Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 7,1990_2 1 1 32:0191 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (July 17, 1990) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION l. PUBLIC HEARING (Weed Abate- ment Chgs.- LAC Agricul. Corns.) (APPROVED) 0'1"10-.5"0 /989- 9D MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 1990 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session at 7:50 p. m., August 7, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chamber. Chaplain Brenda Peterson, Arcadia Methodist Church Planning Director William Woolard PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young ABSENT: None On MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Fasching, and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of July 17, 1990 were APPROVED. It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo. 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(a), the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and the City Council met in a CLOSED SESSION this evening to discuss the existing lawsuit of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency vs. Kiewit". The Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner has submitted a list of charges in connection with the cost of abating weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land noted on list attached to staff report: dated August 7, 1990. The list has been posted as required. The p~rpose of the public hearing is to allow the affected property owners an opportunity to object to the charges if they wish to do so. Loren B. Wendt from the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner' s Office was - . present to answer any questions. Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN. No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmernber Gilb and CARRIED. 1 8/7/90 2. PUBLIC HEARING Text.Amend, 90-006 (Side Yard Setbacks, Ht. Require- ments R-M,R-O [, R-l Zones [, Mod.Procedures) (APPROVED) () ::"-80 - f&:.> 32: 0192 It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council CONFIRM the list as submitted and DIRECT that the County Auditor be instructed to enter the amounts of the assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: The Planning Commission at its June 26 meeting voted to recommend approval of Text Amendment 90-006 to amend the building height requirements in the R-O and R-l zones; the side yard setback requirements in the R-M, R-O and R-l zones; and change the Administrative Modification and Modification procedures. The building height in the R-O zone has been recommended to be changed to a 25 foot maximum on lots which are less than 75 feet at the building setback line; lots that are 75 feet or greater but less than 100 feet in width at the building setback line would have a 30 foot building height maximum. For 100 foot or greater lots at the building setback line a 35 foot height maximum was recommended by staff; Planning Commission recommended a 30 foot maximum. In the R- 1 zones the text amendment sets the maximum building height at 25 feet for lots which are less than 75 feet in width and a 30 foot height for lots which are 75 feet "in width or greater. The text amendment sets the side yard setbacks for the first floor of a building in the R-O and R-M zones at 10% of the lot width, provided it not be less than 10 feet, nor need be greater than 15 feet. Second floor setbacks would be 20% of lot width, not less than 10 feet, nor need be greater than 20 feet. In R-l zones the first floor would be 10% of lot width, provided that it not be less than 5 feet, nor need be greater than 10 feet. The second floor,20% of lot width, not less than 10 feet, nor need be greater than 20 feet. The modification procedures would be amended so that minor additions to existing dwelling units which are less than 30 feet in length could be approved through the Administrative Modification process; a larger addition or more than one addition on a building at more than 30 linear feet would go to the Modification Committee; modifications to building heights would be subj ect to Planning Commission approval; modifications for first or second story side yard setbacks on new dwellings or any second story side yard setback for an existing dwelling would be subject to Planning Commission approval. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for Text Amendment 90-006. 1 In reply to questions from Council, staff responded that staff is recommending that any plans submitted to a homeowners association review board, or that are in plan check prior to this date, August 7, be subject to existing regulations. 1 Plans submitted after August 7, unless a permit could be issued before the ordinance takes effect, approximately two months from this date, would be subject to the new regulations. Further discussion ensued concerning the proposed requirements and their probable impact. The encroachment of chimneys into the side yard areas was of concern. Staff explained that a previous text amendment dealing with this subject requires that a minimum of 3 feet be maintained between the outside chimney and the property line. Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN. Jim Rostron, 422 Monte Vista Road, stated, in part, that he is a member of the Architectural Review Board. He is strongly in favor of this proposed Text Amendment. He feels it is well drawn and does not preclude a limit as to just a single architectural style. He feels there may still be some problem with the overpowering houses which are not harmonious or 2 8/7/90 32:0193 compatible with the existing homes in the area, but we are going in the right direction. 1 Tom Crosbv, 601 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he is the President of the Santa Anita Village Homeowners' Association. He approves of the new ordinance. He feels there will still be problems in the Village area because the lots are fairly small. Houses built on these lots could still be built under this ordinance which would appear to be too massive for the neighborhood. In reply to his question, Councilmember Harbicht noted that Council is not motivated to maximize property taxes; most of the taxes go to the County and various other taxing agencies anyway. Councilmember Harbicht also noted that if this is approved, along with the other changes Council has made in the last three years, the envelope is significantly smaller than it was two years ago. Mr. Crosby noted that originally Arcadia generally had different size houses in different areas of the City ... perhaps different areas should have different regulations. Councilmember Gilb noted that it might not even be legal to restrict house sizes so much that the resale property values would be affected. The City Attorney interjected that what Councilmember Gilb was referring to is a matter of degree; what Mr. Crosby is proposing gets closer to that; we are not, however, near that point with these restrictions under discussion. Councilmember Ciraulo noted that these recommendations are considerably more restrictive than what Arcadia has had in the past and they do address the size of lot. Councilmember Fasching said he thought the homeowner associations do a wonderful job; Council will have to depend upon them more so in the future to keep Council informed of what their neighbors feel and what the situation is in their particular area. He would like to come up with more ordinances concerning houses and sizes in the future. Bill Wyman, 507 Monte Vista, stated, in part, that he is a member of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association. The Association approves the overall concept of the text amendment. He questioned staff as to how building heights are measured. The Planning Director answered this in considerable detail. He also gave considerable information concerning the proposed side yard setbacks. Mr. Wyman recommended that lots of 100 feet or more be allowed to have a 35 foot building height as recommended by the Planning Department; otherwise if there is a large home on the lot, it is too much restriction. 1 Susan Havgood. 347 E. Haven, stated, in part, that she is glad to see this text amendment being initiated. It is too late for them; there is already a monster house constructed next door; they have lost their privacy and are very concerned about this as well as the continued noise and confusion they had .to bear during the construction phase. She feels this ordinance should be effective as soon as possible. If we can't stop the building of these structures, can we at least allow a little bit of privacy at our homes. Councilmember Harbicht noted, in reply to a question, that the second story windows in a house will be the same height whether it is a 25 foot high house or a 35 foot high house. Ed Zareh, 1051 Catalpa Road, stated, in part, that years ago when he moved to Arcadia, there were restrictions on the lots that a certain size house had to be built; they could not be smaller than 1400 or 1500 sq. ft. Perhaps that could be done today wi th different areas having different size restrictions. Councilmember Harbicht noted that what Mr. Zareh referred to was a deed restriction placed there by the seller of the property ... it was a private contract; not a government restriction. Mr. Zareh said people speak of building a house in harmony with the neighborhood, but that means different 3 8/7/90 " " <L~ : ()] q4 things to different people. Perhaps a questionnaire could be sent to residents of different areas soliciting opinions as to maximum house sizes. In reply to a question from Councilmember Fasching, Mr. Zareh said his main concern regarding the two story homes was their bulk. Jim Kuhn, 1705 S. Santa Anita Avenue, stated, in part, that he is an architect and he has no problem with the restrictions being considered here tonight. However, he is concerned about the time situation. He has several projects in the design stage. When he started designing a house