Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 2,1990_2 \ I . I I 32:0233 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Sept.18, 1990) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION SISTER CITY NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTR WALES, AUSTRALIA MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1990 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session at 7:45 p, m., October 2, 1990 in the City Hall Conference Room, Dr. Al Desterhaft, Arcadia Presbyterian Church Police Chief Neal Johnson PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young ABSENT: None On MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adj ourned and Regular Meetings of September 18, 1990 were APPROVED. Councilmember Harbicht ABSTAINED since he was not present at the September 18, 1990 meeting. It was MOVED by Councilmember Ciraulo, seconded by Council- member Rarbicht 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 City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a CLOSED SESSION to discuss the existing lawsuit of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency vs. Kiewit", Councilmember Harbicht announced that two representatives from Arcadia's Sister City, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, were in Arcadia to do a live radio broadcast back to Newcastle. The Sister City Commission had a reception for these two gentlemen the other evening, Councilmember Rarbicht accepted, on behalf of the Council, letters from the Lord Mayor of Newcastle commemorating the first live broadcast between the two cities; the Sister City bonds will be greatly strengthened by this broadcast, Also, he noted a personal letter to the Mayor sending congratulations on her election as Mayor of Arcadia. 10/2/90 1 NEWCO WASTE SYSTEMS (Recycling) O}J-z...D-f..,O tJSP 1. PUBLIC REARING APPEAL - MP 90- 009 (717 Cortez Rd.) (DENIED) 0:)8'0 -;,; 5' 7 I 7 Corr,e""" 32:0234 PRESENTATION Pete Nadell, General Manager, Newco Waste 'Systems, was present in response to Council's request for a status report on the curbside recycling effort in the City. Newco has been in the City approximately a year and a half, They took over the recycling program which had been started by Best Disposal, Information prior to last April is incomplete; information dating from that time indicates that between 35-40% of single family residential units are participating in the curbside recycling program. They estimate that approximately 5% of the City's total residential solid waste stream is being diverted away from the landfills. Approximately 50% of the single family residential units separately place for collection some amount of yard waste on a monthly basis, Newco estimates that yard waste represents approximately 25% of the City's total residential solid waste stream. However, for Newco to have an opportunity to divert this waste away from the landfills, it must be free of any household refuse and other contaminants, especially plastic trash bags. In view of the magnitude of the yard waste generation in the City, this solid waste component represents one of the best opportunities for the City of Arcadia to achieve its near term AB-939 objective, Separate collection routes are in place to separate and potentially divert a significant portion of the City's solid waste stream, the yard waste. This will depend upon the continuing availability of an alternative destination for yard waste and a renewed public education and awareness program. Newco is prepared to assist the City in making the residential recycling program more effective. Eventually multi-family residential units and residential bin customers will also have an opportunity to participate in the City's recycling program. Mr, Nadell noted that the markets for many of the materials that have been included in household recycling programs have weakened, Discussion ensued concerning specific details of the ongoing collection and recycling efforts of Newco and the public awareness and education efforts of the City. I Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of MP-90-009. On August 28, 1990 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, 1441 denying an appeal and upholding the Santa Anita Village Romeowners Association denial of a proposed two story dwelling with attached garage at 717 Cortez Road. The Commission noted that (I) the proposed home was not in character with the neighborhood nor compatible or harmonious with other homes in the area; (2) that the house was not in proportion, and specifically that the portico looked out of place and made the house look massive; (3) that the portico was out of portion with the house and did not belong on the house; (4) the lot was too narrow to accommodate the house; and (5) that the front wall of the second story, which lined up with the front wall of the first floor, added to the bulky appearance of the front elevation. The City Council's review of the application applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance, The Council should determine whether the materials and appearance are compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. Approval or denial of the application should be based on the