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