six months ago, there was no way he could have known what would be decided tonight. Alvin Albe, 458 W. Palm Drive, stated, in part, that he is in 1 favor of the ordinance as proposed. He never thought he would be on the side of restricting owners' property rights, but in the southern section of Arcadia, there are a number of "monstrosity" homes. He feels Council is moving in the right direction. Ralph Bicker, 101 White Oak Drive, stated, in part, that he is Chairman of the Highland Oaks Architectural Review Board and he feels this is a step in the right direction and that most of the homes in his area do conform to these requirements. Bob Henkel, 1065 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, that he is on the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association and the Association is in favor of the text amendment. He feels that the 35 foot height is not in compliance with the Association and with the neighborhood; the 30 foot height is liveable. Don Crenshaw, 132 La Porte, stated, in part, that he is an architect and that he is in favor of the new text amendment. However, he, too, is concerned about the time factor. He has 15 - 16 jobs he has been working on for 7 - 8 months. He does not want to see monster houses built; he designs houses to fit in with the environment. He does not see how this can be chopped off right away; time is needed to work the problems out. If he has to throwaway all the plans he has been working on and start anew, this will be a financial hardship. He thought a sixty day time period before the new restrictions are in effect would be appropriate. Tom Crosbv, 601 South 01 Ranch Road, stated, in part, that Don Crenshaw had been on several committees with him and had been aware for some time of the proposals of the Planning Commission. He, Mr. Crosby, has a hard time with any exceptions to the August 7 deadline. Milt Bade, 909 S. Santa Anita Avenue, stated, in part, that he has been building houses in this Valley for thirty-five years and most of the houses have been bigger than those next door because, through the years, families have required and wanted bigger houses. No matter how big the house built next door may be, if it is a two story house, privacy will be lost. Three or four ordinances have been passed in the last 2 - 3 years reducing the size of houses. He feels that in time the pendulum will swing the other way. He does not agree with the side yard setbacks; he does not think what Council is approving is going to please the people in Arcadia anyway. Council has never passed a building ordinance and had it go into effect the next day; he feels that is wrong. The architects who spoke earlier, as well as the builders, have plans in process; if this work has to be done allover again, it is going to be very costly. How can these people even plan 4 8/7/90 1 32:0195 1 for the future; Councilmember Fasching says there will be further changes. He feels there should be a 60 day time period before it goes into effect. Councilmember Fasching replied that he is sympathetic with the problems of the architects and builders. However, other cities in the Valley have also imposed building restrictions; several have passed moratoriums of one kind or another. He does not want to be unreasonable and is concerned about the problems of the builders and architects, but is also concerned about the house sizes. The City Attorney noted that the ordinance will not be made effective tomorrow. Legally, it can not be effective until thirty days after it is adopted; administratively, the City has to pick a time with reference to the normal plan check period. Nobody has a vested right to build anything until he gets a permit. Ordinances have always been enforced in this manner in the past. Anybody suffering financial losses has recourse to the judicial system. However, this certainly has not been a hidden issue in the City; it has been well known that possible changes were underway. The Ordinance is not going to be made effective tommorrow. Stanlev Keith, 471 Walnut Avenue, stated, in part, that he is concerned about lot coverage and in answer to. a question, staff said lot coverage would be 45% for single story houses; 35% for two story houses. He and his wife have noticed a number of houses on Wisteria that seem to be unbalanced for the lot size. He feels the small, modest houses should not be swallowed up; neighborhoods should be more in harmony. Barbara COl!orno, 365 W. Duarte Road, stated, in part, that she lives three doors from the corner of Holly and Duarte. The house on that corner burned a couple of weeks ago and she is greatly concerned about the size of the house that will be rebuilt there. Perhaps two story houses should be built in areas that have a maj ority of two story houses. She is concerned about loss of privacy. Ed Mitchell, 1000 Volante Drive, stated, in part, that he was concerned about large houses which are built on speculation by builders who sell them and leave. He feels home bulding permits should be issued to persons who intend to live in the house. Mayor Young noted that, legally, that would not be possible; people have a right to build whether or not they intend to live in the house being built; there is no way to determine whether or not they intend to occupy the premises. Mr. Mitchell is in favor of the regulations being considered tonight, although he does not feel they go far enough. 