Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 5,2001_2 I I. 1 ()II~ , .j \-~ \; I 43:0101 , , CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. INVClCATm First Reader Tom Gordon, First Church of Christ Scientist PLEDGE OF Peter Ulrich ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 3, O.H f) ./ ~ ,) 0'\,';,,(1,::, ORD, & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY 4. ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL AWARDS (June 2001) O/~O -If) PRESENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic. Marshall and Segal ABSENT: None ' SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS City Manager Kelly announced that at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, the City Council reviewed the 2001-2003 Operating Budget and 2001-2006 Capital Improvement and Equipment Plan. Following deliberation the City Council chose not to increase the water and sewer rates for fiscal year 2001-2002 and removed Agenda Item No. 13b" 'Recommendation to provide direction on a proposed sewer rate increase" and, Item No, 13c., "Recommendation to provide direction on a proposed water rate increase" from tonight's agenda and thereby canceled the June 19, 2001 Public Hearings. Mr, Kelly announced the subject discussed at the Closed Session held earlier this evening. No reportable action was taken, It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRI ED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be WAIVED, PRESENTATION Mayor Segal announced the presentation of the Arcadia BeautifUl Awards and introduced Patricia Eicherly, Arcadia Beautiful Commissioner, who gave a brief history of the Commission, explained the Commission's procedures for selecting the award winners and introduced its members. . Arcadia Beautiful Commission, Chairperson, Janice Torrington, presented the Arcadia Beautiful Awards for 2001. Recipient Address Award Donald & Rose Mary Franco Greg & Doris Sarkisian Donald & Diana Rasmussen Allan & Christina Huber 1425 Rancho Road 1127 Foothill Boulevard 333 A1tura 210 A1tura Dennis A. Lojeski Queen Anne Rose Budd Baldwin Doble Anita Baldwin 1. 6/5/01 Wenping Lo & Monique Luo Hsu & How-Kuei Chao Hans & Susan Sheen Union 76 Sav-On Drug Store Baldwin Plaza Edward McFaul Samuel & Leona Madikians John & Karen Heilman Thomas & Susie Krag Peter & Trinh Em Tran Joseph and Beth Wells-Miller Barry & Judith Gold Richard L.. Fischer Bernard & Margie Zwick Fano Garden Estates 5, 43:0102 711 Camino Grove 357 Naomi Avenue 1332 Highland Oaks Dr. 701 W. Huntington Dr, 188 Las Tunas Drive 1130 Baldwin Avenue 1424 Caballero Road 1120 Rodeo Road 1151 Encanto Drive 871 Kingsley Drive 2721 Warren Way 2140 Canyon Road 344 E, Floral Avenue 422 Oxford Drive 380 Wistaria 22-28 Fano Clara Baldwin Stocker Huntington Lucky Baldwin Business Business Business Arcadia Azalea Hugo Reid Mayor's Mayor's Santa Anita Newcastle Peacock Albert L. Matthies, Police officer Jerry L. Broadwell, Firefighter PUBLIC HEARING 5a. TA 2001-002 Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve Text Amendment 2001-002. () Sk() -6;;-"(S-1 Zone This Text Amendment was initiated at the direction of the City Council to create design 0\ 10 SAR.T, New review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations in the S-1 (Special 1_' - Structure Use) Zone, specifically pertaining to Santa Anita Race Track. It also proposed that the Design Review) regulations include an administrative review procedure to be completed by the (APPROVED) Development Services Director for minor exterior alterations, minor alterations to existing housing for race track empioyees, improvements directed toward stabling and care of thoroughbreds, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs, The Planning Commission at its May 8, 2001 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Text Amendment 2001-002 to the City Council. As part of the Commission's motion. staff was directed to investigate the United States Department of Interior Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation. which is attached to the June 5. 2001 staff report, Mr. DeMarco, representing Santa Anita Race Track, stated in part, that the race track is in accord with Text Amendment 2001-002, it gives them certain things that did not exist before. However, he expressed his objection to the Planning Commission recommendation that the design review include the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines, They felt adding that specific language to the ordinance is unnecessary and if is discriminatory, this particular requirement does not exist for any other zone in the code, Further. Mr. DeMarco stated that, Santa Anita prepared an historical report and an agreement with the Los Angeies Conservancy on what they can touch and what they cannot touch. The Los Angeles Conservancy will make an announcement of the agreement sometime during the month of June, I I In response to a Council question, staff stated, that the Planning Commission recommended including the acknowledgement of the number of potential historic resources on the race track site, At this time staff has not had the opportunity to study in any detail the Federal Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation, Therefore, the language is not included in the proposed code, Currently, the City does not have an historic preservation ordinance and relies on CEQA guidelines' to determine what level of environmental review, is necessary, in reference to any discretionary decision that is made on a project. For any design review that would require Planning Commission andlor City Council, review and approval, a CEQA analysis, including historic resources, would be conducted. 2 615101 I I I I 43:0103 Mayor Segal OPENED the public hearing, It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, In the discussion following close of the public hearing, Councilmember Kovacic expressed his concerns with regard to the use of the term "minor" in the proposed amendment. Further, he suggested that the Planning Commission andlor City Council receive a notice with regard to any additions or alterations at the Race Track, He also suggested that the City Council consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on directing staff to investigate the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Considerable discussion ensued. Some Councilmembers felt the need to add a provision that says the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation shall be used as a guide for any project; others felt, adding and following these guidelines will create a big problem, it will require staff time and a lot of disagreement. MOTION It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE and FILE the Negative Declaration; and, DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption at a later meeting, excluding the U,S, Secretary of Interior's guidelines and standards. City Manager Kelly, suggested an amendment to Section 9273,2,11.2,c to read as follows: "Within five (5) working days after a decision. notice shall be mailed to the applicant, Planning Commission and City Council. AMENDED MOTION Councilmember Chandler, and Council member Chang ACCEPTED the AMENDMENT as stated by the City Manager, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council members Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal Council member Kovacic None 5b, ORDINANCE On May 1, 2001 the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider an application filed NO. 2141 by Hank Jong for a General Plan amendment (GP 01-001) from Single Family Residential (Extend Urgency(0-6 DUlAC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DUlAC maximum) on properties located at Ordinance 1012-1026 South First Avenue. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council 1012-1026 S. denied by a 5-0 vote the General Plan amendment. The City Council subsequently adopted First Avenue) Urgency Ordinance No. 2140 to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and (ADOPTED) permits, as well as commencement of construction and development, for this property at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. This urgency ordinance would remain in effect for a TRANSCRIPT maximum forty-five (45) day period unless extended by ordinance. The Ordinance No. PREPARED 2141 would extend Ordinance No. 2140 for a maximum period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days to allow the Development Services Department adequate time to further t:J ~ <, .!J t; study the issue. In her presentation, Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, stated in part, that the consideration of a proposed zone change to rezone the properties located at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-1 (Single Family Residential), will be presented to the Planning Commission at its next meeting of June 12, 2001, Mayor Segal OPENED the public hearing. 