Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 7,1990 I I Oll() - ~-D (,{t' 7QO ~,,>. .)133 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROLL CALL 2. POLICE BLDG. 3. LIBRARY 4. CITY HALL 6. PLANS FOR WELL-RUN CITY IN 20 YEARS 10. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 15. AUDITORIUM MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LONG RANGE PLANNING STUDY SESSION JUNE 7, 1990 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Study Session in consideration of Long Range Planning for the City at 1:00 p. m., Thursday, June 7, 1990, in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None ABSENT: Others in attendance were City Manager Watts, City Attorney Miller, City Manager Pro Tem Woolard and City Clerk Alford. By prior arrangement, other department heads remained on call as needed. At the May 15, 1990 Regular City Council Meeting, Councilmember Fasching proposed that Council come together for an all-day Study Session in an informal setting, to discuss the future of the City, exchange of ideas, and concepts fo~ things to be accomplished. The Long Range Planning Study Session date was set, and subsequently an agenda was compiled with suggested topics for discussion from the Council. In considering the Agenda Items, 19 in total, Council determined to group several topics together since these subjects fall under the umbrella of Capital Improvements and each impact the other. Therefore, Agenda Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 15 were discussed at length and priorities set. A summary of the discussion follows: The opening comments of the topics noted above centered around the question of which Capital Improvement Projects were of the highest priority; funds to complete each; and the possibility of a bond issue put before the voters for the funding of certain projects. Concepts were exchanged with some Councilmembers stating their first project priority was a new library and, as second priority, the police facility, when the Armory is vacated and turned over to the City in 1993. It was noted that both the library and police department .have outgrown their facilities and both facilities are out of date. Staff added that the City has already paid for the Armory site and plans could be drawn up and in place ready for implementation when the site is vacated and the property turned over to the City. The possible use of the present police building, after it is vacated, was considered. Staff remarked that the current police facility could be an expanded City Hall with the Public Works Department and Planing moved into that building; and possibly converting the back police building for use by employees as work-out and locker rooms. The last cost estimate for a new police facility, it was noted, was $12,000,000. Staff remarked that the Police Depart- ment would be more like $18.000,000. The jail alone may cost -1- 6/7 /90 SEWER SYSTEM 32: 0134 $10,000,000; the lockup portion of a police facility must conform to state requirements. Council explored the need for a new City Hall which could possibly encompass the Police Department and, perhaps, an auditorium; the proposal was presented that three or four projects could be undertaken at one time; a bond issue could be put before the voters to be paid off in 10 years with an assessment to the property owners of $150. per year for 10 to 15 years. This plan would enable the citizens to enjoy these improvements now rather than waiting 15 to 20 years to do something for the community. Some Councilmembers felt that a new City Hall was not very high on their list of priorities; it was not needed; they would not ask the citizens to pay for a new City Hall; the present City Hall is adequate; some said I they would not support a new City Hall. The idea for a bond measure to pay for a City Hall was rejected by some. Staff related the background of a previous full architectural study for a Police facility, and concepts for a City Hall and auditorium in 1984-85. This same discussion had taken place. Wendell Mounce and Associates were retained by that Council for a the study and proposal. Gross estimates were proposed to the Council for each facility and that Council decided to move ahead with just the police facility. The Armory site was the most appropriate site for the project. The matter of an auditorium was discussed at length. Various positions on this subject were put forth. It was n~ted that the citizens of Arcadia had voted the auditorium dO>ffi three times. Some Councilmembers did not know where an auditorium could be located; the School District should take responsibility for an auditorium for the high schooL The School District wants the auditorium on their property and would control its use. Some felt the School District should float their own bond to build this facility. Some felt an . auditorium would be very low, if at all, on their list of Capital Improvement priorities; others felt Council should plan for a new City Hall and an auditorium. After much exchange, there was general consensus that Number One on the priority list would be the library facility ... funds are available to pay for this. Since the Armory site will not be available until August of 1993, or later, the