issues of compatibility with specific reasons that explain Council's decision. I IN FAVOR Robert Ho, P. O. Box 2006, Upland, CA, architect and appellant, noted that one aspect of the appeal is based upon procedural questions and/or violations and he inquired whether or not 10/2/90 2 32:0235 I Council is prepared to consider that aspect. The City Attorney responded that although the procedural complaints were well taken, the procedures had been substantially complied with. That does not preclude Mr. Ro from making argument on what he considers to be the procedural problem, The City Council has the authority to remand the matter back for further consideration based upon procedural errors. The Planning Commission was advised by the City Attorney that Mr. Ro is not prejudiced by any of the errors and that there was substantial compliance with the requirements. Mr, Ro stated that he felt there had been many procedural violations and that the Architectural Review Board had tried to dictate design. He reviewed in some detail the procedures involved in the submission of the plans to the ARB and the subsequent appeal of the ARB denial to the Planning Commission and, what he considered to be improper or perhaps illegal applications of policies and requirements as written in Resolution 5286 on the part of the ARB, Re also noted that he had been informed that his client would be allowed a house the size of 3,000 square feet on that particular lot, this was changed later on to 3,200 square feet, but there is no written rule; that is the policy of the ARB. He noted that the proposed house is to have five bedrooms, will be 4,133 square feet and, as far as he knows, this is not in violation of any code. The City Attorney interjected that the decision being appealed tonight is that of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was specifically instructed in writing to ignore anything that the ARB did that appeared to be something of a rule; the ARB does not have rule-making authority. When the Planning Commission addressed these issues, they ignored any rule which the ARB appeared to have made; which is what Mr. Ho is addressing. The only issue is the compatibility issue and that is what the Planning Commission considered and the decision that is before Council at this time. Mayor Young reiterated that Council is concerned tonight with the Planning Commission decision only. Mr. Ho noted that the Planning Commission had noted specifically that the portico is too high and he felt this is debatable; he is willing to work on that issue. As a matter of fact, he has revised the plans, In reply to questions from Councilmember Fasching, Mr. Ho said he felt the new plans would meet all the Planning Department requirements. The City Attorney noted that on the issue of compatibility, a number of factors are considered by the ARB, not just lot coverage, Councilmember Ciraulo said that perhaps the proper procedure would be for Mr. Ho to submit his revised plans to the Planning Commission, Mr. Ro replied the ARB has already turned down the revised plans and this has been appealed; to be heard in November by the Planning Commission. Mayor Young noted that Council has not seen the new plans referred to by Mr. Ro; therefore, Council can only rule on the Planning Commission decision on the original plans, Councilmember Harbicht agreed that it would be inappropriate for Council to consider revised plans at this point; such action would shortcut both the ARB and the Planning Commission, Councilmember Ciraulo agreed and pointed out that Council is dealing just with the plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission the first time. Mr, Ho has not presented any further information as to why the Planning Commission denial should be overruled. I IN OPPOSITION Tom Crosbv, Chairman, Village Romeowners' Association Architectural Review Board, 601 S, Old Ranch Road, stated, in part that new plans have been submitted and that the only change was in the removal of the portico and design of a smaller entry way, The basic plans remain unchanged. It was denied based on the massive bulk as compared to the houses in the surrounding area. The house to the south is about 1300 10/2/90 3 32:0236 square feet, compared to a 4000 square foot home; this will look totally out of place, Other homes in the immediate vicinity are single story for the most part, from 1500 to 1900 square feet. The ARB is not opposed to two story homes. All procedural issues were complied with on this revised set of plans. It was felt that the home in question with the portico is not compatible with the Village; there are no porticos in the Village; there are no homes where the second story comes up to the front of the first story; most are set back to reduce the massive appearance from the street, The house will be on a curve, so the side elevations will also be visible from the street, especially since the houses on each side are single story, The ARB looks at homes as they compare to existing homes in the Village; not what may be there in the future. The house is too large. Robert D, Bash, 723 Cortez Road, stated, in part, that he owns I the property immediately to the south of this proposed