The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJANUARY 7,1992_2 1 1 0/(0-) 0 ()!071 '1 34: 0005 <>< c..C CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Dec,17,199l) (APPROVED) ORD, & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Text Amend.91- 006, Amend. the AMC reo Horse Racing Live & Via Satellite One Night per Wk. and Daytime) (APPROVED) 05'60 . 6~- -r~ q/ ~oOb M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 7, 1992 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular meeting at 7:35 p. m., Tuesday, January 7. 1992 in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber, Rev, Gary K, Clark, Arcadia Christian Center Councilmember George Fasching PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb ABSENT: None On MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht and CARRIED, the minutes of the adjourned and regular meetings of December 17, 1991 were APPROVED, It was MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by Council- member Young 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, "pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9 (b ,1), Closed Session was held concerning various facts and circumstances in a situation that could involve exposure to litigation involving the City of Arcadia" , Consideration of Text Amendment 91-006, amending Section 9273,1.10 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to horse racing to include satellite feed during daytime hours with or without pari-mutual wagering, and to add a new Section 9273,1.10,1, to allow horse racing via satellite feed one night a week, no later than 11:30 p.m., with or without pari- mutual wagering, on the results thereof. Staff noted that although they do not expect any problems as a result of the evening use of the race track facilities, limiting the operation to one night a week will allow staff the opportunity to monitor the activity and its related traffic to be sure that there are no significant impacts. The Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc" are the applicants for this text amendment, Mayor Gilb declared the hearing OPEN. No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Mayor and CARRIED, CLOSED on MOTION Pro tem Harbicht 1 1/7/92 'r~ 2. PUBLIC HEARING 11.f 91-006 (Second Story Addition - 2050 Vis ta Av.) (APPEAL DENIED) fJSbO- :J.S HP 0/ JOe., 34:0006 It was then MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Fasching and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE Text Amendment 91-006; APPROVE and FILE the Negative Declaration and find that the Text Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb None None NOES: ABSENT: Consideration of MP 91-006, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Highland Home Owners' Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) approval of a 1,689 square foot second floor addition at 2050 Vista Avenue, On July 18, 1991, Robert and Jacqueline Cooley submitted a proposal to the Highland Homeowners' Association for a second-story addition to their existing house at 2050 Vista Avenue, After reducing the overall building height to 24 feet and minimizing windows along the north elevation, the Highland Homeowner's Association ARB approved the second-floor addition, On August 29, Norma Iovine and Gina chodos, the property owners at 2058 Vista Avenue, which is the property to the north, appealed the ARB's approval to the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission at its November 12 meeting voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the homeowners' association ',5 approval. On December 4, Mrs. Iovine and Gina Chodos again filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The hearing was scheduled for this date, The second-floor proposal contains approximately 1,689 square feet and complies with all City setback and height requirements, Because the issue has been raised by the appellants regarding view, it should be noted that nothing in the history of the Highland Homeowners' Association presents authority for any height limitation or view preservation considerations, The second story is permitted under Arcadia's Zoning Code, and there is no statutory authority for view preservation. According to staff, the City has already approved a second-story addition on this property, which could be built now as a matter of right. Accordingly, any current considerations relative to view are moot. Since this appeal involved an ARB decision, staff believes the City Council should make its decision on the basis of the criteria within Resolution 5289, which is included as part of the material submitted to Council with the January 7, 1992 staff report. The Council is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are architecturally compatible with other structures in the neighborhood, Approval or denial of the appeal are based on this criteria and supported with reasons that explain Council's decision, These reasons constitute the findings upon which the decision is rendered. 1 1 Mayor Gilb advised the audience that the City Council had been supplied with a packet which includes all the material, including minutes of the other public hearings and letters which have been received, and has had all of the materials for over a week and a half. Further, Council has taken all of that information into consideration prior to this meeting, Mayor Gilb then OPENED the public hearing and requested that all those in favor of the appeal come forward, A TRANSCRIPT (INSOFAR AS DECIPHERABLE) HAS BEEN PREPARED. IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL: Gina Chodos, co-owner of 2058 Vista Avenue 2 1/7/92 I 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING MP 91-008 (284 Arbolada Dr. ) (APPEAL DENIED) 05'f()-.:lr- 34:0007 Harold Ellis, 1504 South Eighth Avenue Richard Wilson, 2066 Vista Avenue OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL: Robert Cooley, property owner of 2050 Vista Avenue Jackie Coolev, property owner of 2050 Vista Avenue Tom Hammond, 2218 Canyon Road After hearing the testimony of those in favor of the appeal and those opposed, a MOTION was made by Councilmember Young, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht and CARRIED that the public hearing be CLOSED, After considerable comment by Council, which is fully included in the transcript of this public hearing, it was MOVED by Councimember Ciraulo, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, to OVERRULE the APPEAL and UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision; DIRECT staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating Council's decision and FINDINGS, including the findings that 35 to 45 percent of the homes in the subject area are two-story; that the materials being used in the construction of the proposed two-story addition at 2050 Vista Avenue are compatible with materials used in that neighborhood; and that the original design of the two-story addition has been modified in consultation with the Architectural Review Board in that area to be sensitive to the neighborhood, in terms of lowering the roof line and e11minating some of the windows and redesigning some of the other windows, AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb None None NOES: ABSENT: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of MP 91-008, Dr, & Mrs. Dale, property owners/appellants, In July the Planning Commission approved a Modification Request for property at 284 Arbolada Drive which included a total fence height of 4' -6" in lieu of 4' -0" for tubular steel fencing on top of brick stem walls along the east and west side property lines, A height of 5' -0" in lieu of 4' -0" for wrought iron fencing with brick pillars and brick capped stucco finished wing walls along the front property line, And a 9' trellis pergola on the front property line at the pedestrian walkway in lieu of a maximum fence height of 4' allowed, The applicants, Dr. and Mrs, Dale requested the modifications as part of an overall landscaping project, In September, the Planning Department received a call from a neighbor stating that the construction on the property did not appear to be consistent with the plans which were approved by the Planning Commission, Based upon a site inspection, staff determined that there were three inconsistencies. First, the front yard side property line walls and fences were a maximum height of 6' - 6" in lieu of 4' - 6" and they did vary in height, Electrical stubs had been installed at the top of the 5' pillars at the driveway rather than on the front and back sides of the pillars which had been designed initially and approved for carriage lamps, thus increas ing the overall height to 7'-10" which would include the installation of 2'- 10" lamps on top of the posts. Also, the architectural details of the pergola were significantly different from the plans approved by the ARB and as part of the original 3 1/7/92 IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL 34:0008 modification, On October 17 the Architectural Review Board denied the changes made during the construction. On October 22 the contractor for the Dales, Mark J. Novell, filed a modification appealing the ARB's denial and requesting that the project be approved as built. The Planning Commission, on November 12, denied the Dale's appeal and upheld the Architectural Review Board's denial of the changes made to the site. On December 5, Dr. and Mrs. Dale filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial and they will be designing the pergola to comply with the approved modifications and they are thus appealing the two items: the maximum wall height of 6'- 6" as built in lieu of 4' -6" as approved for the east and west side property line walls and an overall height of 7'-10" in lieu of 5' as approved for the installation of two 2'-lO" tall decorative lamps on top of the two brick pillars which are located at the driveway entry. 1 Mayor Gilb then OPENED the public hearing, Denise Smith. 39 East Union Street, Suite 2l0, Pasadena, project landscape architect, stated, in part, that she makes a habit of checking on her projects, and had no idea why the contractor built part of the project differently than the approved plans. However. she does not feel that the project as built is out of line with similar structures in the neighborhood, She listed several address at which she had noted pillars, light fixtures and fences of similar heights. The lights which had originally planned to be on the sides of the pillars were unavailable; therefore the lights on top of the pillars were substituted. The project is attractive and is a great improvement to the neighborhood. She felt that perhaps one disgruntled neighbor had undue influence on the decisions of the home owners' association, She is of the opinion that this appeal to approve these modifications is .not unusual or out of line considering other homes in the community and the fact that it has already been built. In reply to a question from Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, Ms, Smith said her design had indicated a stepped down wall to compensate for the slope of the lot so that the wall would be built to code. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht also noted that her statement indicated that the ARB was the entity that disapproved this project and he pointed out that the project had twice come before the Modification Committee, composed of professionals and citizens, and that this Committee had approved certain modifications to the original plans, Ms, Smith also noted that the Dales have been unable to make corrections on the wall and have made this appeal to the Council to leave the wall as built. Councilmember Fasching did not feel that personal politics between neighbors had been a factor in the decisions made regarding this project. This in response to comments by Ms. Smith. William Dale, 284 Arbolada Drive, stated, in part, that originally the lights had been designed to be on the side of 1 the pillars. Later his wife decided that it would be safer and more harmonious to the house to have the lights mounted on the top, They made a mistake because they were unaware that for that variance, they would have to go back to the Architectural Review Board; this was their mistake and they apologize to the ARB. However, they still feel that placing the lights on top of the pedestals makes more sense and will be compatible to the general architecture, With regard to the walls, they had hired what they considered to be a responsible landscape architect and contractor. Apparently the masonry contractor used a sight line when constructing the wall, rather than adhering to the approved plans. However, he feels that the wall is attractive. He agrees that the east wall is 6'-6" on his side; however it is only 4'-6" or 5' on the Lewis side. He is asking Council to forgive the mistakes of the past and accept apologies and grant the appeal. 