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outgrown their facilities and both facilities are out of date.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