1 Forrest Besocke, 416 N. Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he agrees with Mr. Wyman. He feels that the 35 foot height is not at all out of line for properties with large lots like those in his area -- 100 feet by 250 feet. They have houses on his block that are like this and the symmetry of the architcture works well. Paul Miller, 321 Leda Lane, stated, in part, that he is an architect and, like previous speakers, is concerned about the time frame of this ordinance. He is in favor of the ordinance but feels there should be a sixty day time period for the effective date. He also feels that the 35 foot height limitation restricts the design of some of the houses. He also has concerns about chimney heights and about measurments of cul-de-sac lots. Staff provided answers to his questions in some detail. David Olsen, 502 E. Camino Real, stated, in part, that he had been part of the recent study sessions, so many of his comments are on record. His concern is that of the first floor setbacks for the side yard. On a 75 foot lot, 5 feet off each side, you have a 65 foot wide house on the first 5 8/7/90 32:0196 floor. If there is a 3-car garage, 35 feet is left; thereby reducing the liveable space of the house. Also this limits homeowners and builders who want to have a garage in the back yard. They would need more than 5 feet for a driveway. This is also a problem for those who wish to add on to their houses; the setback was 3 feet previously and people wish to maintain the house line. He thinks there will be many more problems with enacting further restrictions on the first floor than if they were left as they are. It was noted by Councilmember Fasching that those wishing to remodel could go through the Modification process. The larger side yard setbacks will ensure more green space. Donna Fong, 620 W. Longden, stated, in part, that they have been working with architect Jim Kuhn for the last 6 - 8 I months; the plans are completed, but are not yet in the City plan check. She feels the cut-off date is unfair. She would like to see a sixty day notice so they will have time to get their plans through plan check. Bob Henkel, 1065 Singing Wood Drive, stated, in part, that the question of timing has come up several times this evening and, as Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, Rancho Santa Anita, he would hate to see a two month period where they would see a flood of plans come through for future homes. He feels a fifteen day time period would be adequate; that would be enough time to get plans in if they are already in the works. He does agree the number of hours already put into developing plans by the architects amounts to a great deal of money. Councilmember Gilb noted that people who live in areas without architectural review boards have to get the plans to the City in much more detailed form. Mayor Young noted that architects and builders in the area have been aware for 4 - 5 months of possible changes. Jim Potter, 1427 Oaklawn Road, stated, in part, that he represents the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association and they are very much in favor of these changes. He has not looked at any plans recently that are not in compliance with the new regulations. With a little negotiation, the neighbors and builders have been cooperative and, in one instance the roof line was reduced by 3 1/2 feet and the windows changed; another owner modified his plans to have them in harmony with the neighborhood. Judi Draoer, 939 Hampton Road, President, Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association, stated, in part, that they are in support of the proposed regulations. She would also like to appeal to the Council to develop an effective, enforceable oak tree ordinance. Milt Bade, 909 S. Santa Anita Avenue, stated, in part, he was still concerned about the time frame. If Council adopts these changes tonight, what do architects start doing next week; 1 they can't draw plans if the City is going to change the regulations again in 5 - 6 months; how can they anticipate these changes far in advance? How can a business be run under these circumstances? It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED that the public hearing be CLOSED. Councilmember Gilb suggested that the motion be one to accept, modify or change the proposals; part, to decide when they become effective. agreed. in two parts; in the second Mayor Young Councilmember Harbicht said he is in favor of these proposals and he feels that most of the people who spoke this evening 6 8/7/90 . I 1 32:0197 are in favor of them. We have worked long and hard on this text amendment and he feels it is a good one. He is concerned about the time frame. He is concerned also about remarks about changes still to be made Councilmember Fasching stated, in part, that lots in the City are of variable size. With regard to size and bulk of houses, there are still things to be done with regard to the two story houses; he does not feel there is any problem with the single story houses. Further, the issue of large houses on small lots has not been entirely addressed. He considers the architectural review boards to be very important. Perhaps we need a Conditional Use Permit process for two story houses, where the lot size is 10,000 - 12,000 square feet; he does not feel there are problems in the R-O or R-M zones, basically north of Foothill and south in the Rancho area. This is not the final solution, this in reference to the text amendment under consideration. Councilmember Gilb noted that this is a public hearing to decide these issues, but Councilmember Fasching is saying there are to be more changes. We are here to solve these problems. Councilmember Ciraulo feels that these proposals are fairly responsive to the citizens and address the problem; he feels they are pretty restrictive now and is not sure what could be done later on to make them more so and still have a compatible place in which to live. This is an enormous step in the right direction. If changes are to be made in five years or so, they can be addressed at that time. Councilmember Fasching said he is not thinking years; he is thinking about the next few months. does not address the issue of the large houses. against the two story houses. about five This still He is not Mayor Young noted that it takes time to see the effect of these ordinances; we need to give this ordinance time to work. Councilmember Gilb thought 30 foot height in the R-O zone is acceptable. Mayor Young agreed. MOTION It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Text Amendment 90-006 be APPROVED; that the 30 foot height limitation in the R-O zone be APPROVED; and APPROVE and FILE the Negative Declaration, and find that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Harbicht noted that Council needed to take a look at the effective time of this Text Amendment. A few minutes ago there was not a person in this room or in this City who knew what Council direction would be this evening. Architects, for instance, have put in significant amounts of work over a long period of time ... and now the design does not meet the new ordinance, but no one knew what it would be. That is not fair. He feels anyone who is in plan check by the date this ordinance becomes effective should fall under the old ordinance. Otherwise this may cause significant harm. Councilmember Ciraulo agreed. Councilmember Fasching agreed wi th the exception that, if this is done for a sixty day period, then plans submitted to home owner associations should 7 8/7/90 MOTION 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Revisions to Planning & Bldg.Dept.Fees) (APPROVED) 035D-'10 RESOLUTION NO. 5544 (ADOPTED) o 3'!"O -7'0 RESOLUITON NO. 5545 (ADOPTED) O:JSO-70 32:0198 be excluded. Councilmember Gilb said it could state that the plans are to be in the Planning Department for plan check. The Planning Director agreed that the sixty day time period is feasible; that plans should be into the homeowner associations within thirty days. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that plans submitted to Homeowners Associations Architectural Review Boards by September 7, 1990, will be under existing code requirements. All plans submitted to the ARBs after September 7 are subject to the new regulations imposed by Text Amendment 90 - 006. Plans submitted to the Arcadia Building Department for plan check by October 4, 1990, will be under existing code requirements. All plans submitted after October 4 are subj ect to the new regulations imposed by Text Amendment 90-006 APPROVED this date. I AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Consideration of an increase of the Planning and Building Division fees. The Planning Department is recommending that the fees charged for processing the various Planning applications and Building Permit fees be increased 6%. This increase corresponds to the overall increase in the 1990-91 City Budget. Mayor Young declared the hearing OPEN. No one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED. The City Attorney then presented and read the title of Resolution No. 5544:" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA CHANGING THE FILING FEES, EXTENSION FEES, AND APPEAL FEES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, TEXT AMENDMENTS, ZONE CHANGES, VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, TENTATIVE MAPS, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS, PARCEL MAP WAIVERS, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND R- 2 and R-3 