4 1/7/92 1 I IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL 34:0009 Sharon Coverweld Wiley, 580 Emerson St., Upland, a professional interior designer, stated, in part, that she has worked primarily in the City of Arcadia. She had worked with Dr. and Mrs. Dale on the remodel of their home, both landscaping and the building for twelve years. The work has been costly and lengthy and has been undertaken with the utmost care, The result has been photographed and published in various trade magazines. The home and gardens have been the location for many social and civic functions. The home and gardens are beautiful and are an asset to Arcadia, Santa Anita Oaks and its immediate neighbors. Each phase of the project, and in defending their rights, have resulted in costly fights with the one neighbor to the west, who has threatened and harassed the Dales and the contractor and their employees. She reiterated the reasons for the change in the placement of the light fixtures. In reply to a question from Councilmember Young, staff responded that when a wall is built where there is a difference in grade, the measurement is made from the lowest existing grade. Bob Lincoln, 296 West Orange Grove Avenue, Chairman, Santa Anita Oaks ARB, stated, in part, that what should have been a very simple project has become time-consuming and expensive, not only for the City, but for everyone else involved, Apparently someone involved in the project either can not read a blueprint, or feels that City codes and building regulations were established for someone else, and that all one has to do to build whatever one wants is to go through a series of appeal and modification procedures, Modifying is what has been done with or without authorization since late 1990, He feels that the real tragedy is that during the digging of the foundation for these walls, two beautiful old oak trees along the property line suffered maj or root damage -- several roots in the 4" to 6" diameter range were severed with little or ,no regard to the trees" well being, These two irreplaceable trees may never recover, The local ARB Committee spent a lot of time and effort trying to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, and they desperately need the support of the City Council if they continue to make a difference. Mayor Gilb noted that Council had seen the pictures of the damaged trees at a prior hearing, R. McMullen, 285 Arbolada, stated, in part, that he lives directly across the street from the Dales. He will not repeat the comments in his letter to the Council. They would appreciate Council's careful consideration of the facts and instincts as to what has really occurred. William Lewis, 300 Arbolada, stated, in part, that he owns the property directly to the west of the Dales. There have been something like twenty erroneous facts presented to Council this evening. He will not comment on each one, He is present in opposition to any variance that allows the wall to be higher than the original 4'-6" which was approved, He is present in opposition to any height increase in the front pillars above the original 5' that was approved. With regard to the pillars at the next door neighbor's house to the east, they are not 7' in height, but 6' in height, and are built according to code. The code does not provide for lamps on top of those pillars; there are lamps on top of the pillars without a permit, He reiterated that the height of the wall on the west side of the Dale property is higher than the variance and the plans approved. He urges the Council to 5 1/7/92 34:0010 support the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board in their findings in this matter, No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED. Councilmember Fasching commented that he had been under the impression that the Dales were pleased with the original modification they received which overturned the original ruling of the ARB. The contractor has made some mistakes in developing this project, and as a licensed contractor he should be responsible. He thinks the project looks nice the way it is; it would also look nice if it were built the way it was originally approved. However, he cannot overrule the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission, Mayor Pro tern Harbicht commented that in this instance Council is an appeals board whose function is to hear appeals from decisions made by the ARB and/or the Planning Commission, and to consider all of the factors involved. Also, it has been suggested that government, the ARB and the neighbors have somehow been harassing the Dales. It is important to point out that all of the steps have been gone through for what was approved as well as what was done. Far from being harassed, the Dales have received modifications beyond what the Code allows, What is before Council this evening is what has been done beyond those modifications that were granted. This is a land use decision; the motivation of the neighbor is not relevant. The code allows 4' high fences in a front yard. The Modification Committee allowed a 4' -6" fence. The Modification Committee allowed 5' instead of 4' for the pillars; the ARB went along with those modifications and recommended that they be granted. But the 4'-6" fence is now a 6' fence; the 5' pillars are going up toward being 8' pillars with the lights, He can see no justification for deviating from what has already been granted. He will vote to deny the appeal, Councilmember Ciraulo stated, in part, that he feels the fence and the pillars are attractive. They are a nice addition to the neighborhood, architecturally harmonious, and compatible, He would like to believe that nothing was done out of spite, to go beyond what was approved, and this should be taken into consideration, He will vote to approve the modification request and sustain the appeal of the property owners. I Councilmember Young stated, in part, that she agrees with the rest of Council, also that she feels sorry for the Dales, because she believes this was the contractor's error. She will uphold the Planning Commission's decision, except she does feel that the larger lamps on top of the pillars will give a better balance, Mayor Gilb noted that the same thing had been denied on another property in the area, 1 Councilmember Young does not feel Council can set a precedent by approving something that was not built in accordance with the modifications granted, She will also uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, Mayor Gilb stated that he would have liked it if the contractor had been present tonight, since there are a number of questions he would have liked to have put to him, He can understand putting the lights on the top of the pillars, but in this instance, either the pillars will have to be shorter or the lights will have to be on the sides. It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission's denial of MP 91- 008 for the design of certain elements of the front yard 6 1/7/92 1 I 4. 5. 6. 6a. ROLL CALL 6b. MINUTE APPROVAL (Dec.17,199l) (APPROVED) 6c. ADJOURNMENT 7. 8. 8a. 8b. 8c. POLICE GARAGE STORAGE & TOW SERVICE (G & S Towing) 0'170 - '(.5,- 8d. 34:0011 landscaping project at 284 Arbolada Drive; (Dr, and Mrs, Dale, owners/appellants) and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb Councilmember Ciraulo None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Dr, Ranier Spanier, 2222 Cielo Place, stated, in part. that he is present to speak to the issue at 2226 Cielo Place. There is a wall between these two properties which is almost 7' in height. It had been approved for 6'. He notified the Planning Department, but has had no response, He would like to know why the stop work order was lifted, when the project is not proceeding according to approved plans. The City, Attorney said, according to his knowledge, the stop work order is in effect, and the property owner has been advised that he would have to comply with the code and perform the necessary alterations, Also, the front of the property next door is a mess, according to Dr. Spanier. The old fence fell down and parts of it have blown into his yard and swimming pool. Council requested that the Planning Director look into this matter and respond to Dr, Spanier's questions, CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb None ABSENT: On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Ciraulo and CARRIED, the minutes of the meeting of December 17, 1991 were APPROVED. The meeting ADJOURNED to 6:00 p,m" January 16, 1992, CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS Considered separately. (See page 8.) Considered separately, (See page 8.) APPROVED service contract for Official Police Garage Storage and Tow Service Agreement with G & S Towing and AUTHORIZED the Mayor to execute the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, This to be a five year contract, effective date January 8, 1992, Considered separately, (See page 9,) 7 1/7/92 Se. WORK ACCEPTED (Retrofit & Seismic Up- grading - Police Bldgs.- Job No. 520) 0730.~O Sf. SETTLEMENT RATIFICATION (Weimer) o :z.:t.O JrG 8a. EQUIP.PURCH. (Root Control Herbicide Foam Generating Unit - Public Works) (APPROVED) 03t!V . .,::,0 8b. EQUIP.PURCH. (Dodge Dynasty Sedan - Water Div.) (APPROVED) o 3 '10 - .3 0 34:0012 ACCEPTED proj ect and AUTHORIZED final payment to Hickman Mechanical, Inc. for the repair and retrofit of corbel supports of the Police Facilities Building and seismic upgrading of Locker Facilities Building - Job No, 520. Ten percent (10%) retention payment becomes due and payable 35 days after the recordation of Council acceptance and will only be released by the Director of Public Works on completion of all corrections of record. The final contract amount of $12,230 was funded from $55.000 available capital outlay fund. RATIFIED Workers Compensation settlement involving J. Weimer and AUTHORIZED payment in the amount of $20,000 in complete settlement after receipt of a complete compromise and release from Mr. Weimer, I THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS Sc, 8e, and 8f WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM HARBICHT AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Councilmembers Gilb None None Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and NOES: ABSENT: In reply to a question from Councilmember Fasching, staff responded that the City Sewer Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department has done this root control work using the herbicide foam in the past. Staff also agreed that the herbicide is highly toxic and that the Agricultural Department requires chemical applicators to be licensed. The City does have such a license as well as a Pest Control Advisor's license. Councilmember Fasching suggested that since these are toxic materials, perhaps it would be better to have outside contractors perform this work. Staff responded that proper precautions are taken. The unit to be acquired is an updated model of the one presently in use. It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to AWARD the contract for the purchase of one root control herbicide foam generating unit to Pacific Sewer Maintenance in the amount of $29,794,54 for the Public Works Department, Funds for the purchase of the root control herbicide foam generating unit were budgeted in the Sewer System Service Fund in the amount of $29,900,00, AYES: Councilmembers Gilb None None I Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Gilb inquired why this automobile could not be purchased from the Ford agency located in Arcadia, rather than from an agency in South Gate, It seems to him that cities should help their own local automobile dealers. In reply to Mayor Gilb's question regarding leasing, staff replied that cities do not lease automobiles, because unlike businesses, cities have no tax advantage in leasing. The City Attorney stated that the established purchasing ordinances require competitive bidding for anything of this amount of money. Some cities have provided a local preference type of requirement, but it has to be done by specific statute. Some of the ordinances have been contested. and their validity is somewhat in question, If the City wishes to proceed in that direction, the City Attorney would recommend a review of the law in that area as 8 1/7/92 I 1 8d. CONTRACT AWARD (Landscape Maintenance Contract - Real Green Gardening, Inc. - 3 Year Contract) (APPROVED) oq!