3 6/5/01 43:0104 Yew Tan, Polyland Construction Inc" 805 W. Duarte Road #111, representing the owners and developer of the properties located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, requested that I the City Council revoke the Urgency Ordinance and reconsider the denial of the General Plan Amendment. He strongly demanded that the City Council not extend the Urgency Ordinance, protect legal rights and avoid any further damages suffered by the land owner. Jane Hu, 1012 South First Avenue, expressed her objections on extending the Urgency Ordinance and prohibiting construction on her property and adjacent lots, Ms. Hu further noted that she received a public hearing notice to determine if the zoning of subject properties should be change from R-2 to R-1, She felt, before the approval of the zone change, the City was already planning the land use under the R-1 zoning code. Catherine Ken, Attorney representing the land owner and'the developer of the properties located at 1020-1030 South First Avenue expressed her objections to the extension of Urgency Ordinance No. 2140, She felt that her client was not given proper notice and opportunity to object to the moratorium which was passed by the City Council on May 1, 2001. The land owners were denied due process with respect to the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance; the Urgency Ordinance is defective; and, the R-2 zoning and multiple family designation for the subject property is more suitable, proper and desirable. In Response to Mrs, Ken's comments, City Attorney Deitsch stated, in part, that the Urgency Ordinance was adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code Section 65858, and all the" procedures that are spelled out in that government code section were followed in the original adoption of the Urgency Ordinance. Roseanne Tvler, 939 Arcadia Avenue, stated that she has been selling real estate for 27 years and had the pleasure of selling to Polyland two R-2 zoned lots on South First Avenue. After working with the City for a year on this project, and getting permits to build six I . . individual houses with small yards, the City finds out that there is a conflict between the general plan designation and the zoning, and stopped the project. She felt this is not fair. Further, Ms. Tyler stated that the signers of the petition were misinformed, they were told these were apartments and not a condominium project. Sonia Williams, 130 Greenfield Place, representing 326 residents who signed the petition for upholding the General Plan in opposition of the proposed development on 1012-1026 South First Avenue urged Council to approve the extension of the initial moratorium as recommended. She felt that this will be paving the way for a comprehensive evaluation and update of the City's General Plan. ' Mike Marshall, 150 Greenfield Place, stated in part that, as one of the signers of the petition, it was obvious to him that these were condominiums. He expressed his objection to the characterization that everyone signing the petition did it mindlessly, and that this project was misrepresented. It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. In response to a Council question, City Manager Kelly stated in part that, part of this moratorium is to allow for more public input on the issue of the general plan and zoning. The moratorium allows staff, the Commission and the Council the right to re-review the appropriate general plan and zoning. City Attorney Deitsch suggested an amendment to the Ordinance No. 2141, Section 3, to read as follows: "A" ("Study Area"), other than for one single-family residence (dwelling) per I ~. " 4 6/5/01 I I I 6. OS-So. '\0 rJ~ ,., Or'80 1'{) 7, CHANG (Award Recipients) CHANDLER (Recycling) MARSHALL (Award Recipients) (Quest Relay) 43:0105 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2141 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS, AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 FIRST AVENUE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TEN (10) MONTHS, FIFTEEN (15) DAYS, FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF ORDINANCE NO, 2140, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A LAND USE STUDY AND THE ADOPTION OF ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE REGULATIONS", as amended. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic. Marshall and Segal None None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Steve Courtnev, 2127 Canyon Road, representing the residents of Highland Oaks on the proposed development of the hillside above the City. In his overview, Mr. Courtney stated in part, that the developer would like to buy 83 acres and develop 11 lots. The development would -be a gated community with private streets and the potential of disfiguring the hillside and causing relocation of the wildlife. The proposed development is projected to remove 110 Oak trees, Mr. Courtney further expressed the Canyon area residents concerns with regard to fire and floods. He felt that this project would leave personal monuments over looking the City, which would be an embarrassment for the City. Vincent Hvlka, 2131 Canyon Road, expressed his concerns with regard to the proposed development project in the hillside area, stating in part, that the City should look at the map of the area again and consider the entire 83 acres that is being consider to be bought, not just the part that is proposed to be developed. The Santa Anita Canyon Road goes through the middle of that property, which means the developer essentially could develop on either side of the road that leads up to Chantry Flats and Sturtevant Falls, MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmember Chang congratulated the recipients of various awards this evening stating that the efforts of these people make Arcadia beautiful and an attractive City to live in. Councilmember Chandler mentioned the importance of recycling, Waste in Arcadia is a big issue and Arcadians are not recycling the amount of things they should recycle. Mr. Chandler stated the major reason that Arcadia is failing to meet or comply with some of our recycling demands is the green waste, Mr, Chandler suggested staff to look into modification of the City's waste contract and explore options for improvement of the recycling program. Mayor Pro tem Marshall congratulated the Arcadia Beautiful Award winners this evening. Ms. Marshall expressed appreciation to Arcadia Beautiful Commissioners for doing a good job, Mrs. Marshall thanked the Arcadia Fire Department for the opportunity to participate in the "Quest for Burn Survivors Relay" and be able to ride on one of the big fire trucks, (FD Donation) Mrs. Marshall announced the money raised from the Fire Department Pancake Breakfast ($500) was donated to the Grossman Burn Center 5 6/5/01 (Bus Stop Covering) (Food for Thought)) 43:0106 Mrs. Marshall would like to re-visit the report with regard to bus stop coverings, which was previously considered by the Council. She noted that bus riddership for public transportation has increased by approximately 25%, I Mayor Pro tem Marshall shared a "food for thought", by an unknown author, ""worry is wasting today's time to clutter up tomorrow's opportunities with yesterday's trouble's". KOVACIC Councilmember Kovacic announced that the City Librarian Kent Ross, will retire at the end (City Librarian) of June, The Library Board has appointed Janet Sporleder as the new City Librarian. (Library Youth Program) (Mayor's Prayer Breakfast Proceeds) (Gardeners) (July 3, 2001 Meeting) (Arcadia Historical Museum) SEGAL (Bus Shelters) Mr. Kovacic announced the Arcadia Library's summer program for youth, beginning June 16 to August 9, 2001, The theme of the program is "Take Me to Your Reader", The library expects over 2000 children to participate, Mr. Kovacic announced that the 2001 Mayor's Prayer Breakfast was extremely successful. The proceeds from this event benefited, and was divided between the Arcadia Coordinating Council's Campership Program and the Arcadia Rotary Club's Annual Salute to Seniors events. With regard to green waste, Mr, Kovacic felt, it might be a good idea to make sure all the gardeners who are working in Arcadia have an Arcadia business license. Not only as a source of revenue, but more importantly, to be able to communicate with them and explain both City's policies on keeping the waste out of the streets and also putting'it in the right trash can, ' Mr. Kovacic noted that he will not beable to attend the July 3, 2001 City Council meeting, therefore, he requested that consideration of the two items involving the Santa Anita Mall expansion and the Live Oak project be continued to the July 17th meeting. I In response to Council member Kovacic's request, City Manager Kelly, stated in part that, in order to coordinate with the Los Angeles County schedule, the Live Oak Avenue project cannot be continued. With regard to the Santa Anita Mall expansion project and public hearing, Mr, Kelly stated, if the Council desires, this item can be moved to July 17th agenda. Council concurred, In response to Mr. Kovacic's query, Don Penman. Assistant City ManagerlDirector of Development Service, stated in part, the reason that the Arcadia Historical Museum building project has not met the original completion schedule was the bad weather and having a difficuit contractor to work with through the process. The construction should be completed in the month of July or August and will be ready for ribbon cutting in the fall. Mayor Segal noted that three votes are needed in order to direct staff to dust off the report that has been prepared with regard to bus shelters, Council concurred. City Manager Kelly stated that this will not take a lot of staff work, they will simply update and reprocess a report that was done in the past. (Budget Report) Mayor Segal expressed appreciation and congratulated the City Manager and staff for a precise and understandable budget report. (Pancake Breakfast) Mayor Segal thanked Council members for their participation at the Fire Department Pancake Breakfast. I 6 6/5/01 I I I (Lucky Baldwin Day Picnic) 8. ROLL CALL 9. 