kest Associ- ates) f'r AYES NOES ABSENT: Members Dring, Gilb, Haltom, Saelid, Pellegrino None None -15- 10-21-80 SAELID DRING ADJOURNMENT 25:0157 The Agency then adjourned and reconvened as the City Council. Was advised on the status of the signalization at Santa Anita and Foothill. Report to be submitted. He also asked for an executive session with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and the Finance Director. Asked for an executive session with the Council Members. The City Council reconvened at 11:15 p.m. and adjourned immediately there- after to 7 p.m. November 4. cClaLl,K94~ Mayor ATTEST: ~d.rL'J City Clerk -16- 10-21-80 " I I