(1- yO 9. 9a. NEW UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM (CONTINUED TO Jan.21,1992) 03'-/0 - 3 0 34: 0013 well as a review of other ordinances, and perhaps consideration of an ordinance to be adopted, Staff noted that the Dodge was selected as a matter of choice among Ford, Chevrolet and Dodge. If it decided to select a Ford, the purchase can still only be awarded to Foulger Ford if they are the low bidder. Mayor Pro tern Harbicht feels there is no advantage to leasing over purchasing an automobile. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Fasching to AWARD the contract for the purchase of one Dodge Dynasty sedan to Southgate Motors in the amount of $15,413,73 for the Water Division. Funds for the purchase of the Dodge Dynasty Sedan were budgeted in the Water Equipment Replacement Fund in the total amount of $18,925,00. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Mayor Gilb None Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and The Councilmembers agreed that it would be good if some special consideration could be given to the local automobile dealers in the future. Kave Fuentes, Purchasing Officer, stated, in part, that when bids specify Ford or comparable automobiles, Foulger Ford has not responded to requests for bids in the last two years. Councilmember Fasching inquired whether or not it is advisable to enter into a three year contract, rather than a one year contract for City landscape maintenance. Staff replied that the contract prices are firm and, if the City is not satisfiedt there are provisions in the contract whereby notice can be given, and if they don't comply with the notice, the City can either have someone else do the work or the payment can be withheld, Better consistency is obtained with a three year contract, rather than by going out to bid each year, It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to AUTHORIZE the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a three-year contract with Real Green Gardening, Inc, in the amount of $228,100,00 for the period 2/1/92 to 1/31/93; $234,960.00 for the period 2/1/93 to 1/31/94; and $244,380,00 for the period 2/1/94 to 1/31/95, in a form approved by the City Attorney, Mayor Pro tern Harbicht co~ented that another advantage to the three year contract is that it puts a 3% per year lid on price increases. AYES: Councilmembers Gilb None None Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and NOES: ABSENT: CITY MANAGER At its December 3, 1991 meeting, the City Council directed staff to review the City's existing water billing system to determine what would be required to incorporate carry-over credits into the mandatory water conservation program, Staff has reviewed the existing billing system and determined that the existing system is not capable of handling a carry,over credit program, The only way to implement carry-over credits would be to purchase a new billing system. Since a new billing system would be necessary, staff is recommending that a folded bill format be purchased, because the space on the 9 1/7/92 34:0014 existing post card water bill is inadequate to print a customer's carry-over credits. Further, staff has investigated the largest post card available which is one-half inch wider, not taller. Therefore, it would not be possible to print messages even on the largest post card, In addition to providing for carry-over credits, the new system would enhance the speed of processing water bills and, in addition, the savings in computer time would allow computer access for other City data processing needs. The initial cost for installing such a system would be $95,000. If return envelopes are to be included, the cost would be an additional $2,500, bringing the total to $97,500, The recurring annual cost would be $27,400, which includes return envelopes. Because of the estimated six to eight month lead time required to implement a new billing system, the Finance Department has commenced reviewing the proposals from firms who have the 'I expertise in water billing systems. Staff will report back to the City Council on recommendation for award of the contract to the successful firm once the evaluation has been completed. In reviewing how to handle excessive water users. who have received higher allotments, staff surveyed 20 other water agencies, none of which had a plan that would take care of this issue without creating other inequities, Staff will continue the survey of water agencies, and once all options have been evaluated, report back to the City Council on its findings. Councilmember Young noted that she has seen water bills which are not folded, but which are enclosed in an envelope, Mayor Pro tem Harbicht observed that Council is considering two different things here: 1) the software and programming to make a system that will be more efficient, and also be able to take care of a credit system if we should have to reinstitute rationing at a one-time cost of $43,000; 2) the delivery method with the use of envelopes will cost $52,000 in up-front costs and $25,000 a year in additional costs, He feels this is a great deal of money, Perhaps the information could be squeezed onto a card or smaller print could be used. Staff responded that the post card is not capable of handling any more information. Discussion ensued regarding the postage required for the post cards, as well as for envelopes, Suggestion was made that staff look into the question of obtaining larger post cards, even though the postage might be higher than it would be for the standard size. Councilmember Fasching felt Council should go ahead and start to implement this new system using money from the mandatory conservation penalties fund. Councilmember Fasching also feels that there are many, many advantages to an updated water billing system, one of which is that it will permit the City to convey messages to the residents from time to time. He thinks it is well worth the investment, Councilmember Ciraulo agreed. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht was not convinced that the use of the envelope is necessarily the best or only method to be employed, 1 MOTION NO. 1 It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo to APPROVE authorization to procure a new water billing system and, at the onset to eliminate the return envelopes; and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to advertise for bids on a stuffer/folder machine. MOTION NO. 2 It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht that the matter of a new water billing system be TABLED pending the investigation of the possibility of using larger postcards, with information as to additional postage costs, Staff is DIRECTED to bring a report to the January 21, 1992 Council meeting. This MOTION was seconded by Mayor Gilb. In reply to a question from Councilmember Fasching, the City Attorney noted that the MOTION to TABLE takes precedence. 10 1/7/92 I I ROLL CALL MOTION NO. 2 9b. DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBLE USE - CPD-l ZONE (Karaoke singing studio) (DENIED) () 5'?O - .;2.0 9c. ANNEXATION AND WATER SERVICE POKRAJAC MONROVIA PROPERTY (CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR WATER TANK ONLY) o no - :l.() 34:0015 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo. Harbicht, Young and Gilb Councilmember Fasching None A request has been received from Ronnie Lam, President of the Kam Sang Company, Inc. and property owner, Landmark Development, 411 East Huntington Drive, requesting that the City Council make a determination that a family oriented singing studio, sometimes commonly called a karaoke studio, is a compatible use in the CPD-l Zone, Staff does not believe that a singing studio is an appropriate use in this zone, However, if the Council wishes to permit this type of use, the Planning Department would recommend that it be permitted only wi th an approved Condi tional Use Permit. In response to questions from Council, staff explained the functions of a karaoke singing studio. Ronnie Lam, l265 Old Mill Road, San Marino, stated, in part, that if this is determined to be a permitted use, special soundproofing will be installed to ensure that close by businesses will not be disturbed. In response to questions, Mr, Lam explained the probable number of occupants and stated that refreshments would consist of tea, coffee and soft drinks. Considerable discussion ensued among Councilmembers with regard to descriptions of karaoke singing studios presently in operation in other parts of the City, and whether or not such a business would be an appropriate permitted use in the CPD-l zone. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DETERMINE that a singing studio as identified is not a compatible use in the CPD-l zone, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young Mayor Gilb None Council's consideration of this request from Nick Pokrajac for annexation water service was continued from the Council meeting of November 19, 1991, in order to allow Mr, Pokrajac's representative, Barbara Hall, to respond to some of the issues which were originally raised in the November 19. 1991 report, Ms. Hall's letter refers to terms and conditions in the agreement between Mr. Pokrajac and Mr. Bluth which are not applicable to the issues before Council. Staff's recommendation is that Mr. Pokrajac's property not be considered for annexation; or water service unless and until a specifically engineered proposal for water for domestic and fire protection is worked out by Mr. Pokrajac and Mr. Bluth which is acceptable to both the cities of Arcadia and Monrovia. Nick Pokra;ac, 845 Crescent Drive, Monrovia, stated, in part, that he WITHDRAWS his request for annexing into Arcadia until he and Mr, Bluth arrive at an agreement, With reference to the water storage tank, originally when the Bluth subdivision was approved, the tank was approved for Lot 14, with the understanding that if Mr. Bluth could locate it at a higher elevation on the Pokrajac property, it would be more desirable, Arcadia did not want the tank on Lot 14, nor did Pokrajac or Bluth, It now appears that there is agreement between pokrajac and Bluth with regard to the water storage tank. He has received a drawing from Bluth's engineer locating the water tower in the canyon at an elevation of 11 1/7/92 10. lOa. ORDINANCE NO. 1960 (ADOPTED) Ot;"~Q70 lOb. ORDINANCE NO. 1962 (INTRODUCED) ()<./!'oroo lOco RESOLUTION NO. 5640 (DENIED) (J~3C - 0.".- 34:0016 about 50 feet higher than Lot 14. It would serve Bluth and Pokrajac better. Mr. Pokrajac will donate or deed to the City of Arcadia 10,000 sq, ft, for that water storage tank, as well as giving an easement. He only asks in return that he be able to get water from the storage tank. In reply to a question from Mayor Gilb, Mr. Pokrajac said he has an agreement with Mr, Bluth to get water from the storage tank. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht feels that the most desirable place for the water tank is in the canyon. That location will provide increased flow. Conceptually, he has no problem with the water tank being there, which will not only serve the Bluth development, but also the Pokrajac property. He thinks that is a fair trade, There will be 10,000 sq. ft. of property for the easement across the Pokrajac property which will be necessary to get to water over to the Bluth property, Mayor '"I Pro tem Harbicht emphasized that he is talking concept at this time, The specifics will have to be carefully drawn out, engineered and written down and brought before Council for formal approval. Assuming, such agreement can be worked out and formally approved, he does not have any problem with it. The other Councilmembers agreed, CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney presented and read the title of Ordinance No, 1960: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE Z-9l-010, CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING OF R-l 7,500 TO R-l 10,000 FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA". It was MOVED by Mayor Pro Councilmember Young and CARRIED that Ordinance No. 1960 be and tem Harbicht, seconded by on roll call vote as follows it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Gilb None None Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and NOES: ABSENT: The City Attorney presented for introduction and read the title of Ordinance No, 1962: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A CHAPTER 7 TO ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE PRESERVATION OF OAK TREES", It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1962 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb None None ,I NOES: ABSENT: The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution No, 5640: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENTING A BILINGUAL PAY PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES". Mayor Pro tem Harbicht stated that he was not in favor of this Resolution, The City of Arcadia has a bilingual pay program for the Police Department which is a matter of safety. The City of Arcadia conducts business in English and it is not the obligation of the City to hire interpreters. Councilmembers agreed. 12 1/7/92 I I 10d. CLAIM OF K.FAGAN (DENIED) W10-YO 11. 12. ALFORD NOMINATIONS OPEN JAN.16 10 :sa . oU? ;j,f:, I ~ GILB (In Memory of Mark Shively) GILB (In Memory of Bernice Goddard) GILB (In Memory of Les Loechner) 34:0017 It was MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No, 5640 be and it is hereby DENIED. AYES: Councilmembers GUb None None Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and NOES: ABSENT: On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of K, Fagan was DENIED on MOTION by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb None None NOES: ABSENT: MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS The City Clerk announced that nominations for two Council seats and the office of the City Clerk will open at 8:00 a.m" Thursday, January 16,1992, and close at 5:00 p.m., Thursday, February 6, 1992. The election is April 14, 1992, "Mark Shively passed away on December 20, 1991 at the age of twenty-three, following a three year battle with cancer. He was a 1987 graduate of Arcadia High School where he starred as an offensive lineman on the Apache Football Team. He went on to be the only Freshman starter on the University of Arizona Rugby team, When his illness prevented him from playing the sport, he continued his involvement by coaching, He is survived by his parents, Mike and Priscilla Shively; his sister, Jennifer Shively; grandmothers, Lulu Mae Shively and Wilma Lundh, Services were held December 27, 1991 at Arcadia Presbyterian Church." "Bernice Goddard passed away on December 21, 1991 after a long illness, She was in the hospital for four and one-half years, Prior to her illness, Bernice has been active in many Masonic organizations, including Arcadia Order of the Eastern Star, Noblettes of the Arcadia Shrine Club, Arcadia High Twelve Club and Daughters of the Nile. Services were held on December 28, 1991 at the Arcadia Masonic Temple. She is survived by her husband, Herb, who she was married to for sixty-four years; two daughters; one son; ten grandchildren; and ten great grandchildren. " "Les Loechner, a fifty year resident of Arcadia, died on December 25, 1991 at the age of eighty-one. He is survived by his wife, Pat who is on our Senior Citizen Commission, He was instrumental in starting a Little League in Arcadia and managed the Police Baseball Team, the Arcadia Bullets, He was aU, S, Navy baseball player and earned the nickname, "Scoop" because of his expertise in picking up a ball. He was a real estate broker and managed the Bowling Square for ma~y years." 13 1/7/92 GILB (In Memory of Blanche B. Long) 13. ADJOURNMENT (Jan.16,1992 6:00 p.m.) ATTEST: J D. Alford, 34:0018 "Blanche B. Long. Bea Long was a long-d.me resident of Arcadia and passed away on December 19, 1991. She is survived by her husband, Roy; two children; one brother and one sister. Services were held on December 23, 1991 at Glasser-Miller-Lamb Chapel in Arcadia." "I would like to close the meeting in memory of these four people." At 10:37 p,m., the meeting ADJOURNED to 6:00 p, m., Thursday, January 16, 1992. at the Arcadia Library for a tour of the Library, and to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and any CLOSED SESSION necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation,of properties. ~ Charles E. Gilb, Mayor AD 14 1/7/92 I I T RAN S C RIP T I (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARING NO, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF MP 91-006, UPHOLDING THE HIGHLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A SECOND-FLOOR ADDITION AT 2050 VISTA AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 I I , TRANSCRIPT - ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 7, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 Arcadia Mayor Charles E, Gilb: The second item on the agenda is a public hearing, consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of MP 91-006, Ms, Butler, Staff, Donna Butler: Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. On July 18, 1991, Robert and Jacqueline Cooley submitted a proposal to the Highlands Homeowners Association for a l,689-square-foot second-story addition to their existing house at 2050 Vista Avenue, After reducing the overall building height to 24 feet and minimizing windows along the north elevation, the Highlands Homeowners Association's ARB approved the second-floor addition, On August 29, Norma Iovine and Gina Chodos, the property owners at 2058 Vista Avenue, which is the property to the north, appealed the ARB's approval to the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission at its November 12 meeting voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Homeowners Association's approval. On December 4, Ms, Iovine and Gina Chodos again filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, The hearing has been scheduled for tonight's meeting, The second-floor proposal contains approximately 1,689 square feet and complies with all City setback and height requirements. Because the issue has been raised by the appellants regarding view, it should be noted that nothing in the history of' the Highlands Homeowners Association presents authority for any height limitation or view preservation considerations. The second story is permitted under Arcadia's Zoning Code, and there is no statutory authority for view preservation. The City has already approved a second- story addition on this property, which could be built now as a matter of right, Accordingly, any current considerations relative to view are moot, Since this appeal involved an ARB decision, the City Council should make its decision on the basis of the criteria within Resolution 5289, which has been attached to the material, The Council is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are architecturally 1 compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. Approval or denial of the appeal should be based on this criteria and supported with reasons that explain the decision. These reasons will constitute the findings upon which this decision is rendered. This does conclude staff's report. unless you have any questions. Mayor Gilb: Any questions of Ms. Butler? Before I open the public hearing, I want to advise everyone in the audience that the Council has been supplied a packet on this item, It shows the beginning, from all the way to when it started back with all the meetings, all the testimony, plus all the letters that have been received; and the Council has had this packet for over a week and a half. So I would like to have you know that there's many things that you have written in the letter that we already have and have already read and taken into consideration prior to this public hearing. This is a public hearing; all those in favor of the appeal, please come forward. I would like to ask that you hold your remarks to five minutes, please, on each speaker. Gina Chodos: Mr, Mayor, my name is Gina Chodos. My mother and I are.... Mayor Gilb: Could you pull the microphone down just a little, please, and give us your name and your address for the record. Gina Chodos: My name is Gina Chodos. Mayor Gilb: Yes, Gina. Gina Chodos: My mother, Norma Iovine, and I are co-owners of the property at Avenue, the property immediately to the north of the Cooleys. 2058 Vista I am also 2 I , I , an attorney, I would just like to add, Mr, Mayor, that I had called Mrs. Alford, yesterday, and told her I had prepared a statement on behalf of both my mother and myself that was approximately II minutes, and she thought that you would have no objection to my giving that statement, Mayor Gilb: Well', I'm sorry, but.. .you've got an Il-minute statement? Gina Chodos: Well, I'll try to be as brief"" Mayor Gilb: You have sent us a couple of letters, is that the.." Gina Chodos: And I also have another letter to submit this evening, but I did want, ,., Mayor Gilb: We got a letter this evening, I think, Gina Chodos: Not from me, Mr, Mayor, Mayor Gilb: Well, we usually try to hold the minute total to five minutes, Let me ask you this, is there many more people going to speak on this item, that are going to repeat what you say? Gina Chodos: I don't know ,how many other people wish to speak, neighbors are present. I know some of our Mayor Gilb: Well, let's get started and see how we do. 3 Gina Chodos: In addition to the letters that you have on your record, I would also like to point out that your records should include the petition that we filed with regards to Mr, Cooley's first appeal. In addition, we have the photographs available that we'd like to show to the Council again to refresh your memory of the property, showing the relationship of the Iovine and Cooley homes, depicting the elevation, size, grade, and view from the Iovine home, Mayor Gilb: Do you have a copy of that for everyone on the Council, please? Gina Chodos: I have all of the photographs here.." Mayor Gilb: Just give those to the City Clerk and she can bring them up while you continue your statement. Gina Chodos: I believe that the petition is also in your record, but I have a copy available if you need to see it for anything. Mayor Gilb: We had that from the last hearing that we had, correct? Gina Chodos: I would like.. .yes, you do. Mayor Gilb: Thank you. Gina Chodos: r would like to stress three major points. First of all, the City Council is supposed to be a body that protects all of the citizens and is vested 4 I , I by law with the power to curtail developmental abuses, One property owner should nor be allowed to demolish the property value, use, and enjoyment of the owners of the property surrounding it. Over 400 voters in the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association signed our petition and believe that the City Council has the power and the duty to exercise the power to restrict and regulate second-story additions and improvements that will erode property values and negatively alter the