structure. He does not understand ho,w the owner can go forward with an appeal at this time, since subsequent plans have been submitted, It seems to him that the architect is trying to build the biggest house possible on that lot, Re would like to see a nice house there; but not the Bonaventure Hotel; this is a massive structure with five bedrooms, plus den, plus family room. Also there will be a three car garage, Presently the owners also own property at 711 Cortez where there is a one car garage with four cars parked in the driveway, This new house will have an eighteen foot driveway, He does not want a used car lot next door, He also does not want to have a six foot block wall running the length of his property. This is not compatible with the area. He also has not been able to determine from the plans what the setback from the street will be, Apparently there will be a side yard of 2 1/2 feet only with an overhang above that. Ris side yard is 6 feet on one side; 12 feet on the other; the average in the community is at least 6 feet. The former speaker is not the owner; he is the architect trying to collect a large fee for a large house. He would like Council to know that he appreciates the Architectural Review Board and what they are doing. Robert Almanza, P. O. Box 808, San Marino; 718 Sunset Blvd., Arcadia, stated, in part, that he is the owner of the property immediately in back of the proposed project, He does not think this will be compatible in the area. The property owners in the commercial side of the block have kept single family occupancy in apartments; they do not have the noise that large families produce. This will be a house with five bedrooms and no yard. This would be a beautiful house on an appropriately large lot, but is completely out of character is this location, In reply to a question from Council staff replied that the size of the lot in question is 150' x 65' and that setbacks are minimum 5' but there is an overhang on the roof that goes out at 2 1/2 '; second floor setback is II 1/2' on the south I side; similar on the north side; tandem garages are permitted if two spaces comply, then others can be in tandem, there have to be two that are side by side. Robert Ro, P. O. Box 2006, Upland, CA, stated in rebuttal that with regard to the concerns of the owner on the south side (723 Cortez), the setback will be 45 feet, the house will not be closer to the street then his house is. With regard to the second story windows, they have agreed to try to make changes in the window locations, With regard to the comments of the neighbor in the back, a two-story apartment building is located on that property that extends the full lot width. Also there 10/2/90 4 ., I I 32:0237 is a garage that extends the width of the lot. Mayor Young noted that this property is located in a different zone. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED. Councilmember Fasching noted that there seemed to be a lot of confusion involved here in that Mr. Ro was depending upon the ARB to inform him of the parameters and guidelines with which to build this house. But he did say he had been in touch with the Planning Department. The house has been denied by the Planning Commission and Mr, Ro has already developed some new plans which have been through the Review Board and are on the way to the Planning Commission. Re will make a motion to deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission decision and refund the appellant's $257.00 fee. This seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo, (See below for MOTION with FINDINGS.) Councilmember Rarbicht commented that it is not the function of the ARB to enforce setbacks, and these kind of things; they were formed to have the ability to go beyond City codes and make subjective judgements based upon architecture, It is then entirely appropriate that they consider the architecture in making their decision. Re does not object to the second story, per se, the size, per se; what has to be considered is what is compatible with the area. He agrees that the portico is not compatible nor is the overall size of the building compatible. speaking of the size as an architectural element of the building. Councilmember Harbicht then submitted findings to add to the MOTION. Councilmember Gilb agreed to the findings and noted that, although there had been some irregularities with the ARB. what the Planning Commission had voted on were the plans submitted by Mr. Ro and the Commission had voted unanimously against the proj ect. Councilmember Ciraulo and Mayor Young concurred. MOTION It was MOVED by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Councilmember Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council DENY the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's denial and FIND that while Council acknowledges that there were minor procedural irregularities in the ARB's handling of MP 90-009. that these irregularities did not preclude a fair and timely decision to the applicant, and so Council sets those aside; and FIND that the architecture is incompatible on two bases: 1) the portico is incompatible with the architectural style of the homes generally in the area; and 2) the size, as an element of the architecture, is incompatible on that particular house at that particular location, and DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating Council's decision and findings in support of that decision; and REFUND the applicant's $257.00 Planning Commission appeal fee. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Rarbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Gilb noted that it was his understanding that Mr, Ro is submitting new plans for this project. Mayor Young agreed. 10/2/90 5 2. 2a. JOB SPEC. (Computer Oper./ prog'm Intern) (APPROVED) 0';;'';;;' 0-/1> , rlnC/rJc-e- 2b JOB SPEC. (Grounds Worker) (APPROVED) () ;l ~ 0 -I 0 p"'; 2c. JOB SPEC. (Pub.Wks.lnsp.) (APPROVED) o Q!.'J.r>-/J) fiN JOB SPEC. REVISION (Wtr.Field Super't) (APPROVED) (J;;1.;I ('J -Iii IAJr... J:>io/ 2d. PROP.B ENDORSEMENT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1990 (APPROVED) 01.;}.0-(.,0 Fund I ny BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 32:0238 At its September 13, 1990 meeting, the Personnel Board approved' the proposed j ob specification for Computer/Operator/Programmer Intern (Class #1065), and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for consideration. This new position is part time and funding was authorized in the 1990-91 Budget approved by the City Council. The salary range is from $8.23 to $10.00 per hour, At its September 13, 1990 meeting, the Personnel Board approved the proposed job specification for Grounds Worker (Class #3337), and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for consideration. This new position is temporary part time and funding is authorized for the position. The salary for the position is $7.00 per hour, I At its September 13, 1990 meeting, the Personnel Board approved the proposed job specification for Public Works Inspector (Class #3310), and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for consideration. This new position was authorized in the 1990-91 Budget approved by the City Council. The salary range is from $2.735 to $3,325 per month. In reply to a question from Councilmember Fasching, staff replied the Public Works Inspector position justification was included in the budget package and, basically, it is because of work load and necessity. There is at least one person in the Department eligible for the position. This will be decided on a competitive basis. At its September 13, 1990 meeting, the Personnel Board approved the proposed revisions to the Water Field Superintendent specification (Class #7008), and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for consideration, These revisions will add duties currently being performed by the Superintendent and make the language in the specification more consistent with other more recently established classifications in the City. In reply to a question from Councilmember Fasching, staff replied that the only changes made were to include the section as it relates to the pumping and production portion of the job specification. Earlier the specification did not include this, , This will give the employee more responsibility. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HARBICRT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CIRAULO AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTER/OPERATOR/ PROGRAMMER INTERN, PUBLIC WORKS GROUNDS WORKER, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR AND REVISION OF JOB SPECIFICATION FOR WATER FIELD SUPERINTENDENT BE APPROVED. AYES: I NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Rarbicht and Young None None At its September l2. 1990 meeting, the Recreation and Parks Commission recommended that the City Council endorse Proposition B. Resolution No. 5533, adopted by City Council May 15,1990, requested the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors put the Conservation Act of 1990 on the November Ballot, It was MOVED by Councilmember Rarbicht, seconded by Councilmember Fasching and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows 10/2/90 6 I I 3. 4. 5. Sa. ROLL CALL 5b. MINUTE APPROVAL (Sept. 18, 1990) (APPROVED) 5c. NON-DISTURBANCE AGREE'T (Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates - Southside Proj.) (APPROVED) OIGgo-Y:3 (GrI6b/e. ~.i) 32:0239 that City Council ENDORSE Propostion B on the November 6, 1990 ballot. AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching. Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Councilmember Harbicht noted that a number of people were present to address Item 8a on tonight's agenda, and he suggested they speak at that time, Mayor Young agreed, Bob Nicholson, 1433 Glencoe Drive, Arcadia, Director, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District representing Arcadia, The Upper District includes Arcadia, all of Temple City, parts of El Monte, Rosemead and San Gabriel. Mr. Nicholson stated, in part, that he has been with the District for four years and is up for reelection. The District is an agency of the Metropolitan Water District and it is from the Upper District that Arcadia orders supplemental water. It has a connection to a MWD feeder and this last year, Arcadia did utilize some water from MWD. That water is to be purchased through the Upper District, The Upper District also deals with any supplemental water for basin recharge. Pumpers in the basin overproduce their allotment and they have to pay the Water Master for replacement water. This is purchased from the Upper District. They also deal with basin groundwater contamination. He is present to request Council's endorsement of his bid for reelection. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED FOR 5 MINUTES AND RECONVENED AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Rarbicht and Young ABSENT: None On MOTION by Member Gilb, seconded by Chairman Young and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of September 18, 1990 were APPROVED. Member Harbicht ABSTAINED since he was not present at the September 18, 1990 meeting. The developer of the Southside Project, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates (Stanley Gribble) and General Mills Restaurants, Inc. (the Olive Garden) have asked the Agency to sign a Non- Disturbance Agreement to protect the current lease rights of General Mills Restaurants in the event the developer defaults on his loan. The Non-Disturbance Agreement would require the Agency as a result of Agency foreclosure on the Arcadia Gateway Centre property to allow the Olive Garden Restaurant to remain "undisturbed" as a tenant of the center. It would require that the Olive Garden Restaurant recognize the Agency as the new landlord and treat the Agency accordingly (i. e., pay rent to the Agency in accordance with the terms of the "Lease" between Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates and General Mills Restaurants, Inc,). The Agreement would also require the Agency to accept the responsibilities of landlord under the Lease. 10/2/90 7 5d. ADJOURNMENT 6. 7. 7a. CRRISTMAS TREE STORAGE & SALES --- 0;35'"0- 3~ 7b. BUS.LIC.FEES REP'N (Chmbr. Comm.Co.Fair) D :1 '~'<'- ~s' 7c. FINAL MAP 46827 (1001 Fairview Av.) ()5"bO-("O 7d. FINAL MAP 48467 (303-309 S. Second Av.) D:t"60-bO 7e. 7f. RR.BRIDGE IMPROV. -(Job No. 656) D'1,^O-~D 32:0240 It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by M0mher Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVE the Non-Disturbance Agreement between Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates and General Mills Restaurants, Inc., subject to minor revisions approved by Agency Counsel, and AUTRORIZE the Executive Director to execute the Agreement. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None The meeting ADJOURNED to 5:00 p,m., October 16, 1990. I CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED requests for Christmas tree storage tents for Louis Hawkins, Rawkins Christmas Trees (721 & 145 W, Runtington Drive); Anthony Miazli, Tahoe Christmas Tree Co, (20 W, Foothill Blvd.); and Pete Costantino, Oregon Trees (201 E. Duarte Road), The tents to be erected in late November for use in December and will be subject to Fire Department regulations and approval prior to opening for business, APPROVED reduction of business license fees to $5.00 per amusement ride and pony ride for the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce County Fair to be held in the Arcadia County Park on November 3 & 4, 1990, (Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6215.7) . APPROVED Final Map 46827 for a 10-unit residential condominium project at 1001 Fairview Avenue filed by Rsu and Associates on behalf of Mei Chien Huang (owner/developer of the site). Approval is on condition that all outstanding conditions of approval, as outlined in staff report dated September 26, 1988 from the Public Works Department, shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. APPROVED Final Map 48467 for an ll-unit residential condominium project at 303-309 South Second Avenue filed by Engles Shen and Associates on behalf of Peter Lin (owner/developer of the site). Approval is on condition that all outstanding condi tions of approval, as outlined in staff report dated October 2, 1989 from the Public Works Department, shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. I See Page 9. APPROVED additional work for improvement of the railroad bridge at Second Avenue and Huntington Drive (Job No. 656), involving the installation of brick veneers on wingwalls of the concrete abutment; and APPROVE utilization of additional Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $39,377 to cover the cost of this work 10/2/90 8 I I 7g. 7e. MEDIAN ISLANDS IMPROV. - Job No. 508 (Colorado St. at Colorado PI.) (DENIED) 0'9.;;1.0 - 5"S- 7g. FIREWORKS DIS- PLAY - ARC.RIGR Oct. 12,1990 (APPROVED) 01./,/ D - 3 (:) 8. 32:0241 See below ALL OF TRE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS, WITR TRE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 7e AND 7g, WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT, SECONDED BY MAYOR YOUNG AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS, AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Rarbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Regarding staff's recommendation, Option 3, staff report dated October 2, 1990, construction of interlocking brick pavers for improvement of median islands, Colorado Street at Colorado Place (Upper Y) . Job No. 508, Councilmember Fasching felt that the installation of the brick pavers and related costs was excessive; rather than expending $38,000 for this treatment, periodically the surface of the asphalt on the medians could be painted a black color. Mayor Young and Councilmember Harbicht agreed that the pavers would not be that much of an improvement. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Fasching that staff's recommendation, Option No, 3, as noted above, be DENIED, seconded by Councilmember Rarbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: Request for a permit for a public fireworks display at Arcadia High School, October 12, 1990. Councilmember Gilb felt that since fireworks displays were banned in the City by ordinance, exceptions should not be made, Mayor Young noted that the ordinance permitted exceptions such as this. (Municipal Code 3115.2.6) It was then MOVED by Councilmember Rarbicht, seconded by Councilmember Fasching and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that a permit for a public fireworks display at Arcadia High School, October 12, 1990 be APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in staff report from Fire Chief Gardner dated September 27, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht and Young Councilmember Gilb (for reason noted above) None CITY MANAGER 8a. STOP SIGN Pursuant to many complaints concerning traffic conditions on ELEVADO AV. - Elevado Avenue, the Engineering Division conducted a study BETWEEN GRAND VIEW which consisted of a review of auto accidents, traffic counts & VIRGINIA DR. and on site inspections for unusual and hazardous physical (APPROVED) , conditions along Elevado Avenue. The information was compared to the requirements as accepted by the Institite of 0'-190- 80 Transportation Engineers and as listed in the Caltrans Traffic Manual to determine if stop signs were warranted. In addition, a review of auto accidents and traffic control devices within the area was conducted, The results of these investigations are outlined in detail in staff report dated October 2, 1990. 10/2/90 9 32:0242 There are basically three conditions or requirements to determine if stop signs are actually warranted as listed in the Caltrans Traffic Manual: l) stop signs can be installed prior to traffic signals where traffic signals are needed; 2) stop signs can be installed because of a number of accidents within a twelve month period; and 3) stop signs can be installed because of high traffic volumes. In view of the fact that the frequency of traffic accidents is below standard, the volumes are low, and no hazardous physical conditions exist on Elevado Avenue, it is recommended that the request for a stop sign be denied and that the Police Department continue with selective enforcement and periodic use of the speed- monitoring radar trailer on Elevado Avenue, Mayor Young announced that Council had delayed the people who I wish to speak to this item' at the Audience Participation segment to this time, Edward Cline, l651 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he is present to support staff's recommendation that the stop sign be denied, He reviewed staff's report and believes it to be exactly on point on all issues, The denial is appropriate; additional law enforcement is also appropriate. Mr. Cline is a professional traffic engineer and currently serves three cities in southern California as their Traffic Engineer and he feels qualified to speak on this subject, Speeding on residential streets is almost a universal problem; studies have confirmed that stop signs placed at unjustified locations actually do not command much respect, as pointed out by staff, Gene Gre22, 1745 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he is present to ask Council to take steps to alleviate the speed problem on Elevado Avenue and to request that stop signs be placed at the intersections of Elevado and Sierra Madre Blvd; Elevado and Doshier; and Elevado and Grand View; specifically at Grand View proceeding east where it intersects Elevado. There is a great deal of support for this from the residents of this area. He does not feel that the engineering standards address their problem. He also noted incidences of vandalism on the street, He feels that Elevado is a thoroughfare for north/south traffic. In reply to a question from Councilmember Ciraulo, they are recommending three stop signs; the original request was for a stop sign at Elevado and Sierra Madre Blvd, Councilmember Gilb noted that if the stop sign is installed, a lot of residents on Elevado will be receiving traffic citations and that residents on the corner where the stop sign is located will have additional noise of cars stopping and starting, Leonard Kranser, l718 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he is a businessman and engineer and he does not feel that the I guidelines referred to have the force of law and that their application should be waived. No other safety engineering solution is being offered, They do not want to wait until accidents occur to have the problem addressed, Re requests Council to listen to the majority of residents on the street. James Thomas, 1637 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he endorses the points made by Mr. Gregg, Elevado has no sidewalks and is close to the Righland Oaks School; many children walk to school on Elevado. He also presented letters from Mr. & Mrs. Gary Kim, 1700 Elevado and Mrs. Sutoh, 1658 Elevado to the Council supporting the placement of stop signs on Elevado Avenue. 