10, 10a. ARA RES, NO. 195 (Fifth Avenue Office Proj,) (ADOPTED) ,,; 43:0107 Mayor Segal reminded everyone that that the City is in the planning stages of the 'Lucky Baldwin Day City Picnic', which will take place on October 28 at the Los Angeles County Park. JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CITY MANAGER Consideration of the report and recommendation to adopt Agency Resolution ARA No. 195 certifying a negative declaration for the Fifth Avenue office project, approving a replacement housing plan, approving an owner participation agreement (OPA) with the Fifth Avenue Group LLP, and further approving the architectural design of the office project, and appropriation of $1,535,000 for costs related thereto, and that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6226 approving a relocation plan for the Fifth Avenue Office Project RESOLUTON NO. 6226 In his overview, Don Penman, Deputy Executive Director and Assistant City (Fifth Avenue Manager/Development Services Director, stated in part, that the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP Office Proj, (Messrs. Dick Hale and Mall Waken) have purchased or are in escrow to purchase the Relocation Plan)majority of the triangular shaped properties on the southwest corner of Fifth and Santa (ADOPTED) Clara, They will develop two 3-story office buildings totaling 90,000 square feet on the 4- 'I acre site. Pursuant to a Draft Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) the Agency would 06fS (), (! . financially assist the Fifth Avenue Group in the amount of $1.125,000. The developer would be responsible to pay for the relocation of the commercial or industrial businesses on the site, and all on and off site clearance and development costs, There are also twenty-three (23) residential units on the Richter property. Because of the Agency's potential involvement in this development. these 23 displacees are eligible for relocation benefits. The Agency would pay the estimated $410,000 for the cost of their relocation, As required by California Redevelopment Law and the Agency's Guidelines, the Agency through its consultant, Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC), has prepared a Relocation Plan which was provided to all of the tenants and a noticed meeting was held with the potential displacees. The Agency will be removing 23 lower income housing units from the market, and must by law replace them within four (4) years. The Agency will receive approximately $110,000 - $120,000 in annual tax increment from the project, as well as other indirect revenues to the City, such as, sales taxes,and Transit Occupancy Taxes. It is also anticipated that over 300 employees will occupy these buildings. In response to a Council question, staff stated in part, that reimbursement of $1,125,000 of the acquisition and commercial/industrial relocation costs to the developer will be paid in installments: 1) $300,000 on beginning of building pads; 2) $300,000 at completion of buiiding walls; 3) $300,000 at completion of the buildings and roof; 4) $200,000 at issuance of City Certificate of Occupancy; and, 5) $25,000 at Agency approval of Certificate of Completion, 7 6/5/01 ROLL CALL (ARA) ROLL CALL (City Council) 11. 11a, MINUTES (May 15, 2001) 43:0108 Considerable discussion ensued concluded by the following motion, it was MOVED by I Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Agency Member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION ARA NO, 195 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FIFTH AVENUE OFFICE PROJECT, APPROVING A REPLACEMENT- HOUSING PLAN, AND APPROVING AN OWNER : PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (OPA) WITH THE FIFTH AVENUE GROUP, LLP", for an approximate 90.000 sq. ft. professional office development on the northwest comer of Huntington Drive and Fifth Avenue; and, APPROVE the Architectural Design for the two (2) buildings of the project as stated above, and as set forth on attachment 3 and 4 of June 5, 2001 staff report, and that the Aiken design be conditionally approved pending staff review of the final plants; and APPROPRIATE $1,535,000 from the Unprogrammed Reserves or bond funds, $1,125,000 for the payments to the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP, pursuant to the OPA, and $410,000 for the residential relocation payments as required by law., AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Council member Kovacic and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO, 6226 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE FIFTH AVENUE OFFICE PROJECT". AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I CONSENT ITEM It was MOVED by Agency Member Marshall, seconded by Agency Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Minutes of the May 15, 2001 Regular Meeting, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None ' None ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to June 19, 2001 at 5:00 p.m, 12. CONSENT ITEMS THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED 12a. MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the May 15, 2001 Regular Meeting, (May 15,2001) 09,' <l . '" 12b. p<O-.'J AWARD- CONTRACT (2000-01 Slurry Seal Program - , AUTHORIZED a change in the 2000-01 annual slurry seal program from the streets shown in Exhibit "A" to those listed in Exhibit "B" set forth in the June 5. 2001 staff report; and, AWARDED a contract in the amount of $138,303.76 to Doug Martin Contracting Company, Inc. for the 2000-2001 Street Resurfacing Project; and, WAIVED all informalities in the bid I 8 6/5/01 I I I " '.," \ . .'1' 43:0109 2000-01 Street Resurfacing Project) Inc. for the 2000-2001 Street Resurfacing Project; and, WAIVED all informalities in the bid process; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. 12c. 0;; r:(O -?O RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO, 6225 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6225 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR (Used Oil GRANT FUNDS FROM THE USED OIL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL Recycling RECYCLING ENHANCEMENT ACT." Fund) 12d, '!J "YO-1;-: VEHICLE AUTHORIZED the Purchasing Officer to issue a purchase order for one (1) Ford full size PURCHASE pick up with lift gate body in the amount of $37,107.72 to Worthington Ford; and, (Public Works AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Services) Attorney. 12e. () 1, 'It) VEHICLE PURCHASE: (Public Works Services) ... AUTHORIZED the Purchasing Officer to issue a purchase order for one (1) 2001 Vac-Con V350SHAl850 Combination Vacuum Sewer Cleaner unit to Municipal Maintenance Equipment in the amount of $160,806.16; and, DECLARED the 1997 Ford sewer-cleaning unit asset #80008 as surplus, and authorize trading the unit in as part of the purchase offer; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney, 12f. 0') ~') " ...,.~ SR CITIZENS APPROVED an agreement with Catering Systems Inc. to provide Luncheon Meals for LUNCHEON Senior Citizens at the Arcadia Community Center from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002; MEALS and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager to sign the agreement after approval as to form, by AGRMNT. the City Attorney. (July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002) Councilmember Chang encouraged the Senior Citizens to attend the Luncheon program and take advantage of decreased in the price, 12g. O!>-O -..! f) STREET APPROVED the closure of 500 to 711 San Luis Rey Road on June 23, 2001 from 2:00 p,m. CLOSURE to 10:00 p.m for a neighborhood block party subject to the conditions set forth in the June 5, (500 to 711 2001 staff report, San Luis Rey) 12h. 0 t; [; ,.' PROF. SVC. AGREEMENT (Traffic Signal Design) .1 " AWARDED a contract to Willdan for traffic design services and traffic signal modernization at various intersections in the redevelopment area in the amount of $18,400; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Clerk to EXECUTE a professional services agreement in a form approved by the City Attomey. 