character of the area, Those 400 residents represent an overwhelming majority of the people we were able to contact. Not only did the citizens of Arcadia expect and believe this power to exist, but the power to confirm by Resolution 5289" which empowers the Architectural Review Board to act in implementing real property regulations, I won't go into detail on what 5289 includes, because we did mention that in our August 28 letter and it need not be reiterated. Inexplicably, the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have behaved as if these powers are nonexistent and that they must approve any second-story addition, no matter how monstrous and how deleterious to the neighborhood, if it is within Code provisions. This behavior has resulted in a situation in which we may voice our concerns, but only with the knowledge and assurance that these governmental bodies claim to be powerless to act. Vesting discretion in these City agencies includes the power to approve, as well as to disapprove and deny, building applications. Otherwise, our opportunity to be heard in the decision-making process are a meaningless charade and constitute a denial of due process. In point of fact, the vesting of the power to make aesthetic decisions bestows the power to approve, as well as to disapprove, a project. The courts of California have repeatedly demonstrated willingness to elevate aesthetic considerations ,over subjective criteria. In short, a city like Arcadia, delegated the power to assess aesthetics, can deny an application to build, even where all code standards have been met. And I have two brief examples I would like to discuss. The first is Clark versus Rancho Santa Fe. In that case, a Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Association and Art Jury was empowered to exercise subjective, as well as objective, criteria. They were the equivalent of our Architectural Review Board. In that case the homeowner met all of the objective criteria set forth in the covenant, community plan , 5 and subdivision guidelines, and he was properly denied the permission to subdivide his land, As the court noted, as a matter of law the association had the power under the covenant to approve or disapprove applications on subjective criteria related to artistic, qualitative, or environmental merit, even if all objective covenant and regulatory standards had been met. Second example is Guinnane versus San Francisco City Planning Commission. In that case. the California Court of Appeal upheld the right of the Planning Commission to, deny a building permit to construct a 6,000- square-foot house with five bedrooms; five bathrooms, and areas for two parking. , ,for parking two cars, solely on aesthetic grounds. In that case, the property owner argued that since it was undisputed that he complied with the city's zoning laws and building codes, he was entitled to a building permit as a matter of right, The Court, specifically rejected that argument and labeled it unsound. The Planning Commission was authorized to protect the character and stability of residential areas, and it could exercise its discretion in deciding whether to approve an application, and could specifically consider the effect the proposed project had on surrounding properties. The Court found that the Planning Commission had sufficient grounds to deny the building application because the project as proposed was significantly more massive and of a larger scale than adjoining dwellings, and it would not contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood and would not constitute a beneficial development due to its massive scale and incompatibility with the character of the surrounding development. Just as in the Clark and Guinnane cases, Arcadia has aesthetic discretion to deny building permits, and this case represents exactly the situation where this discretion can and must be exercised. The Cooleys' proposed second-story addition is unharmonious and incompatible to the character of the area, will diminish property values and destroy the views and aesthetic features of the surrounding properties. Similar to the situation in Guinnane, the Cooley home, to our knowledge, at its current 4,000 square feet, without any expansion, is one of the largest, if not the largest homes on the street and already enjoys a magnificent view of the valley and the surrounding mountains. The proposed massive 6,800-square-foot home will be out of proportion to the other houses in the area which are primarily 2,200 to 3,000 square feet, 6 I , I The proposed addition is incompatible and unharmonious to the neighborhood as a whole, destroys the views, and consequently the property values, of all of the properties to the north of it, and constitutes a blight on the community in general as a monument to poor taste and an exhibition of selfish disregard for the welfare of all of their neighbors. The homes in the area, including the Gooley home, are predominantly ranch- style architecture, The only split-level and two-story houses within Arcadia Ci ty limits on Vista Avenue are located on land of such elevation and grade as to not interfere with the aesthetic enjoyment of any of the properties surrounding it. The original design and the placement of each home, unaltered for the last 30 years, reveals a development plan to minimize the interference with the view of each neighboring home. Thus each home, until now, has retained its maximum view, use. and property value. Just a few days ago, in the 1992 Rose Parade, Arcadia noticed the importance of promoting the environment, aesthetics, and property values. I'm sure I need not remind you that the theme of our Arcadia float was, "Discovery in our Own Back Yards" - -promote the environment, save a tree. This Council has the ability to make those sentiments a reality. You can promote and preserve the environment and the beauty of the area by stopping a project that will destroy the local environment by diminishing property values, destroying the neighbors' mountain and valley views, and irreparably altering the character of the neighborhood. There was no legal, logical, or just reason to favor and promote the rights of one homeowner at the expense of all other property owners in the area. The City Council has the duty and the power to deny permission to build this massive addition which is out of proportion and character to the other homes and which will diminish property values of all of the homes in the area; the properties to the north, because it destroys the view of the valley; and to all of , the properties because of its massive and disproportionate size. But a second reason exists for you to deny this application; and that is, the City has the discretion, power, and duty to stop one property owner from demolishing the value and enjoyment of all the properties around it, This discretion must particularly be exercised to control vindictive behavior, It shouldn't escape the City Council's notice that the Cooleys first requested and received permission to build a l,016-square-foot second- , 7 story addition last June, Less than two months later, the Cooleys applied for this, their second second-story application, which they represent as comprising 1.689 square feet, as Ms, Butler noted. In reality, by Mr, Cooley's own admission before his neighbors and the Architectural Review Board, the actual square footage is closer to 2,800 square feet, more than twice the area originally proposed. Mr. Cooley admitted that the addition would make his now approximately 4,000- square- foot home approximately 6,800 square feet. The only intervening factor in the two months between second- story applications was the fact that we had a survey conducted that substantiated the facr that the Cooleys had appropriated many feet of our land by placing a purported boundary line fence beyond their actual property line, Mr, and Mrs. Cooley are apparently using these second- story applications and this City Council to punish the owners of the 2058 Vista property for appealing against their first second-story proposal and for having a survey conducted. The Cooleys are thus attempting to escalate their destruction of the Iovine view and property value associated with it from the approximately 30 percent blockage in their first application to over 75 percent destruction in their second application. Curtailing this kind of vindictive conduct and abuse should be within the City's power and control. We should not be forced to burden the California courts to vindicate our rights, even though we are prepared to do so. We want to make it clear, we are not here to punish the Cooleys or to enlist the City of Arcadia to punish the Cooleys, or even to keep the Cooleys from getting the full use and enjoyment of their property. All we want is an arrangement where the improvements to their property do not needlessly destroy the value of our property or needlessly interfere with our ability to enjoy the view that we have long since had, even before the Cooleys moved in. So far, however, the Cooleys have had no reason to work anything out with us because, in effect. you have told them they can do anything they want and there is nothing their neighbors can do about it. If you were to exercise your governmental powers to encourage harmonious relations and preserve the character of the neighborhood, the Cooleys would have to talk to us and I believe we could work something out without a lawsuit The third point we wish to raise, and it's my final point, is that we are deeply concerned about the health and safety of our neighbors. In mv 8 I , I , August 28 letter, we pleaded that, should a Cooley plan be approved, the specific safeguards of the Building and Safety Department of Arcadia and the Air Quality Management District be enforced to protect the neighbors from asbestos contamination. The subject property is over 30 years old, and most construction materials in that time period contained asbestos, a known carcinogen, While Mr, Kasama of the City Planning Department has asserted that it's implied that these regulations will be followed, apparently no attempt to enforce or implement them has occurred. Mr. Cooley has already begun some work pursuant to a permit to extend a bed and bath. Despite the fact that some construction work has already commenced, Mr, Kasama confirmed to me on the telephone that no Arcadia Building and Safety inspector has been assigned to the project. Again, we request, if you have to let them build, please make sure that Mr, Cooley, a licensed contractor with the State of California, be required to adhere to AQMD notification, removal, cleanup, waste storage, and disposal requirements to protect his neighbors from harmful asbestos. We respectfully request the City Council to honor its mandate to protect all of the citizens of Arcadia and to deny the Cooleys' onerous second second- story application. And I do have copies of this statement that I would like to submit for each member of the Council, and I'm available to answer any questions, Mayor Gilb: Is there any questions, please? Arcadia Councilmember George Fasching: I have some questions, When this was originally approved by the Planning Commission on the original second-story addition, there was a period of time that no appeal to that approval showed up, nor did plans or building permits to go ahead with that. was it your intention at that time to appeal that original approval on the original second story and the location of where it was. Gina Chodos: Are you talking about the first appeal? 