police facility would be Number Two on the list, on the Armory site. The discussion then centered on the funds that would be available at that date, and to "pay-as-you-go" for the police facility. A bond issue was also considered for this; when and if to place on a ballot and let the people decide. Several Councilmembers indicated they would support a bond measure on the ballot. In connection with available funds in case of a major problem with the sewer system, staff reported that although the City collects a $1.00 sewer charge every other month when water service is billed, this has generated almost nothing in the way of savings. This fund is reduced by costs for sewer crews. The total in the sewer fund this current fiscal year is $1.2 million. At the end of the next fiscal year it will be $1. 3 million. The sewer system, generally, is in good shape, although it is almost 50 years old. This is the life of a sewer, Mayor Young noted. .Further, staff reported, a large portion of the system is fully depreciated ... meaning it is beyond estimated life. The sewers are replaced when necessary. 'Although the population is fairly stable ... not increasing too much, certain parts of the system have been outgrown, Council noted. The City Manager commented that most of the growth in the future will be in commercial areas, i.e,. high rise hotels and office buildings, however it is not a major conern. Moreover, if a large construction development occurs, the developer would be charged for sewer costs. I -2- 6/7/90 I I l. LARGE HOMES - RES. CONST. 5. REDEVELOPMENT 32:0135 Councilmember Harbicht reported on the May 16, 1990 study session held by the committee formed to study the issue of large houses on small lots. After much exchange between the committee members, the committee has submitted a majority recommendation to the Planning Commission, that is; that the overall height be lowered in the R-l zone by as much as five feet across the board; the side yard setbacks to be 10% of lot width as opposed to the current five foot side yard setb"ck requirement. On a 75 foot wide lot, which is a common size lot, there would be a 7 1/2 foot minimum setback on each side; and the second floor setback 20% of lot width. The committee also recommends making the side yard setback and the height a function of lot width to try and get more uniformity than what is currently in place in the City. The "footprint" of the dwelling will be smaller. A discussion ensued and Councilmember Fasching stated, in part, that the issue of total square footage of house placed on lot size had not been addressed, and should there be more formula for side yard setbacks? Councilmember Harbicht commented that the question is, does Council want to talk about more restrictions or does Council want to implement the committee's recommendations and , ' see how this works. The City Attorney noted that this would be constructive without taking a moratorium on building as other cities have done. A general discussion ensued in connection with the direction of redevelopment in the City. The desire to retain open space was expressed and not build-out every available piece .of land. Some of the Redevelopment areas could be developed by the City as parks. It was noted that the primary purpose of redevelopment was to eliminate blight. Further, redevelopment law allows the City to gather small parcels of property for larger project sites. In reference to the SW Corner Project (Huntington at 2nd Avenue), in particular, the island park area, this should be retained as a park and not incorporated into the project. Setbacks on commercial building to allow more green space and, perhaps, requiring as much as 10-15 feet beyond sidewalks for landscaping was considered. The commenc that this would create a problem for the downtown area if a building had to be rebuilt under this requirement, and the adjacenc buildings are built out to the sidewalk ... this would be very peculiar. With regard to a requirement for greater setbacks on commercial projects within the redevelopment area, staff noted that certain redevelopment areas in the City now have a requirement for landscaping in front of the buildings, or in front of the parking ... east of the railroad bridge on Huntington Drive, for example. Staff commenced that this is a lot easier to implement in newer communities. The discussion continued; Councilmember Harbichc commented, in part, that if the Agency requires larger setbacks, say 15 feet rather than 7 feet, the property would be worth less to a developer and would influence the price they are willing to pay. In response to this, Councilmember Fasching said, in part, that by the time the Redevelopment Agency assembles all the small pieces of property to present to a developer, all the hard work is already done, and the property should be worth more. Staff commented that if greater setbacks are required, this information should be included at the time the RFP's are sent out. Another area of concern was the maintenance of various vacant lots along Huntington Drive, which is a major thoroughfare in the City. The discussion centered around the possibility of requiring the property owners of the more visible vacant lots to put in grass. These