121. lei I !~ , , GENERAL SVC, APPROVED the General Services Agreement between the City of Arcadia and the County AGREEMENT of Los Angeles; and, DIRECTED the Mayor to EXECUTE said Agreement in a form (Los Angeles approved by the City Attorney, County) 12j,t.~,( VEHICLE APPROPRIATED $17,538,39 from the Equipment Replacement Fund; and, AUTHORIZED PURCHASE the Purchasing Officer to issue a purchase order for one (1) 2001 Chevrolet Malibu LS (Manage~s Office) vehicle to Community Chevrolet in the amount of $17,538,39 for the City Manager's office, 9 6/5/01 43:0110 THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 12a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i and j APPROVED ON MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM MARSHALL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER I CHANG AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None 13. CITY MANAGER 13a. f) Ir~" .4(1 RREESFUIDSEENRATIALTE Consideration of the report and recommendation regarding adjustments to service rates for the collection of residential refuse and recyclables, SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT In August 2001 the City will begin the sixth year of an eight-year contract with Waste (FY 2001-02) Management for refuse collection which includes the collection of refuse, green-waste and (RESOLUTION recycling materials. The agreement contains specific provisions that entitle Waste AUTHORIZED) Management to receive annual rate adjustments. The adjustments are calculated using (June 19th Mtg,) two (2) categories, changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and changes in landfill . disposal costs. Waste Management requested the service rate adjustment for residential refuse/recycling collection to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period of March 2000 to March 2001. Waste Management's request for a rate adjustment was calculated per the formula provided in the Agreement. The impact of this adjustment on a typical single-family household with a standard 90-gallon collection service will be an adjustment of 2.5 percent or .26 cents per month, bringing the standard monthly service rate to $11,57. Standard bin I service rates (3-yard bin once a week) for multi-family residences will also be adjusted by 2.5 percent or $1.89 per month. bringing the standard monthly service rate to $77.46. Following a discussion with regard to the programs that will improve the green waste recycling, it was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT the Public Works Services Department to prepare a Resolution authorizing the proposed refuse rate schedule for fiscal year 2001-2002 for presentation to the City Council at the June 19, 2001 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT staff to explore options for improvement of the recycling program, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None 13b, SEWER RATE Withdrawn, ADJUSTMENT 13c. WATER RATE Withdrawn. ADJUSTMENT I 10 6/5/01 I I I 43:011.1 13d. O~ ,'r) .;t., AMEND PROF. Consideration of the report and recommendation to amend the existing professional SVCS. services ag~eement with R&D Transportation Services to increase vehicle service hours AGREEMENT (VSH) by an additional 4,000 .hours annually, compensate R&D for extraordinary fuel (Arcadia Transit expenses resulting from current energy crisis, and appropriate $125,920.00 to cover System - R&D increase costs in FY 2000-01. Transportation) During the past year, the Arcadia Transit system has experienced a significant growth in ridership, This can be attributed to a large extent to more school age children riding transit and the successful implementation of the Pass Sales program to the community, To meet this demand, R&D Transportation Services (R&D) projects an increase of 2,347 vehicle service hours (VSH) by the end of fiscal year 2001, which will exceed the base and secondary contract allowance of 30,000 hours. Additionally, as a result of the increased number of vehicles responding to the influx of passengers and the dramatic increase of national fuel prices, R&D has experienced an increase in fuel cost beyond that projected in their original proposal dated April 22, 1999, ' Staff proposed language for the contract between the City and R&D Transportation Services to expand the annual VSH through the remaining contract period by an additional 4,000 hours; adjust the rate for these additional hours; and, compensate R&D for the fuel increases. The amendments affect years two through five (FY01-FY 04) of the current contract. Following the staff presentation, Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director introduced Martha Eros, Transportation Services Officer, Considerable discussion ensued. Staff responded to concerns expressed by Council with regard to waiting time, designating drop-off and pick-up areas and additional fuel expenses. Staff recommended an amendment to the current contract to compensate R&D when the difference is more than 5% above the Contractor's budgeted price per gallon, If this cost per gallon were to drop more than 5% below the Contractor's budgeted price, the City would be credited that difference. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement with R&D Transportation Services increasing vehicle service hours by 4,600 annually for current year. FY 00-01 through the end of the current contract, June 2004, and including a fuel compensation clause to fairly compensate R&D for costs beyond its control; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXECUTE said amendment in a form approved by the City attomey; and, APPROPRIATE $125,920 from Proposition A funds to cover increased Arcadia Transit costs in FY 00-01. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None 14. 0";,', (-I 14a. C! 5 (,\- _ ., f) ORDINANCE City Attorney Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO, NO. 2142 2142, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, (l-Yr, Time CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING FOR ONE (1) YEAR SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO, 2119 Extension RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE S-l ZONE (SECTION 9273,1.10,1)", Ord,2119S-1 . Zone) CITY ATTORNEY 11 6/5/01 (ADOPTED) 14b. ORDINANCE "'- ~NO. 2132 OS"'r,'J "'; (T.A.2001-01 . Crematories) (ADOPTED) 14C. RESOLUTION NO. 6223 IJ ,-) . - ....:),,(Denying J .-'. - 'J GP 01-001 _ 1012-1026 S, First Avenue) (ADOPTED) ADJOURNMENT (In Memory of Shu-Chi Wang) ADJOURNMENT (In Memory of Horace "Ace" Clutterbuck) I 43:0112 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO, 2142 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None City Attorney Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. 2132, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT TA 2001-01 AMENDING SECTION 9275,1,51 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING 'CREMATORIES" FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS", . It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2132 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None City Attorney Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of RESOLUTION NO, 6223. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, GP 01-001 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DUlAC MAXIMUM) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 S, FIRST AVENUE", I It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that RESOLUTION NO, 6223 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler. Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None Councilmember Chang adjourned the meeting in memory of Shu-Chi Wang. "I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of a great special friend, a special person and my wife's second mother, Shu-Chi Wang passed away on May 30th at the age of seventy- eight. Born on --- Province, China, Ms, Wang moved to the United States in 1982, She was a very loving and caring woman, whose compassion and devotion to others touched everyone around her. She was one of those special people who without trying brought out the best in everyone she knew. Mrs. Wang always put the interest of others first. her selfless character built her a wide network of friends in China, Taiwan, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and here in the United States, She was and will remain a true inspiration to all who knew her. Mrs. Wang is survived by her son Chi Wei and Lio Chi Hong and grandchildren Samuel, Jonathan and Candyce". Mayor Segal adjourned the meeting in memory of Horace "Ace" Clutterbuck, "I would like to respectfully adjoum tonight's City Council meeting in memory of Horace 'Ace" Clutterbuck, who passed away on May 21, 2001. Ace was born in Houston Texas on July 9, 1920, After completing his degree in Laboratory Science, Ace became the Chief I 12 6/5/01 I I I ADJOURNMENT (June 19, 2001) ATTEST: ' 43:0113 Technologist at the newly opened Arcadia Methodist Hospital in 1957. In 1966 he was asked to be the Supervisor of 612 Medical Laboratory here in