9 Councilmember Fasching: The original. Gina Chodos: In the original appeal, we never received notice that Mr, Cooley was even planning on building, Councilmember Fasching: Well, you knew it had been approved? Gina Chodos: No, not...we didn't, We never received any notice, What had happened was my mother ran into the Cooleys and they had said, "Well, you know, we're going to build this thing," And my mother ran down to the City of Arcadia and then found out that it had been approved, giving us, I think, just a few days, if not even less than that, to get our appeal in. And we got it in as promptly as we could. Councilmember Fasching: Would you have appealed that approval also? Gina Chodos: We did appeal that approval. We didn't get to appeal from the Architectural Review Board to the Planning Commission because we were unaware of it. As soon as we were aware of the Planning Commission's activities we appealed that decision to the City Council. And I'm sure you must remember my husband, the big fellow, presented our argument, Councilmember Fasching: What portion of your view do you feel that the original second-story took away as opposed to the second plans that we now have? Gina Chodos: When referring to the valley view, minimum of 30 percent of it away, the original, plan probably took a 10 I , I , Councilmember Fasching: Of the valley view, Gina Chodos: Of the valley view, Now you're talking about probably 100 percent destruction of the valley view, That'encompasses about 75 percent of our total view, So we're talking a massive destruction of the view, Councilmember Fasching: Could you tell me if the porch that you have that has the valley view-- and then, of course, the rear portion that has the canyon view--was that built originally with the house or was that put on at a later time, the incorporation of that porch and patio furniture and everything? Gina Chodos: To my knowledge, it was ,built with the original house. My mother acquired the house in 1967, and I can tell you with assurance that it was there then. Councilmember Fasching: O.K" thank you. Mayor Gilb: Any other questions? Thank you very much. speak in favor of the appeal, please come Anyone else forward. who would like to Harold Ellis: Harold Ellis, 1504 South Eighth Avenue, Arcadia. I'm passing around a couple of letters which I received after 1 sent my original letter to you, and also a map. I took a map of the area and started adding on all the signers of the petition; however, I ran out of time, And every signer is represented by a black dot on their property. I only had time to get on 220 of the 400-and-some signers, So when you look at the map, in your mind add on another 180 black dots and you'll be up to where you ought to be And you'll see that the opinion in the area is very, very consistent with 11 the viewpoint that view should be preserved, and that it is a very important feature of the neighborhood. Now. the resolution which controls the review of the Architectural Review Board is Resolution 5289; and I take exception to the statement that there is nothing, no legislation, that requires the preservation of view. Because in my opinion and my interpretation of the wording of the resolution, although it does not say "view" specifically, it does not say a lot of things specifically, But it says that no project can be approved that causes damage to the surrounding properties, It doesn't specify what damage. Now, ruling of the ARB saying that the project was harmonious with the area is inconsistent with the facts, because by their own admission it's going to I interrupt the view. So what they're saying, in effect, that view has no value. Now, everybody who has been around the world very long clearly understands that view has a very definite monetary value, and I've heard something like 15 percent of the property value is what is used by the real estate people. I don't know how true that is, but it certainly seems like a reasonable amount. The actual loss of view is not at issue, What is at issue is whether view has value, and if the view has value and these people are going to lose it, whether this is precluded by the resolution. Now, the resolution calls for many, many different things, as I noted in my letter; and the loss of view, or the approval of this project, which is going to take view away, is clearly inconsistent with the objectives and purposes and requirements of the resolution. Therefore, the Architectural Review Board has operated in excess of their jurisdictcon, They have no authority to approve any project which will, in fact, damage the neighborhood. Now, I have been.. ,I heard it said that. at the ARB hearing, that the ARB had no alternative but to approve the project. In checking further, I found this is based on--and if I'm incorrect, ~r Miller can correct me on it--but my understanding is that the ARB members, five of them, had a meeting with Mr. Miller which lasted approximately two hours. And this was not on this particular property, but a similar property. Is that correct, Mr. Miller? Arcadia City Attorney, Michael Miller: I don't recall any meeting. Vaguely: I remember a meeting many. many years 12 , I , ago with some ARB with regard to their jurisdiction. and they might have discussed views. But I have no recollection of any meeting specifically with regard to this application, I can assure you. there was no meeting, Harold Ellis: I'm aware that there was no meeting as far as with this,:, City Attorney Miller: In the nine years I've been here, if you ask me if I've met with an ARB for advisory purposes, I would have to say yes, but I don't have any specific recollection. Harold Ellis: O.K, You don't have any recollection, O.K. Well, my understanding and the understanding as I understand it from the ARB that they were precluded from denying a permit for a second-story addition based upon the interruption of view. That was their interpretation in this meeting, So, therefore, they have concluded, at least as far as I can determine, that they have no option but to approve these, Now, if they have been advised that they can't disapprove these projects, it certainly seems to me that's an interference with their independent judgment on these. projects, Mayor Gilb: Mr, Ellis, isn't this kind of a hearsay thing., ,if they did this? The Citv Attorney has said he never met with them on this matter, and you say, , , Harold Ellis: Well.. . Mayor Gilb: Just a minute. Harold Ellis: O.K. 13 Mayor Gilb: You said you met with five of them." the five people who are on this particular one? Harold Ellis: 1 did not meet with them, I understand, from talking to one of them, that they met with Mr. Miller. and Mr. Miller told them they could not disapprove second-story additions",. Mayor Gilb: One of the Architectural Review Board from this area? I Harold Ellis: That is correct. Mayor Gilb: O,K. Harold Ellis: So, if this is the case, then they have a limitation on the exercise of their jurisdic, ..or their independent judgment as far as these projects go and how they relate to the resolution. However, the resolution clearly, in my opinion, precludes authorization of a second story where it's going to interrupt the view and devalue the adj acent properties, The ARB's findings on this project are clearly legally insufficient because they do not meet the requirements, specifically, of Topanga Association versus a Scenic Community for County of Los Angeles. Findings are very, very important. They serve the function of making sure that decisions that are made by such boards are consistent with the evidence and that their decision is then based upon their findings, so that there is continuity to the decision. As the court puts it, they don't randomly leap from evidence to a conclusion. Findings don't even meet their own requirements, much less the court's requirements. Likewise, when this matter was reviewed by the Planning Commission, their findings are legally insufficient also, And we're in kind of an unfortunate situation, here, 14 , I , because if this matter does go to court, nobody is going to know on what basis it was approved or anything about it because the findings don't tell us anything. And this is one of the items on which the courts review, That letter I gave you, the sentence I underlined there, that is something which.. ,the present atmosphere in our area is that which attracted us here in the first place, That's a constant comment I hear from virtually everybody when we talk about development and 'their objection to it, People bought in this area because it was very carefully designed to provide view lots. It's remained that way for many. many years. and now here comes an individual who wants to disturb that basic nature of the neighborhood, And as far as I am concerned, the wording of Resolution 5289 precludes that. And the ARB should have turned it down, and the Planning Commission should have held the appeal on that basis, And now you people are going to have your opportunity to review that, Clearly, view has a value, I don't think anybody would argue with that point. And, clearly, these people are going to lose it. So I clearly think that that mandates that this Council uphold the appeal and turn down the proposed second story. And as far as it was also stated that even if this is turned down the applicant still has a right to proceed with the other project. However, it is my opinion that they have abandoned the original project in lieu of the new proj ect, and therefore they will have to go back and have it reapproved. And I guess that sums up my discussion, Mayor Gilb: May I ask you a question? Harold Ellis: Yes. sir. Mayor Gilb: In my humble opinion, I don't think there's a second story that's been put on a house next to another house that hasn't infringed in some way upon the view. That being true, we would never have a second story put on a house in any town. In some way, a second story infringes on the view of any house that it's next door to. My own particular case" ,they put one 15 in and can see down in our backyard. but it also blocks the view of whether I could see. , ,how far I could see. And every second story of every house that's ever been put in in the whole United States, in my opinion, in some way infringed upon the view of the person next door. Would you agree with that? Harold Ellis: I agree with that 100 percent. However, there is a difference between my house, which...I suffered the same consequence. My property is 440 feet deep, yet the houses behind me have totally blocked my view of Mount Baldy, which I really used to enjoy during the winter when it was snowcapped, I However, my area and your area were not specifically designed to provide view lots, O.K.? A substantial portion of my property value is not based upon the fact that I have a good view, where in these particular lots, it is. Different situation., These lots were designed to provide view, and the view is being taken away. So we're radically altering the. ... Mayor Gilb: So you live completely down in the south part of town. Harold Ellis: Just above Camino Real, down on the flatlands. Mayor Gilb: Then you're just being the champion of this thing, is that what we're talking about here? Harold Ellis: Well, as you know, I have always opposed development that infringes upon people's rights, whether it be invading the privacy of their backyard or invading the view. this one happens to be of particular interest to me because the area was designed for a specific purpose and now we're going to radically change it, 16 , I , Mayor Gilb: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Ellis, Mrs. Young? Arcadia Councilmember Mary Young: I have a question of Mr, Ellis, Taking this particular case, would you say that the appellant's house blocked the view of the Cooley house towards the mountains? Harold Ellis: You mean, would the Cooley house block the view of the appellant's house..,I mean, block the view of the applicant's house? Councilmember Young: No. Would the appellant's house block the view of the Cooley house? Harold Ellis: I'm sure it does. Councilmember Young: All right, what's the difference? Harold Ellis: The difference is that the view wasn't designed in the area to go towards the north, towards the mountains. The view in the area was designed to go towards the south. And every house is constructed and put on a graded lot so that from every lot you have a view to the south. From every lot you do not have a view to the north. So the northerly view is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the southerly view, towards the valley. Councilmember Young: I don't want to argue a point, but it seems to me that it's a two-way street. l7 Harold Ellis: It's not a two-way street because the appellant's house was there when the Cooleys bought their property, O.K,? And they saw the house was there, they knew the view to the north was not there. They did not purchase the property with the expectation of having a view to the north. They bought the property with the expectation of having a view to the south. Mayor Gilb: Well, you don't really know that. How do you know that, are you a psychic? How do you know that? I mean, you weren't there when it was.. ,how do you know that? Did you just figure that? Harold Ellis: Obviously, they did not expect a view to the north. '.. Mayor Gilb: Well, you lost your view of the mountains, and you thought that was \ important. Harold Ellis: Certainly it's important, Mayor Gilb: Well, they'll lose their view of the mountains. Harold Ellis: They're not going to lose their view of the mountains, they're going to lose their view of the valley, Mayor Gilb: I'm talking Mr, Ellis. about the other, that Mary was...well, anyway. Thank you. Is that all, Harold Ellis: O.K., that's fine. Any other questions? 