10/2/90 10 32:0243 Anthonv Thor, l817 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he does not allow his three small children to play on the front lawn of his home because of the high speed of traffic. Re asks Council to please consider the stop signs. William Vallow, 1709 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he lives on the corner of Elevado and Sierra Madre Illvd. and that that intersection is a very dangerous one. His son is not allowed to ride his bicycle; his wife was almost broadsided this morning; the previous day, a speeding car almost took off his left door as he was attempting to exit his car, Re is concerned about future accidents; he is not worried about the additional noise such a stop sign might create. I Nancy Huan!l,163l Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that she has two children and is greatly concerned about the excessive speed of automobiles on the street. Sierra Madre residents use the street as a thoroughfare going south because it is the only street without a stop sign. She requests installation of the stop sign. Ron Presant, 1645 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that two additional accidents occurred on his street than were listed in the police report referred to earlier. One about two years ago and another about three years ago, where someone drove into a house, Kit Chan, 1638 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that he has twin children and has to hire a baby sitter to walk them to school, Requests Council to look into the issue of the excessive speed and need for a stop sign, Rilda Fernandes, 1854 Elevado Avenue, stated, in part, that she lives in a corner house. Three years ago a car crashed into her kitchen wall; the car had been traveling at 80 miles an hour, The house sustained $14,000 damage. Rer husband had been saved only because there was a small tree near the house. The neighborhood children play in her yard, People come from Sierra Madre at high speeds, They need a stop sign, I Councilmember Fasching inquired if consideration were to be given only to the intersection of Elevado Avenue and Sierra Madre Blvd, Councilmember Rarbicht replied that the report from staff which he had requested addressed the safety problems on Elevado Avenue itself rather than any specific intersection. Councilmember Rarbicht mentioned that, although he was sympathetic to the problems faced by these residents, he did not feel that the solution would be to install stop signs. According to staff investigation, the accident rates, combined vehicular and pedestrian traffic do not warrant stop signs, He noted that it is the opinion of traffic engineers across the country that stop signs used as "speed breakers" are not effective and sometimes create other safety hazards. Additionally, there is the question of legal liability, also pointed out in the staff report, Mayor Young felt something should be done for these residents, Councilmember Fasching did not feel this decision should be based solely on matters of traffic volume or liability. Councilmembers Gilb and Ciraulo felt this is an unusual situation and that the most logical spot for a stop sign would be at Sierra Madre and Elevado Avenue. Considerable discussion ensued among Councilmembers as to the possible location of a stop sign. .,1. The Chief Engineer pointed out that the standards discussed earlier are not general standards; they are specific engineering standards adopted by the Traffic Engineering Society. 10/2/90 11 ,~~::'\~:~~~~~~{~> -:\~;t ~,.~, - I; ~, ....' ,";,' , ;~, .~~~~<::~ ::~'.:i,~;i,:~-::",'~"::.' ~" ., '''''i'/' " ,,, '-~' . l" ",' MOTION 8b. COMPATIBLE USES - CPD-I ZONE (APPROVED) O.fJ8o -~O 32,iQ244 ':,,' <,' ,,', ",' , It> wa~' theh:l10VED: by Councilmember Fasching, seconded by Counci1member Ciraulo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that northbound and southbound stop signs and an eastbound stop sign be constructed at Sierra Madre Blvd, and Elevado Avenue. \, AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb and Young Councilmember Harbicht (Re did not feel this is the best solution and might increase safety problems,) None ABSENT: Request for determination of compatible uses in the CPD-I zone, The leasing agent for the Landmark Development project requested that Council determine that the uses listed in staff report dated October 2, 1990 be found to be compatible in the commercial planned zone, The Planning Department has reviewed the request and submitted a recommendation , Those considered to be inappropriate in the CPD-l zone are haircutting, nail salon, mailbox alternative store, pizza take-out. Councilmember Harbicht felt the mailbox alternative store would be a compatible use in that zone. It was generally felt that haircutting, nail salon and pizza take-out were not appropriate uses, I It was then MOVED by Councilmember