Arcadia. Along with his many accomplishments, Ace volunteered his time to the Arcadia Chapter of the American Red Cross where he started as Chairman of the Disaster Action Team and moved on to being the Chairman of the Blood ,Services, Ace also donated his time to his church, Our Savior Lutheran Church in Arcadia where he helped out in the church office, Ace is survived by his wife of 32 years, Helene; son, Byron Clutterbuck; and daughter, Cynthia Brown; grandchildren Danielle, Jesse and Dustin, Ace is also survived by his two sisters, Juanita and Jeanette, I hope that the loving memories his family has of him, will offer some consolation in their loss'. Mayor Segal ADJOURNED the June 5, 2001 Regular Meeting of the Arcadia City Council at 10:45 p,m., to June 19, 2001 at 5:00 p,m., in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers for a Regular Meeting to conduct the business of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of properties. JCu~ 13 6/5/01 I TRANSCRIPT (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO A PUBLIC HEARING I JUNE 5, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 5b. Recommendation to introduce Ordinance No, 2141, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, extending Ordinance No, 2140 to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and pennits, as well as commencement of construction and developmen~ on property generally located at 1012-1026 S, First Avenue for an additional period often (10) months, fifteen (15) days, from the date of expiration of Ordinance No. 2140, pending the completion ofa land use study and the adoption of any and all amendments to the City's Land Use Regulations I City Manager William R. KeUy: Mayor, Council. The next public hearing is an ordinance, 2141, and ordinance to the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, extending ordinance number 2140 to prohibit the approval of aU land use entitlements and pennits as well as commencement of construction and development on property generally located at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue, for an additional period of ten months, 15 days, from the date of expiration of ordinance 2140 pending the completion of the land use study and the adoption of any and all amendments of the City's land use regulations. Now that I have read the ordinance title, I think I have done the report. But Donna, why don't you come up and make the staff presentation, Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator: Sure. Just to supplement what Mr. Kelly has said, this item, the zone change, is going to the Planning Commission next week for consideration of rezoning the property from R-2 to R-I, so we are moving completely ahead with this zone change, So hopefully within three months, at the direction of the City Council, this should be completed, We feel that the moratorium is appropriate, However, like I said, we are moving on with the zone change, Mr. Kelly: (undecipherable) Is there an addendum to the staff report we passed out to the Council? Ms. Butler: That indicates, I believe in there what we are doing, Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy of the addendum for myself. Mr. Kelly: Mayor, CounciL We gave you a copy of an addendum to the report, that there's two, as a part of the recommendation of the ordinance, in that it be extended for ten months, 15 days prohibiting approval of all land USe and pennits, with the exception of pennits for a single family dwelling on a lot, and to expedite the processing of the zone change, If you would like to add that information to the report and reconunendation. Mayor Mark "Mickey" Segal: OK. Are there any questions by the Council? OK, again this is a public hearing, And if there is anybody that wants to address this issue, please come forward. Be sure to give your name and address, please, Mr. Yew Tan, Polyland Construction Inc., 805 W. Duarte Road #111, Arcadia: Good Evening, City Mayor, City Members on board and the staff, My name is Tan. I represent the Polyland Construction, real estate land owner and developer of the property located at 1020 to 1030 South First Avenue tonight. I I I I I We strongly object to the extension of urgency ordinance. number 2140, and ask City not to delay the development project on South First Avenue, On the May fIrst hearing, the City Council asswned that the apartment building would be erected shortly after the denial of the general plan amendment and therefore adopted the urgency ordinance. In fact, we did not plan to build any apartments, and most importantly, there was no indication whatsoever in the hearing that the apartments would be bnilt if the general plan amendment was denied. The City Council adopted the urgency ordinance without giving us the opportunity to present the fact that there was no urgency. Tonight, we would like to tell you how much losses and the damages we are suffering, In reliance of the City's zoning map, we paid R-2 price for the two houses and lots we bought. In reliance of the City's approval On the development plan and building pennits, we have spent more than $150,000 in architectural and engineering fees, licenses and permits, school fees, demolition and grading, insurance, interest of construction loan, and advances to the contractors, We are now facing the acceleration of the construction loan due to the moratorium. We are stuck. .We are stuck. Had you told us earlier that you do not want condos in Arcadia anymore, we would not have bought the property, or at least we would not have tom down the old houses, Now the houses were gone in reliance of the building pennits, and we lost our last chance to mitigate our damages by renting out the houses, We will be bankrupt on this project if there is further delay up to ten months, We will not have any financial resource to build anything after 10 months, By imposing a moratorium without notice, the City basically told us "we, as a government, can do whatever at any time we like, we can issue the pennit first and revoke the pennits later on if we change mind, sorry for the mistakes and that is too bad." Please carefully review the situation. If the City suddenly decides not to have any more condos, that decision may not be retroactively applied to the project with building pennits is$ued. We request the City Council to reverse and revoke the urgency ordinance, and reconsider the denial of the general plan amendment made in violation oflaw and equity. We aho strongly demand that the City not to extend the urgency ordinance to protect our legal rights and to avoid any further damages suffered by the land owners. I I 2 The last thing I would like to present to you is a letter from the misinformed party that signed in favor to the general plan amendments, We got it recently, I would like to present it to you, for the City Councilmembers to review, And please consider it. Thank you, Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr, Tan. Any questions? Roger? Councilmember Roger Chandler: I have a question of staff relative. I'll wait, I'm sorry. We'll let the public hearing go. I'm sorry, Mayor Segal: OK, Is there anyone else who would like to address the City Council? Jane Hu: Mayor and City CounciL My name is Jane Hu, and I live 1012 South First Avenue, Arcadia, My family and I moved to this address 12 years ago, and we bought the house about 13 years ago, with the dream to pursue this better community environment and the better schools, education for my child, My husband and I always teach our child to be compliant because we are compliant people. However, tonight, I stand before you, even I'm slow of speech and tongue, I do not have any legal counseL And please forgive me, I think I do not know, or familiar with City Council procedures at all, But I would like to express my personal feelings here. First of all, I was a, we do not have any plan for construction works on our property, What I plead tonight is to be treated justly and equally, Prior to receiving this notice of public hearing for prohibiting construction pennits on our property, and adjacent lots, just a few days earlier we had received another public hearing notice to determine if the zoning of the subject property should be changed from R-2 to the R-l, So evidently, I think the change of zoning hasn't decided yet. But City is already planning the land use under R-l zoning code. It just like the trial has not started yet, but the verdict has already been done, My question for tonight is: Is this fair to the property owners, or is this justice, or is it righteousness? But I want to express tonight. Thank you very much, Mayor Segal: Thank you, Katherine Ken: Good evening, Councilmembers.. My name is Katherine Ken. I am an attorney practicing in Arcadia and living in Arcadia, I represent the land owner and the developer of the property, of the subject property at 1020 to 1030 South First Avenue. We object to the extension of the urgency ordinance number 2140 based on the following reason, First, the land owners were denied of due