MODIFICATIONS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 5506". It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5544 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None 1 NOES: ABSENT: The City Attorney also presented and read the title of Resolution No. 5545: " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA CHANGING THE FEES FOR BUILDING CODE VARIANCES, BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PLAN CHECKING, GRADING PERMITS, PLUMBING PERMITS, PLUMBING PLAN CHECKING, ELECTRICAL PERMITS, MECHANICAL PERMITS, MECHANICAL PLAN, CHECKING, MOVE EXAMINATION, RELOCATION PERMIT, REMOVAL PERMIT, DEMOLITION PERMIT, SIGN PERMIT AND SWIMMING POOL PERMIT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 5507". In reply to question from Councilmember Fasching, staff replied that the last fee increase had been approximately one year ago and had been a 5% increase. Councilmember Fasching expressed his concern about the effect of this increase on 8 8/7/90 1 I 4. 5. 6. 6a. ROLL CALL 6b. MINUTE APPROVAL (July 17,1990 (APPROVED) 6c. ERN WITH WLA/ARCON/ SCHAEFER BROS. (NW Corner Project - Htg. & 2nd Ave.) (APPROVED) O&.ZO-2./{'-I 32:0199 homeowners who were adding to or otherwise remodeling their homes. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Gilb, and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5545 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Gilb, Harbicht and Young Councilmember Fasching None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Robert E. Caldwell, 326 Joyce Avenue, stated, in part, that he is present tonight to report on the Caltrans meeting he had attended with regard to Propositions 111 and 113 and concerning the HOV lanes to be built through Arcadia on the 210 Freeway. He also noted that it had been reported by a City official that the cost to Arcadia to construct a sound wall would be approximately fourteen million dollars. After a careful study of the engineering reports and the reports from the sound engineers, etc., it is his opinion that the cost would be approximately four and one-half million dollars. He urged City officials to be sure of their figures before allowing them to be quoted. Ed Zareh, 1051 Catalpa Road, stated, in part, that he had done a survey of this and had talked with the sound wall advisor for this whole new project. He estimates a million dollars a mile. Between Michillinda and Baldwin, taking away the part that we have on the list. Don Pablo to Baldwin, which is about three-tenths of a mile; also area south of the freeway toward Fifth Avenue; net about four and one-half miles. It is 2.9 miles to the nearest tenth between the two borderlines of Arcadia, east and west. That gives 5.8 miles which is 5.8 million dollars. The sound engineer who did the original study was talking about sixteen foot walls, which is possibly the origin of the fourteen million dollar estimate. The sound wall advisor does not yet have exact information concerning the sound wall height, construction near the ramps, etc. He would like to have a liaison with someone at City Hall to work out such details and others. The City Manager replied, Mr. Zareh should be in contact with the Public Works Director. Public Works Director Lopez noted that the fourteen million dollar estimated figure, mentioned earlier by Mr. Caldwell, was put forth by former Mayor Hannah for a twenty foot sound wall. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None ABSENT: On MOTION by Member Harbicht, seconded by Chairman Young and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Study Session and the Regular Meeting of July 17, 1990 were APPROVED. On March 6, 1990 the Agency directed staff to begin negotiating an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ERN) with WLA Arcon/Schaefer Brothers (A/SB) for the property located at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Second 9 8/7/90 6d. ADJOURNMENT 7. 8. 8a. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED (Aug. 21,1990) Os-eo -ID 8b. FINAL MAP 47410 (748- 756 Na9mi - 14-Unit res. condo) DS""IoD -be> 32:0200 Avenue. The purpose of the ERN is to establish a contractual relationship between the Agency and A/SB that will result in an acceptable Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). The ERN sets forth certain pre development tasks for which each party is responsible and includes the specific framework within which the DDA will be negotiated. A brief summary of the main points addressed in the ERN is set forth in staff report dated August 7, 1990. A copy of the ERN signed by Mr. Lortie and Mr. Schaefer was received this date. The Agency questioned staff and Howard Schaefer with regard to the proposed setbacks and was informed these matters were to be discussed and decided during the upcoming negotiations. Mr. Schaefer noted there is an unusual situation with the Red Lobster Restaurant in that there may be an uneven setback. 