18 I , I , Mayor Gilb: Thank you. Anyone else Thank you. Anyone else who that's going to Yes, sir. would like to talk in favor of this appeal? speak, would you please come down in front. Mr, Wilson: My name is Wilson. I live at 2066 Vista, house.. .the Cooley house. We're two doors from the Mayor Gilb: Yeah, O.K. Mr. Wilson: The issue seems to me to be, does the Homeowner Association, does the Planning Commission, does che City Council have authoricy to prohibit a two-story house, When the Homeowner Association came up and we had a meeting and they talked to everybody to show what was happening, they said they had no'power, that the City Attorney had told them they could not say anything against a two-story house, We could talk about architecture, we could talk about setback, we could talk about anything, but two story was noC to be discussed because there was no way anybody had the power to decline a two-story addition. It seems to me thac.. . this is curious" ,I am confident there are communities that have ordinances that not only limit two stories, but, they limit putting trees in the way of people's views, Now if the issue--and the only thing that occurs to me is, why we keep hearing this, well, we have no authority to decline it--if che issue is there is no ordinance in place and you do have the power, I'd recommend you put in a moratorium and you get an ordinance in place that takes care of this issue. Mayor GUb: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Wait a minute, Mr. Wilson. 19 City Attorney Miller: Let me just make a brief response for the record. First of all. I cannot characterize or do not know what any ARIl members may have said or how they said it, But I can tell you that the general advice over the years has been the same, and that is, in Arcadia a second story is permitted. However, if the ARB determines that the second story lends itself to incompatibility of a neighborhood, or is too massive, or is not designed properly or with the improper materials, then they can still go ahead and deny the house based on the second story. But it has to be based on the criteria that are spelled out in the ordinance. I have never made the statement or rendered the legal opinion that you cannot approve something or deny something because of a second story. I Mr. Wilson: That needs to be communicated", City Attorney Miller: Well, that's been communicated..,. Mr, Wilson: . , . to the Homeowners Associations because he very specifically- -there were a number of us there- -he very specifically started off by saying, "We can talk about anything except a second story,~ and that the City Attorney had told them they had no rights to make any comment about adding a second story, City Attorney Miller: Let me add that the Resolution 5289 which governs the Highland Oaks is a resolution that can be changed upon recommendation of the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association, subject to review and approval by the City Council, And the only opinion that was ever rendered that dealt with second stories is that the issue of views, and view preservation, is not a part of that resolution, it's not a part of any statute in the City. And if the Association has a great interest in views, you can look at your O'offi resolution and recommend changes to it. If the people in the Association 20 , I vote to do that and set up criteria, that's up to the Association. The Council will then have final say over it, whether they want to approve that. Mr. Wilson: Well, they'd be happy to pursue that, I think, because they all commented that they personally disliked having to ignore that issue. But this is a significant thing in this particular area. City Attorney Miller: For purposes of this appeal, however, the issue of views is not pertinent because views cannot be preserved, at this point, based on the adjudicative power of this body with regard to that resolution. Mr. Wilson: Well, that answers my question. We're wasting our time with this You're saying you don't have the power. appeal, is that what you're saying? City Attorney Miller: You can conclude whatever you want, I stated that views and preservation of views is not spelled out in Resolution 5289. The Council can still determine, if they want to, if they find evidence, that this second-story of this house is not compatible with the neighborhood. That's still an issue before this body. " Mayor Gilb: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the appeal? Anyone who would like to speak against the appeal? Would you please come down in front, Please give us your name and your address, please. Robert Cooley: Robert Cooley, 2050 Vista Avenue, Arcadia. 21 Jackie Cooley: Jackie Cooley, 2050 Vista, Arcadia, City Councilmembers, staff, and concerned citizens of Arcadia. We are here tonight asking the Arcadia City Council for the permission to construct a second-story across our existing home. For some background information, we started our project for a second story a year ago, The main purpose of the addition was to add additional living space, which would include a bedroom-bathroom area so my 84-year- old father, who is required to have medical treatments three times weekly, could come and live with us. I would at this time like to address a few issues that have been voiced. First. in reference to the loss of view, The front of our proposed second-story addition would be constructed approximately 23 feet behind the structure at 2058 Vista. This means the proposed second story would not begin until the middle of 2058's backyard, Th~ sideyard setback is 18 feet, that which the City requires. The appellants stated that we are taking 75 percent of their valley view, but anyone knows that we would have to be building directly to the south of them, which would be directly over our garage, to eliminate the view to that percentage. As proposed second story will curtail a porrion of 2058' s valley views, these pictures, which had been taken on top of our garage, to which our northern neighbor's home is located directly behind, shows that they still possess a panoramic view of the valley and mountains from their home. On our street of 26 homes. there is a total of 10 two-story or split-level houses, The home at 2058, immediately north, and 2042, immediately south, fall into this two-story; split-level category. We are asking for no more than what they have. As the Planning Commission pointed out at the public hearing on November 12 of last year, the proposed second story is harmonious with the neighborhood. In reference to the size of our home, other houses on the street range in size from 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Because of the design of our second story and the fact that a large portion of our home is not visible from the street, the additional square footage will not make our home stand out as a monstrous house. At the Highland Homeowners Association, also known as the ARB meeting, on July 18 of last year, questions were raised by those in attendance about the addition. Each question was addressed by the ARB with modifications being made until all parties seemed satisfied. For 22 I I I I instance, the privacy of the property at 2058 Vista was questioned. All windows were removed except for one small one for ventilation. taking away the view of the mountains from us, The overall height of the addition was questioned. It was lowered two and a half feet. Someone was unhappy about the windows in the front of the house. They were removed and smaller ones were substituted, Everything that was asked of us we complied to, We feel we have been very patient and we have tried to work with all concerned. We would like to note that we have obtained the signatures of approval for the proposed second-story addition from the homeowners immediately to our south at 2042 Vista Avenue, Mr. Ray Bell, and the homeowners directly across the street at 2051, which is most visibly affected, Mr, Russell Summers. These signatures were signed directly on the blueprints of the proposed addition, They feel the second story will enhance our property and the value of their homes. The appellants in this appeal to you have called us vindictive. Even though my husband and I do not feel this is an issue, we would like all concerned to know that we do not have that kind of money to burn by changing the design of the second- story addition. Also. the fence down a hillside, which they mentioned in their appeal to you, was erected over seven years ago, long before these hearings began. Lastly, the appellants have indicated that a structure blocking a part of their view will reduce the monetary' value of their property. So I ask you, the City Council, as you can see by the photos shown of their valley view, do they exempt trees, or is that to be your next issue. Thank you. Mayor GUb: May I ask a question, please? I understand that when the first approval came in on your first addition, that it was going to be toward the back of the property, and the new one moves it forward, is that correct? Jackie Cooley: That is correct. Mayor Gilb: Does that change their view any? 23 Jackie Cooley: The back one would have taken away just a.., it probably would have put, , . they're between, basically, Bluth Hill and their. , . we're in between, That's where the second story would have been. So it would have been cutting off just a different part of the valley view. By moving it forward, we took out the center more. So they still have a view behind us, and they'll have a view directly over the garage. Mayor Gilb: O,K. Thank you. Robert Cooley: I'd like to make one comment in clearing up the square footage. Currently, we have 3,489 square foot, plus a 1,600-square-foot addition. Because there's been, you know, some comments about a gigantic house. Mayor Gilb: This new addition is 1,600 square feet? Robert Cooley: , Roughly, Mayor Gilb: I thought Mrs", ,what's-her-name" ,said it was 2,800, addition. Where'd that come from? Anyway" .so it's going to be a total of 5,080, roughly, square feet. Robert Cooley: 5,089 square foot. Mayor Gilb: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. or Mrs. Cooley, please? Thank you, Anyone else who is in against this appeal, please come forward. Please state your name and address. 