lots should not be allowed to be unk~mpt forever. If a property remains vacant for 18 months or two years, the owner should be required to plant grass and maintain it. In reference to the new property nuisance abatement process, this could include these vacant commercial -3- 6/7/90 7. BDRM/GARAGE ADDITIONS 8. IMPR.AIR QUAL. 9. CLEAN CITY LOOK lI. LONG RANGE 5-YR PLAN 12. ANOAKIA 32:0136 lots also. The City Attorney added that with appropriate findings this could be designed as a supplemental ordinance to the property maintenance conditions and exceptions .., it would have to be a statute to give the City the authority to act in the matter. In connection with stronger automobile control in residential areas (i. e., a building permit for a bedroom addition means the addition also of an enclosed additional garage), Mayor Young stated, in part, if a bedroom is added, the applicant could be required to add an enclosed garage space also. San Marino has implemented this requirement. The Village area, she noted, only wants two-car garages ... they do not like looking at garage doors. No discussion. I The discussion on this subj ect focused on window signs, banners and graffiti, also, the possible steps to take to mitigate these problems. The City Manager responded that; No. 1) step up the enforcement of signage regulations; and No.2) contact the Chamber of Commerce and business associations directly and hope that publicity will remind them that they have to comply. Staff mentioned, also, that the banner and sign problems were very time consuming and hard to enforce. Referring to the paper signs some businesses put up outdoors, staff responded that the sign regulations were changed last year to prohibit the paper signs outside an establishment. Window signs are allowed, although subject to area limitations. This subject was covered in the discussion of Capital Expenditures. Counci1member Gilb gave a brief report on the background of the Anoakia site related to development proposals for the property. This area used to be in the County. Years ago people wanted a planned unit development with no restrictions on the size of the lots ... some were going to be 5,000,7,500 square feet, and larger. This plan would have kept the Anita Baldwin home and make it a historical museum. The problem wi th this was, the museum would have to be opened up to visitors ... so the plan fell by the wayside and they kept the school. Just recently, a Japanese school was proposed for the site, financed in Japan by the Japanese government. This school would accommodate up to 700 students from Japan ... most of them to live-in. Counci1member Gi1b told these people he would not vote for this. A retirement home also had been proposed for the property... and a tennis club. The area residents hope that Mr. McCaslin, who owns the property, will put in a planned unit development someday and incorporate the Anita Baldwin home. A discussion ensued of the zoning on Anoakia, in particular, the requirements on the size of the lots and the number of homes that could be built on the site. Staff responded that with a planned unit development, about 32-33 homes could be built. With conventional development, the lot minimum size is 22,000 square feet which would support about 22-24 homes. The lot sizes to the north of Anoakia are larger than 22,000 square feet; to the east and south they are smaller; and on the west there are some flag lots that are smaller. In the Upper Rancho, most of the lots are 30,000 square feet or more. The zoning for the Anoakia property was determined in June of 1989. There are no plans for development of the Anoakia area at this time that Councilor staff are aware of. Further discussion of the possibilities for development occurred; the historical aspects of the mansion; the removal of the mansion to another site ... the Arboretum, for example; or the demolition of it if a proposal were presented to put in 23 half acre sites. Some Councilmembers indicated that they would support such a I -4- 6/7/90 I I 13. CITY BEAUTI- FICATION 14. ON-CAMPUS POLICE PROG. 16. BUSINESS DISTRICTS -'- 17. POPULATION GROWTH- DENSITY 18. TRAFFIC 32:0137 proposal. Staff reported that an environment impact report on the area would probably address the historical aspects of the mansion. Previously considered. Councilmember Fasching requested this topic for discussion and presented his views on the need for a Police On-campus Program. Concern was expressed for the young people of the community and their future. He believes this could be a good counseling program; the officer would be someone they could relate to when they could not relate to their parents. A portion of the Narcotic Seizure Funds could be allocated toward this type of program. It was noted by Mayor Young that Arcadia has had an on-campus police program and the School Board turned it down because they did not want to pay their half of the cost. The School District already had about five or six different drug programs that had been instituted on campus. The Program Quest was mentioned as a "help-out" program, now in place, which is teaching all grade levels. The exchange continued and the City Manager stated that staff would provide Councilmember Fasching