1 This will have to be worked out. In reply to further questions, staff responded that the Agency has requested CDBG funds for reconstruction of the alley south of the property from First to Second Avenue. This reconstruction would include only the road base and an initial asphalt layer (not the final driving surface). If the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approves the City's use of funds in this manner, A/SB will finish the reconstruction work at the same time they conclude their project by adding the last asphalt layer. Chairman Young commended the developers on their design. Member Fasching commended Mr. Schaefer for their voluntary efforts with regard to the setback and the greenery. It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVE the Exclusive Right to Negotiate with WLA Arcon/Schaefer Brothers and AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Executive Director to execute it subject to minor revisions and final review and approval by Agency General and Special Counsel. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None The meeting ADJOURNED to 7:00 p. m., August 21, 1990. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED for August 21, 1990 to consider an appeal for the approval of Conditional Use Permit Application 90-010 for a 40-lot residential planned development at 702- 822 North First Avenue and 105-119 Haven Avenue. 1 APPROVED Final Map 47410 for a l4-unit residential condominium project at 748-756 Naomi Avenue filed by Land D Engineering on behalf of Fu-Nan Chen (owner/developer of the site). Approval is on condition that, before the Final Map is recorded, all outstanding conditions of approval, as outlined in report dated February 21, 1989 from the Public Works Department, shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10 8/7/90 1 I 8c. FINAL MAP 48280 (601 S. Fifth Ave.- 5-unit res. condo) o S" to tJ - '" "'D 8d. CONTRACT AWARD (RR Bridge Improv. - Second Ave. & Htg. -Job No. 656) {J'Ia.O-.;J.O 8e. CALL FOR BIDS (Median Isl~nds) 8f. EQT.PUR. (Water Meters - Water Div.) 03'-/D-30 8g. Bus.Lic. Ree - C of C D"S-O- 35" 8h. SCRTD PROPOSED SALES TAX 8i SGV SR. BABE RUTH ALL STARS (Contribution) t) I Sf) ,~ ?, (:J (""tltJ; IJ~I// L ea -:;1../ e.:;. 8e. IMPROVEMENT OF MEDIAN ISLANDS, COLO. ST. AT COLO. PL.- JOB NO. 508 (CONTINUED) 09...;)O-..!;-jr 32:0201 APPROVED Final Map 48280 for a 5-unit residential condominium project at 601 South Fifth Avenue filed by Loren Phillips and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ming-Nang Chen (owner/developer of the site). Approval is on condition that, before the Final Map is recorded, all outstanding conditions of approval, as outlined in report dated August 14, 1989 from the Public Works Department, shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. AWARDED contract in the amount of $99,895 to the low bidder, California I.B.A., Inc., for improvement of the railroad bridge at Second Avenue and Huntington Drive - Job No. 656. APPROPRIATED $116,000 for construction, inspection, and contingencies from the CDBG Fund; that any informalities in the bid or bidding process be waived; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be AUTHORIZED to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Considered separately (see below). AWARDED contract in the amount of $38,314.77 to the low bidder, Badger Meter, Inc., for water meter replacement. Funds for the purchase of Water Meters are budgeted in the Water Division Fund FY 1990-91 in the amount of $50,000. Request to reduce Business License fees for amusement rides for the Chamber of Commerce County Fair has been WITHDRAWN. Considered separately (see Pg. 12). AUTHORIZED expenditure of $100 from the General City fund to the San Gabriel Valley Senior Babe Ruth All Stars to help offset tournament expenses. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 8e & 8h WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GILB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Following recent local inquiry and consistent with City beautification policy. City staff reviewed improvement options for the median islands, Colorado Street at Colorado Place (Upper Y). The small and irregular areas of the median islands preclude effective landscaping, irrigation and maintenance. Staff's recommendation is the construction of stamped, colored concrete; it is relatively inexpensive and will require no maintenance. Councilmember Harbicht felt that $40,000 is too large an amount of money for this project. Councilmember Fasching agreed and suggested some alternatives that staff might investigate. The matter was CONTINUED for further study and report. 11 8/7/90 8h. SCRTD PROPOSED SALES TAX (TABLED) Dff 1; (J -1 {) 9. 9a. ORDINANCE NO. 1924 (ADOPTED) O.:;-.;:J.o-"30 II Q z.4",c1()t( S 9b. ORDINANCE NO. 1925 (ADOPTED) 1J'ff1!>.