process with respect to the adoption of the urgency ordinance, I I I 3 I Second, the urgency ordinance is defective. Third, we think the R-2 zone and multiple-family designation for the snbject property are more suitable, proper and desirable. About the due process. When the government acts to the private individual of his property rights, the individnal should be given the opportunity to present the objection to the proposed action, to a fair decision maker. My client was not given proper notice and opportunity to object to the moratorium proposed and it passed by the City Council on May first hearing, after the close of the public hearing. The subject matter for the May fIrst hearing, public hearing, was the application for general plan amendment, not the proposed moratorium, which prolnbits any kind of development on the subject property. We have seen nothing preventing the City from letting us know in advance about the possibility of moratorium It is very interesting that the written ordinance, urgency ordinance, was drafted and prepared, ready for adoption, even before the May fIrst public hearing. We believe that and urgency sbould not be something you can expect happening beforehand, or planned in advance, If you did expect the urgency happening ahead of time, you should have given us proper notice and the- opportunity to argue that there was no urgency, The City CounclI should not have created the third option other than yes, granted or denied the general plan amendment. To create a third option, to impose a moratorium, without offering us the opportunity to present relevant facts and evidence, this is in vioiation of due process oflaw. And also, the urgency ordinance fails to tell us why our development plan constitutes "current and" immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare," There were no facts recited to your urgency ordinance, The truth is there is nothing, nothing in the nature of an urgency, The inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning has been existing for 30 years. The City had plenty of time to conduct this "comprehensive land use study" a long time ago, You should not wait until we obtain the building pennits and have tom down the bouses: The City Council assumed that the apartments would be built quickly after the denial of the general amendment, the denial of general plan amendment. But there was no evidence to support your assumption, Our plan was to build condos, detached condos, not apartments. You should have asked us, or at least look at the proposed development plan, before making that assumption. I I 4 Finally, and most importantly, we an: still of the opinion that R-2 zoning and multiple-family designation of this subject property are more suitable, proper and desirable in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has conducted a study and found that R-2 zoning and multiple-family designation of the subject property do not conflict with the land use of the surrounding or nearby properties. We think that no duplicates of efforts or expenditures of tax money should be allowed for another comprehensive land use study. And also, the public opinions are also in support of our development of the detached condos. As we submit earlier, a total of 446 Arcadia residents endorsed our development plan. Out of that 35 of them live within the 300-feet radius, Also, the adjoining land owners are also in support of our development plan. Please take into consideration or reconsideration. We respectfully request that the City Council reverse and revoke the urgency ordinance number 2140 and reconsider the general plan amendment. We also strongly object to the extension of the urgency ordinance for another 10 months to avoid further damages suffered by the land owners, Thank you. Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms, Ken. Mr. City Attorney, do you want to comment on the due process issue, and well as the defective issue? City Attorney Stephen Deitsch: Thank you. Mayor and Councilmembers, Ms, Ken alluded to the prior. Oh, Ms. Ken, before you leave the podium or the microphone, can I ask one question? You submitted correspondence to the City dated June L Would you like to make this correspondence part of the record? Ms. Ken: Yes, I do, Mr. Deitsch: All right. I will hand it to the City Clerk to make that part of the record. Ms, Ken alluded to, thank you, Ms, Ken, Ms. Ken alluded to the manner in which this urgency ordinance was placed on the agenda and considered by the .City Council on the May 1 City Council agenda. The Ralph M, Brown Act was adhered to, the required fmdings for placement of this matter on the agenda were made by the City Council by the requisite vote, and the urgency ordinance by itself was adopted in accordance with the requirements of government code section 65858, All the procedures that are spelled. out in that government code section were followed in the original adoption of the urgency ordinance, and by its terms, the ordinance was to remain in effect for no more than 45 days, The law does this in order to precisely allow for a public hearing such as tonight's public hearing, in order to afford due process to all interested persons to appear before the Council and set forth reasons, in either in I I I 5 I support or opposition to, the continuation of the moratorium, And that's the purpose of tonight's public hearing, This is due process, in my opinion, It's all that the law requires by way of due process, The City is following the government code provisions regarding the adoption and the extension of the moratorium ordinance. And that's if you wish to continue the moratorium tonight, the government code specifically allows you to do so, in accordance with due process, Ms, Ken also alluded to the alleged failure of the City and the ordinance itself to set forth the basis for the urgency. And I would direct the Council to the ordinance itself. This ordinance is 2141, and if you look at the bottom of Page I, and then continuing to Page 2, and then ending at the top of Page 3, you have before you Section 2, which mirrors the original ordinance, which sets forth the reasons for the urgency, including considerations of the fact that there is a pending application before the City and that to approve it would cause inconsistencies between the zoning code and the general plan, and would pose potentially incompatible uses under existing zoning regulations, all to the detriment of the land use goals and objectives of the City of Arcadia. Without the adoption of an urgency ordinance, pending applications arguably might have to be processed and might allow for the inconsistency to cause a detriment to other nearby property owners. Thank you. Mayor Segal: OK. Any other people wishing to address Council? Ms. Roseanne Tyler: Good evening, Councilmen, ladies and gentlemen, My name is Roseanne Tyler, I live at 939 Arcadia A venue in Arcadia, I've been selling real estate for about 27 years. I had the pleasure of selling the land to Polyland. They bought two pieces ofland. Theywere R-2 properties. They've been working with the City for about a year on this project. Building permits were issued in March of 2001 and then on May I of 2001, the Arcadia City Council said, "Sony, we've just changed our minds. We're taking back the building permits. We're changing the zoning on the property. All the work and the money you've spent is your problem, Too bad." Because someone with nothing better to do decided that this is not R-2 property, and it was a mistake, and it needed to be changed to R-I, meetings were held where, I believe, people were misinformed, I have a letter here from one of the ladies that was misinformed that I'd like to read, "To Whom this may concern: My husband and I live at 1023 Greenfield Avenue, and we would like to let the City Council and Planning Connnittee know that we are in support of the six individual condos planned I I 6 for First A Venue. At the time we signed the petition to stop the building, we were told that an apartment building WlIs being planned. At that time, we mentioned that we were in favor of condos but not apartments, We have seen the plans for the condos and feel these would be attractive and affordable for the First A venue property. Thank you for your attention. Virginia Browning," There are, there were 99 percent of the people that I went to, said this, I believe that these people were misinformed because I went door to door, to get the opinion from the neighbors, to get their opinion. Ninety-nine percent of them said, "We were told these were apartments. What you are showing us is a great project.". Change the R-2 zoning next to a gas station, across the street from a gym, to R-l. Can I ask you, how many of you would build a house next to a gas station? I believe in Arcadia, there are 4,000 acres allocated for residential use. Out of this, 400 acres, 10%, is used for multi-family. I understand that the City Council was bombarded with petitions from 350 residences, I believe these people were