with background information on what the On-campus Program used to be, and Chief Johnson's thoughts on the matter if Council should decide to have a police presence on campus. It was noted, also, that the Juvenile Diversion program provides a counseling service. Council determined to consider these three subject items as a group, and an exchange of views occurred. The matter of business districts on Live Oak and First Avenue were pointed out as needing improvement. A need for a study of these areas to improve the appearance and design of First Avenue and Live Oak was suggested. What can be done to build up interest in Live Oak on a retail basis? Could the City put in some street designs; a center divider on Live Oak beyond Second Avenue would help. It was noted that new trees were put in by that area's business association. First Avenue is in real need of resurfacing. The repairs that were made have caused the street to look like a spider web. This in reference to the area on First Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, in general. First Avenue businesses need more visibility; the desirability of the area needs help. The City would benefit from a sales tax standpoint if the business activity could be increased. Staff reported that the parking on First Avenue is not a problem ... all the businesses are destination oriented. There is really not any foot traffic to speak of. Councilmember Fasching said, in part, that perhaps the street could be made prettier and more inviting with paving, landscaping on the side; and those type of things storefronts, too. A brief discussion of the use of CDBG funds for the improvements ensued... Also Live Oak could use this same help. North First Avenue was mentioned also as in need of improvement help. The subject of population growth and density was discussed. Fairview Avenue was described as getting very densified with condos. New apartments have been proposed on that street, the area just off Baldwin Avenue, a 32-unit apartment building. It was noted that a very small part of the City is zoned for multi-family development. The condos provide the "starter homes" for young people to move into the City... they are the "starter home" of today. The question of future growth and population was considered. Councilmember Harbicht commented that since 1970 Arcadia has grown 3% a year -. this is not explosive growth, although when compounded, there are a lot more people here than before. There is not too much potential for growth because there is not much more buildable property. With respect to Fairview Avenue, Councilmember Fasching commented if another 32 units go up in that area of Fairview, -5- 6/7/90 'j 19. RODEFFER PROP. ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: 32:0138 the street will be very densified as far as traffic and visitors ... other areas of the City are also experiencing much growth and density with cul-de-sacs developed from large lots at the south end of town. An exchange of possib~e measures to implement were offered. Staff commented that, although much building has taken place in R-3 areas, the population growth has been almost static for 20 years. The traffic congestion is caused by vehicles coming into the City or traveling through. Council also noted that the cul-de-sac developments have been occurring for 25 or 30 years now... cited as a example were Sharon Road and Wistaria and those off of Foothill Boulevard. Much discussion ensued regarding development, down-zoning, and the possible repercussions thereof. In connection with the matter of more than one family sharing a home, Mayor Young suggested that a copy of the study, "What is a Family" or "How Do You Determine What I is a Family. be provided Councilmembers Ciraulo and Fasching. Counci1member Harbicht commented, in part, that actually all of the regional problems that the City has are directly tied to population growth ... traffic, air pollution, lack of water, trash, roads everything is tied to population growth all of those things are being influenced by population growth. National policies allow the population to virtually grow unchecked here. A large portion of legal immigration occurs in California, plus we have illegal immigration that California is not doing much about. The sanctions that have been placed on illegal immigration have not worked. The Congressmen representing Southern California should be working a whole lot harder on this matter. Staff suggested a resolution be drafted to present to Carlos Moorhead on this matter and also sent to other cities'~~_~r;l as to Pete Wilson, President Bush and Vice-president~.e.~~ Withdrawn. Councilmember Fasching expressed his appreciation to his fellow Councilmembers for this meeting and exchange of views, and suggested maybe they could do this again, perhaps six months from now. Others also agreed that they had some good exchanges, and some direction, also. At 4:05 p. m. the Council/Agency adjourned to 7:00 p. m., June 19, 1990, in the Conference Room of the Council Chamber to conduct the business of the Council and Redevelopment Agency and Closed Session, if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters and evaluation of properties. WJt':7A J 4- ~A77. \.'. -6- 6/7/90