-/n 9c. ORDINANCE NO. 1926 (ADOPTED) ()S"d()~1n 9d. RESOLUTION NO. 5546 (ADOPTED) o Z 3 0 - 3D 32:0202 Recently the City received a proposal from the Southern California Rapid Transit District regarding the possibility of increasing the sales tax by 1/2 of a percent in Los Angeles County to improve transit. In reply to Councilmember Fasching's inquiry, staff replied that the City would oppose Proposition T unless the wording is changed to assure that the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride would be included in funding allocations. Councilmember Fasching replied he was not in favor of this in any event; he does not have confidence in SCRTD' S accomplishing the objectives outlined. Councilmember Harbicht agreed. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED that this item be TABLED. CITY ATTORNEY 1 The City Attorney presented and read the title of Ordinance No. 1924: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE BUILDING CODE SETTING FORTH REGULATIONS FOR THE REDUCTION OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS IN ~/d!f.ISTING ~UILDINGS". -, It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1924 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented and read the title of Ordinance No. 1925: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT 90-004, AMENDING THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN THE R-M, R-O and R-l ZONES TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW WIRELESS RADIO MASTS, TOWERS OR ANTENNAS TO BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35'-0"." It was MOVED by Mayor Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1925 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented and read the title of Ordinance No. 1926: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE Z-90-00l, CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONE OF PR-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZONE WITH AUTOMOBILE PARKING ZONE) TO C-2 & D (GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE) FOR THE LOTS LOCATED AT 311 and 325 EAST LIVE OAK AVENUE AND 2616 SOUTH THIRD AVENUE; AREA NORTH OF LIVE OAK AVENUE, EAST OF THIRD AVENUE, WEST OF FOURTH AVENUE AND SOUTH OF THE ALLEY" . I It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance NO. 1926 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution No. 5546: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5521 BY ADDING 12 8/7/90 1 I 10. n. CIRAULO (NW Corner Flyer) COUNCIL- PLANNING COMSN. STUDY SESSION (Oct.2,1990- 5:00 p.ill.) N/S LEFT TURN LANES - HTG & FIRST AVE. GILB (False Alarms) HARBICHT (False Alarms) 12. ADJOURNMENT (Aug. 21,1990 7:00 p.m.) ATTEST: 32:0203 CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO PROCEDURES, AS REQUIRED ADMINISTRATION (UMTA)". THE ADOPTED PROCUREMENT PROTEST BY THE FEDERAL URBAN MASS TRANSIT It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5546 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Young None None Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and NOES: ABSENT: MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Commended Northwest wants and staff on the excellent flyer advertising the Corner; it was concise, made it clear what the City doesn't want. Councilmember Ciraulo is liaison to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners have requested a joint Study Session with the Council. The Commission would like to be more in tune wi th Council's thoughts and what the Commission should be approving ~r not approving. It was the consensus of Council that a Study Session be set for 5:00 p. m., Tuesday, October 2, 1990 and that an agenda be prepared. Councilmember Ciraulo inquired about the North/South left turn lanes on First Avenue and Huntington Drive. Staff responded that a meeting had been held with the business association in that area. Staff will need time to research this and respond to the questions raised. A report will be forthcoming for a future discussion. Has had a lot of calls and complaints about false alarms and inquired of the Chief of Police how many calls or alarms the Police Department receives. Apparently sometimes there are several alarms from the same address. Perhaps charges should be made for repeated false alarms. The Chief of Police responded that the April alarm tally was 330 calls received; number of calls received from citizens was 11; total of 348 alarms; out of that 4 resulted in confirmed P. D. incidents. A report on the matter will come to Council, perhaps for some sort of ordinance. Councilmember Gilb inquired if the Police Department has a list of residents who have alarms. The Chief replied the list is compiled as they go along. Noted that citizens are encouraged to call the Police if they think there is a problem, and inquired what other cities do about such matters. The Chief of Police replied some are quite lenient; others not so much. A report is in preparation. The meeting ADJOURNED at 11:30 p. m., to 7:00 p.m., August 21, 1990 in the City Hall Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council and Redevelopment Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters and evaluation of properti~. ~~~~~~r 13 8/7/90