24 I I I I Tom Hammond: I'm Tom Hammond. I live at 2218 Canyon Road, Arcadia. The appellants had, in circulating their petition, came by my house several months ago, and without being completely forthright, saying :hat they were pushing through this petition because of a direct influence on their own home. They presented the petition, and it looked kind of like a mother earth statement that said something to the effect that one thing to be considered when approving a addition is the view. I signed the petition; I think most anybody would. It was, like I said. kind of a mother earth petition that said one thing that should be considered is view, and I think it is one thing that should be considered, and I think... I a member of the Homeowners Association and I am very pleased to be a member and I'm glad we have one, I think they're fair. . ,they. . . not everybody agrees with their decisions. . ,I really think they're a conscientious group. They make a big effort to be \ fair. They ask people to make changes and modifications, they don't just rubbers tamp people, And I would hate to see the precedent of this Council overruling them and taking their authority away from them. I think you'd just open up the floodgates and we would lose all credibility in the homeowners associations. So I would hope for you not to do the appeal on that also. And like the Mayor said, which I like to agree with. every second story affects somebody, Someone is not going to like it, and someone is going to be ticked off, and there's going to be emotion, And I'd hate 1:0 see the Homeowners Association, who is an independent, objective organization, be overinfluenced by a neighbor, whether it is a vindictive neighbor or whether someone who really has a legitimate complaint, which some of them are and some of them aren't. But a lot of times we don't get along with our neighbors all the time. And I'd hate to see that a neighbor would have the aUl:hority to stop someone' 5 construction because they could throw up something like it's blocking the i r view. Again, I'm not against having the Board look at view when they're looking at things, but that alone should not make the decision. Thank you Mayor Gilb: You know, I might make one other comment, too, and I was thinking about what Mr. Wilson was saying when he was up here. You know, a lot of people 25 buy those homes. and kno...ing that they're going to have families and they're going to have to have more room. and they bought them because they figured later on they'd put an addition on ...hen they could afford a second story. So that's another problem that you have in blocking all second stories in any area. you kno.... because a lot of people are counting on putting a new addition to their home on the second story for expansion of families and everything else, Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak against this appeal, please. If not. the Chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing, Councilmember Young: Mr. Mayor. I so move. I Arcadia Councilmember Robert Harbicht: Second. Mayor Gilb: Motion made by Mrs. Young. seconded by Mr. Harbicht, to close the public hearing. Is there any objection? So ordered. O.K. Who would like to start on this. Mr, Harbicht? Councilmember Harbicht: Mr. Mayor, ...e've got a great deal of material on this particular issue, we've had a great deal of testimony, I've read it all carefully. as I'm sure the rest of the Council has, and listened carefully. And I think that this is one of these situations where the City Council is put in the position of having to try to balance various rights and various concerns, Certainly, people are entitled to the use and enjoyment of their property, and we have very extensive zoning la...s to guarantee that use and enjoyment and we also have, in some areas of the City, Architectural Review Boards as part of the Homeowners Associations to further guarantee that. I think that the question of, "Does a view have value?" Of course it has value, Open space has value. There are lots of things that have value to homeowners, to property owners, The big problem I have with the arguments in favor of this appeal is that if there ...ere nO house on a lot and the 26 I I , ./ ~ Reople next door had a single-story house, and I bought that lot and went in to build a single-story house, you could use every one of those arguments to stop me from building a house at all. Certainly, I would take away the view of the single-story house next door with my single-story house. I don't think that's right. I don't think that your use and enjoyment of your property should totally preclude my use and enjoyment of my property, or your neighbor's use and enjoyment of his property. We have a case here where we have someone with a two-story home who is appealing the right of their next-door neighbor to build a two-story home, Somehow, that just doesn't sound right to me. The rights to a view, I don't think, are exclusive of all other rights of everybody else. I think the person has a right. Our zoning ordinance in the City of Arcadia is clear; and the zoning ordinance is not only a restriction on what you can do on your property, but it's a guarantee of what you can do on your property. And zoning rights, the zone in Arcadia, is that you can build a two-story house. Every piece of property in Arcadia has the right to build a two-story house. And, so, that is a significant right, a right of significant value. We have to balance that against the claimed right to a view. And I guess I echo what the Mayor said, that every two-story house that's built has an effect on somebody's view. And so 1 am going to vote to deny the appeal. Mayor Gilb: Mrs. Young. Councilmember Young: I agree with everything that Mr. Harbicht said about view, but I would also like to say that the second plan that came in, I much approved over the first plan. It meets all the setback requirements. It has cut down the windows on the north side of the house to an absolute minimum, which I feel is almoat too bad. It is harmonious and compatible with most of the neighborhood, and it is in a good relationship with all the other structures, because the Cooley lot is step-down a good six feet from the lot next door, so that somewhat mitigates any second-story height, and it creates a very nice balance. So I intend to vote against the appeal, 27 Arcadia Councilmember Joseph Ciraulo: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Gilb: Mr. Ciraulo, Councilmember Ciraulo: Yes, I'd like to say that I believe that the Cooleys have taken into consideration the possible view, and they've redesigned the house. It's far better than the original proposed plan was. I think it's much more in proportion in keeping with the neighborhood. And I think it's an I appropriate improvement for that house and for that neighborhood, They've -- lowered the height of the new development, and I think they've done everything they possibly can and still get a second story, So I intend to. . . I plan to vote to overrule the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Gilb: Thank you. Mr. Fasching? Councilmember Fasching: That doesn't leave a lot to add after I've heard everything I wanted to say at the beginning, but.. ,I think the last gentleman at the mike, there.. . the whole thing we're concerned here with is view. I think the architecture of the house, as opposed to some two-story houses that we have had built and are still presently under construction in the City, is really an asset to the neighborhood as far as architectural design is concerned, And, so, I think the house fits the neighborhood and will be a good addition to the neighborhood. I'm kind of surprised, here, after hearing the appellant's figures of the square footage, the figures don't agree We're only up to 1,600 square feet on the second-floor addition. And also, I can see that they do have views left from the front and the rear portion of the house; from the front of the house of the valley view, and some valley view and the canyon view from the rear of the house. If we were to, at this hearing, get involved with views and everything, we would be 28 I I doing a disservice to all the people that have complained on views and second-story additions that have taken place throughout the City. And I think this one is reasonable. I feel that, in the future, that we're going to be seeing second stories added to houses due to resale, increased values of property; and a 2,200-square-foot house is not practical anymore in many instances to raise a family, as it was 25 years ago. So I'm going to vote to allow this addition. Hopefully, that.,.I sympathize with Mrs. Chodos, and she did make some overtures there that perhaps they could be friends again and everything, which I hope they can; because anytime you're involved in something like this, neighbors to neighbors in our City, it's unfortunate. But I have to act in what I consider the best direction and best interest of everyone concerned for the City, and that's why I will vote for this addition. Mayor Gilb: Thank you. I'd just like to add one thing, and that was, in what happens after...obvious what the vote is going to be from what the Council has said. If you came around to me and I lived in that area, and you wanted me to sign a petition to direct the ARB to petition the City Council to include obstruction of view as one of the criteria of approving a development, I would be torn between two things. One, I'd like the view, but secondly, I would think the value of my house would go down considerably by anybody else who was going to buy it if they knew that they could never remodel it if the view was obstructed but was obstructing somebody else's house. I don't think you could sell it. I don't think I'd buy it, knowing that that was a criteria. The view is very important, But as I said before, and I still believe, that there hasn't been a second story put up in any place that I know that hasn't obstructed somebody's view--maybe minimal, maybe maximum, maybe a lot--but nobody has ever been happy with a second story that's been put next door to them, I can attest to that. And I know we hear that from everyone. We had a lady in here not too long ago that had a house that was l,600 square feet. They put a house next door to her, it was 3,400 or 3,500 square feet, and she said that when she moved here she didn't think there would ever be a second- story house built that would block her view. And I asked her how long I 29 she's been here. and she said 19 years. And so, things change. and I said. as families develop. Well, anyway, we'll take a motion on this-owe don't need a lecture. Councilmember Ciraulo: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Gilb: Yes. Councilmember Ciraulo: I move to overrule the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Young: Second. Mayor Gilb: Motion is made by Mr, Ciraulo,.., City Attorney Miller: Can I recommend that that motion include direction of staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Council's decisions and your findings as gleaned from tonight's discussion. Councilmember Ciraulo: So added. Councilmember Young: Second. Mayor Gilb: Motion is made by Mr. Ciraulo and seconded by Mrs. young.... Councilmember Harbicht: Mr. Mayor? 30 I I I I Mayor Gilb: Yes, Kr.... Councilmember Harbicht: I'd like to have reflected in the findings that the Council finds that two- story homes are common in that neighborhood, where 35 to 45 percent of the homes are two-story, That the materials being used in the construction are compatible with materials used in the neighborhood, and that the home,..the original design of the home has been modified in consultation with the ARB in the neighborhood to be sensitive to the neighborhood, in terms of lowering the roof line and eliminating some of the windows and redesigning some of the other windows. I think those are all important findings which should be included in the resolution. Mayor CUb: Is that all right, Mr. Ciraulo? Councilmember Ciraulo: Yes. Mayor Gilb: O,K., is that all right with you, Mrs, Young? Councilmember Young: Yes. Mayor Gilb: O.K. We have a motion, then, by Mr. Ciraulo, seconded by Mrs. Young, with all the findings incorporated, which I think the City Clerk.. .do you have all of those, Ma'am. Arcadia City Clerk June Alford: It's all on the tape. 31 Mayor Gilb: Pardon? City Clerk Alford: Yes, we have it all on the tape. '" Mayor Gilb: O.K.. fine. Any other discussion? May we have a roll call, please. City Clerk Alford: Councilmembers Ciraulo... I Councilmember Ciraulo: Yes. City Clerk Alford: Fasching. . . Councilmember Fasching: Yes. City Clerk Alford: Harbicht. . . Councilmember Harbicht: Yes. City Clerk Alford: Young. . . Councilmember Young: Yes. City Clerk Alford: and Gilb. 32 I Mayor ci.lb: 'ieS. 'the appeal. is denied. , :n I