Rarbicht that Council find that weight centers, toy/hobby shops, dry cleaning plants, beauty supply, health food retail stores and mailbox alternative stores be permitted uses in the CPD-I zone. ... The MOTION died for lack of a second. Kirk Downing, I08 North Inez, Suite 204, Monterey Park, representing the owners of the center. Re is speaking specifically to the issue of the haircutting/nail salons. They have a perspective tenant (Supercuts) which they feel will be a good tenant and will be compatible with general usage in the area. Supercuts has expressed interest in this location and they are willing to commit to a long term lease. This would be located across the street from one of the hotels and would be of value to the people staying at that hotel as well as the business people in the area. This is a managed employee situation where only haircuts are given. In answer to a question, the dry cleaning plant would be a collection point wi th pressing only done on the premises. Councilmember Harbicht did not think haircutting is a compatible use in an office zone. Councilmember Ciraulo inquired how a dry cleaning establishment could be justified. Councilmember Fasching noted that looking at the list of permitted uses in the CPD- I zone, they seem to be about the same as for a shopping center. I It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Fasching that Council ACCEPT the list as requested by the Landmark leasing agent, staff report dated October 2, 1990, with the exception of nail salons and pizza take-out, Discussion ensued regarding compatible uses in the CPD-I Zone of the individual business listed. In reply to a question from Councilmember Gilb, Mr. Downing replied they do not have a beauty supply/cosmetics store lined up; it was set forth so that the brokers would have a better idea of what would be permitted. Brokers, Mindv Jav, 125 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica and Patsv Lv, 1905 Holly Avenue, Arcadia, were present to answer questions about beauty supply/cosmetics and health 10/2/90 12 I I MOTION 9. CLOSED SESSION 9a. RESOLUTION NO. 5550 (ADOPTED) D'!.3I)-'.S-,f h 11 cr e... 10. 11. CIRAULO FASCRING 3~:0245 food businesses, Councilmember Gilb then stated he wished to change his motion with the approval of the second. It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, that Council APPROVE haircutting establishments only on the requested list as a compatible use in the CPD-l zone. Councilmember Fasching withdrew his original second because he did not see any necessity for these businesses to be brought back piecemeal for approval on an individual basis, Councilmember Gilb withdrew his 2nd motion. Councilmember Gilb restated his original MOTION that Council APPROVE the list as requested in staff report dated October 2, 1990 with the exception of nail salons and pizza take-out, seconded by Councilmember Fasching and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching and Gilb Councilmembers Harbicht and Young (They did not think all those on the list to be appropriate uses in the CPD-l zone.) None ABSENT: CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney announced that the City Council will be meeting in a CLOSED SESSION at the conclusion of this regular meeting, pursuant to Government Code, Section 54957 to discuss a personnel-related item. The City Attorney presented and read the title of Resolution No. 5550: "A RESOLUTION OF TRE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING TRE DESIGNATION OF TRE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS THE LOS ANGELES CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY". It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5550 be and it is hereby ADOPTED, AYES: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None None NOES: ABSENT: MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS With regard to the empty lot on the corner of Ranch Road and Runtington Drive where a Chevron Station had been, neighbors are concerned about autos cutting across the dirt lot raising dust. The lot is unfenced. Perhaps it could be blocked off in some manner. Requested that items I "commercial setbacks" and "upkeep or planting of vacant commercial land" be added to the agenda for 10/2/90 13 HARBICRT l2 ADJOURNMENT (Oct.16,1990 5:00 p.m.) ATTEST: J Alford, " :, 32:0246 the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to be held October l6, 1990, Inquired with regard to the building on the North side of Huntington Drive which is still covered with plywood, have the owners applied for a building permit as yet? Staff responded that they have approval from each department, are through plan check and ready to pull a permit. The architectural review is good for the period of one year, They have been delayed for one reason or another, but should be ready to move forward soon. Councilmember Harbicht requested that this be expedited. At 11:05 p. m., the City Council ADJOURNED to a CLOSED SESSION, RECONVENED and ADJOURNED at 11:25 p.m" to 5:00 p. m" October I 16, 1990, in the Conference Room of the City Ra11 Council Chambers for a Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission. lllf~li~r ary B. ung, or ~ I 10/2/90 14