misinformed, highly misinformed, and it's not fair that the City Council based their opinion on something that was not true, We'd like to have the chance to prove to the City Council that these signatures, I'm not saying that they're, well, people were truly misinformed, I believe that. And you should know if they are, or not. I got out of whack here, Let me see, Polyland had permits to build six individual houses with small yards. How could that be a detriment to the connnuuity? You need to consider the approximately 450 people that signed in favor of our project. They were told the truth, I hope you give these people the same consideration that you gave the others, A few years ago, the City was talking about closing the library because there was no money. When you get the opportunity to bring some money in, you don't want it. This should not be about politics, It should be about doing the right thing. It's about integrity, Doing what we say that we're gonna do. The Planning Department said, "Great project." The City Council said, "No, we don't agree." That's like Mom saying "yes" and Dad saying "no." This is how we cause chaos and confusion in our homes, Imagine what it does to the City. I would like for you to give us some time, please, to prove these signatures were obtained with a misunderstanding, Thank you, Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms, Tyler, Mr. Kovacic? I I I 7 I Councilmember Gary A. Kovacic: I have a question, Ms, Tyler, Ms. Tyler: Certainly. Councilmember Kovacic: Were you the listing agent or? Ms. Tyler: Unumnm, both. Councilmember Kovacic: Both, OK. Ms. Tyler: But it's been, that's done. You know, Councilmember Kovacic: I understand the position the applicant is taking, and the detriment that he's saying he's been put under, and I think we all acknowledge that there was a screw-up, When the property was listed, was it disclosed that there was this conflict between the general plan designation and the zoning, or did the listing not indicate what the general plan designation of the property was? Ms. Tyler: No, it was not. They just said it was R-2 zoning, But, you know, they worked with the City for a whole year, Councilmember Kovacic: Ob, no, I understand that. But no one, no one advised them what the general plan designation of the property was. Ms. Tyler: No, And the property was not listed, I just brought the sellers an offer. Councilmember Kovacic: OK. Because I think that's the basis for the problem is that, I mean, we can argue about when that problem was discovered, but the basic problem is that the general plan says one thing, and the zoning says another. Ms. Tyler: But there's a lot of property in Arcadia like that. Councilmember Kovacic: You seem to generalize a lot. [would beg to differ that there's a lot of property like that in Arcadia, but that could be your opinion, Ms. Tyler: On Baldwin Avenue, the general plan flaYS one thing ~d the. zoning says another, for Baldwin Avenue. That's just one of them that I can remember right now, I'm not here to be ugly or nasty, I'm here for you to give US a chance, to at least prove to you that these 350 people that signed, signed because they didn't know, And that's not fair at alL And I thank you very, very much for your time, Thank you. Mayor Segal; Is there anyone else who would like to address the City Council? I I 8 Ms. Sonya WiUiams: Good evening, Mayor and the Councilmembers, My name is Sonya Williams, and I live at 130 Greenfield Place, And I represented the residents, 326 of whom signed my petition of upholding the general plan in opposition of the proposed development on 1012 to 1026 South First Avenue, I stated the facts of this case to the people when they signed and I knocked on their doors, I asked them, did they know there were to be condominiums built on the site, and they were not in favor of this, I didn't put a gun to their heads or anything, They all signed willingly, These people that all signed, there's only about six that did not agree with me, and I just left them to their own thoughts, Following the May first Arcadia City Council meeting, we are pleased to note that the general plan amendment was unanimously denied by you, that an urgency moratorium was put in place and we are bere tonight to see that the extension of the initial moratorium as recommended by you, be approved tonight. This will be paving the way for a comprehensive evaluation and update of the City's general plan, plus a zoning change from R-2 to R-I single family residential to bring consistency between the general plan and the zoning map. Any future development in this, area must be in keeping with the dominant land use in the immediate and surrounding areas, that is, single family residential. This is what the residents requested, We ask that Councilmembers now follow the recommendation given in the staff report, to unanimously vote for the present moratorium 2 I 40 to be extended an additional ten months and IS days per the government code, This is spelled out in Page 2, 5b, As we understand, excuse me. I have another matter to bring to your attention. Is it right for the developer to be using his property at present? I have noticed, and it has been brought to my attention, that he is accessing it with trucks and flIling up dumpsters, which when filled are removed, and a new, empty one is brought in as a replacement. There have been two of these being used, The second one now sits filled on the property. The gate has been left unlocked at times and the site is looking messy with litter. Isn't this a safety issue? I contacted code enforcement on June the 4th to look into this matter, and I am waiting for a phone call back from them to review this matter. I I Thank you, Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Williams. Ms. Marshall. Ms, Williams? I 9 I Mayor Pro Tempore Gail A. Marshall: Ms. Williams? If! recall right, the petitions that I saw that you took around that you had signed, it had stated at the top that this was a proposal for six condominiums, Wasn't that written right at the top of it? Ms. Williams: I have it in my file. It's in your, well, I have it. I can read you the exact petition. The petition reads, "We the following residents are against the request at 1012 to 1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, for a proposed general plan amendment to change the general plan designation from single family residential, 06DU/AC, to multiple family residential, 12DUlAC." And then 1 had name and addresses. Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Then it didn't state whether it was condos or apartments? Ms. Williams: No, I actually asked the people, I told them about that verbally, So that was a verbal thing. I said, "Are you in agreement of a condominium at this project?" and they all said, no, they're not. And I said, "Well would you like to sign this petition?" I said, "Read this first." And that's what they had to do. A lot of them didn't read it, I know that. I did try to explain to them about the general plan amendment, but a lot of them, they seemed to lose their concentration, because they didn't understand it. So I spelled it out more simply, Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Thank you, Mayor Segal: Ms. Tyler, we really don't have a process to rebut in these discussions. Ms. Tyler: I don't want to rebut. But there was a flyer that went out. The flyer said condo apartments, Now, that's what it said, Come to the meeting so we can discuss condo/apartments that are being built. Mayor Segal: Is there anyone else who would like to address the City Council? Mr. Mike Marshall: My name is Mike Marshall, 150 Greenfield Place, I know there's not a lot of people here that spoke with you last, at the last meeting on May first. But I'd like to recall that there were immediate homeowners, people at Crystal Court, who were concerned about hom~_vaIuation, and certainly as one of the signators, it was obvious to me that these were condominium homes as described, I wasn't home, my wife is convalescing with foot surgery so she can't be here tonight, but the morning before residency, the representatives of the contractor came by the home and showed pictures and everything, so I kind of object to the characterization that everyone signing the petition did it mindlessly, and that this was misrepresented, I think it was fair, I'm here to support Sonya in what she was attempting to do. It's not idle people with idle time on their hands, There are a lot of important things to do, but this is important to I I 10 us, too, We do believe, I sincerely believe, as my neighbors have done, that this is not in the best interest of our local community, and I'd like to see you proceed with the course of action that you began with on May fIrst. Thank you. Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. CounciImember Chandler: Mr. Mayor, I move to close the public hearing. Councilmember Chang: Second Mayor Segal: Seeing no objections, the public hearing is closed, Discussion? Mr, Kovacic? Councilmember Kovacic: Well, I'll start it off, I guess. I think you run the risk any time you have petitions submitted on either side of an issue that some of the signatories don't quite understand what they're signing, And I think that's why we live in a representative democracy, in that we don't just kind of ask people to raise their hands, and we decide how many people are in favor or something and then we vote that way, We take the petitions for what they are, which is that they're expressioIlB of opinions, but they certainly aren't determinative. I don't think anybody on the City Council was confused what was before us last time. I think we all realize that the proposal was a condominium project and we discussed it in that light. So I'm not really, I don't think the fact that there may have been some people misled, I think that's beside the point. I think we have to discuss the merits of this case, which is, should we impose, continue to impose the moratorium? What happeIlB if we don't impose the moratorium? What risks do we run? And I guess what the applicant is saying is, "Don't impose the moratorium because I have no intention of building an apartment building. I'm going to continue to fIght for my right to build a condo, but I'm not going to build an apartment building," And I guess I need some input from staff or the City Attorney, It seems to me that's really the only reason we'd want to impose a moratorium, is to prevent somebody, maybe not this applicant, or somebody else, from building an apartment building, Obviously, somebody doesn't have the right to build a condominium project on the property, right? With or without the moratorium, is that correct? Mr. Deitsch: That's correct, Councilmemlier Kovacic: OK. And somebody has the right to build a single family residence, with or without a moratorium? I I I 11 I Mr. Deitsch: That's correct. Councilmember Kovacic: Now is it correct to say that without the moratorium, whether it's this developer or some other developer, could walk into City Hall and pull a permit for an apartment building and we wouldn't have any control over it? Mr. Deitsch: That's correct. Mayor Segal: I think the other thing we ought to add to this discussion is, as Mr, Kovacic said, these petitions that we saw were merely a piece of information used in the process, but only a piece, I know for a fact that each City CounciImember spent time at the site, spent time in the neighborhood, spent time walking the neighborhood, looking at what was there, and I would beg to differ that this decision was made in such a small vacuum as a petition. There was far more time and effort put into any decision than just petitions. CouncUmember Chandler: Mr, Mayor? I had a question from staff, and I probably should know the answer to this, but I want it clarified, If the owner of the property, Polyland, wishes to build on this 50-foot wide lot a single family residence during the period of this moratorium, is there an opportunity for them to do that? In other words, what was discussed was financial casualty to their corporation, which I can understand that, for sure. But by imposing this moratorium, does that in fact mean that they cannot build a single family residence? Mr. Kelly: No. In fact, Mr. Mayor and Council, it is our suggestion that the ordinance be amended to make it clear that they can do single family units, one on each lot, if they choose, CouncUmember Chandler: Well, I certainly want to make that clear, that the moratorium, if it's passed, does not exclude them from utilizing that property for profit or whatever they can regain from it, to build single family. And also the question was raised, who would build a home next to a gas station? Well, there's already a home there. There's an existing older house next to the gas station, the wall of the gas station. And in addition to that, that other" I'm talking about the other vacant lot, which would ultimately, if these condominiums were built, tben that would be also qualify for condominiums, which would amounted, as the discussion went on, would have amounted to twelve condominiums, not six condominiums. And of I I 12 course, the condominiums are referred to as homes, with a small lot. I'm sure that's part of the selling feature, And I'd just to also say that, if we ran the government totally on who comes here with the most signatures, it would be absolute chaos. Personally, the very same situation occurred down on Sandra and Third, and the City Council came to the same conclusion there, That it was just not compatible with R-I residential (end of tape #2... resumption of transcription on tope #3) discrepancy between a general plan and the zoning, and we have just allocated money to correct that problem, so that other people, developers, or individuals that are not unfortunately caught up in a situation like this. So, I'm sure that maybe there are some other comments, but I, for one, would be recommending that we adopt ordinance number 2141. Mayor Segal: Ms, Marshall, Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Roger jUst asked exactly the question I was going to ask, if there was two lots, and he could proceed with single family houses, even though the moratorium is on. However, in all fairness to the developer, don't you think that we do owe something to the developer, being that we did issue permits, the City issued permits, had worked with him to an extent. I believe with these permits issued and everything, and the delay of time, I think it's our obligation to be fair to the developer, too. Could we discuss that? Mr. Kelly: Mayor and Council. You may want to discuss this in closed session, because you are entering into an arena where they may have the rigbt to litigate against us. So rather than discuss it publicly, or have the City Attorney discuss it, you need to be careful where we go with the discussion publicly. Councilmember Chandler: 1 would agree with that. I assume that since counsel is involved in this, that litigation is being contemplated, and I think that ;t's incumbent on us to discuss that, but we should do it the right way, which is in closed session, I don't think there's anything stopping the City and the property owner from discussing things, but I think we need the benefit of legal counsel before we start negotiating in the open. Mr. Kelly: Mayor and Council. Part of this moratorium is to allow for more public input on the issue of the general plan and zoning. It has not been decided. There's been an assumption made that we would be going one way or another. This moratorium allows the staff, the Connnission and the Council the right to I I I 13 I re-review the appropriate general plan and zoning, There is no conclusion except you're saying, "Freeze, Let us study it and detennine the appropriate document, plan, designation," The applicant, the land owner, the neighbors, have at least two more public hearings, one Planning Commission, and one City Council, to argue their positions. So it is not a done deal. The moratorium allows time to study it. This is a classic process that government goes through, when there's a confliCt. You freeze, What's the appropriate thing to do? Then you act. So it's not done, Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Well, I guess where I was kind of coming from, and maybe I overstepped my bounds, and I apologize for that. However, where I was kind of coming from was if another plan was issued by them, that wbat they bave paid in fees would not be cbarged again, and so on and so forth, so they wouldn't be out so much money, and that we could work with that portion, but again, maybe that. Councilmember Chandler: I think they lost like $300,000, according to their estimate and the fees are kind of insignificant. Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Well, Councilrnernber Kovacic: I really think we're getting real far afield here Mayor Segal: . This isn't a discussion that we need to do in this arena, So. Councilmember Kovacic: There are proper ways to do this and we don't sit in the meetings between the applicant and his attorney, nor would he want us to, and they don't sit in our meetings with our attorney as We discuss what available remedies and liabilities are, I don't, I think it goes without saying that there's nothing to stop anybody from sitting down and talking about resolution, That includes the neighbors, There may be a way to resolve this thing, but as Mr. Kelly indicated, that's why you have a moratorium, so that you kind of preserve the status quo, so that cooler heads can prevail once the study bas been done, Mayor Pro Tern Marshall: Well, I believe that they cpuld go ahead and develop, and they probably shouldn't lose money on the deal if they did a good development. Mayor Segal: OK, lets,... - Councilmember Dr. Sheng Chang: Mr, Mayor? Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang. Councilrnember Chang: I want to amend the, I want to second the motion with the amendment being that.., I I 14 Mayor Segal: We don't have a motion yet. Councilmember Chandler: I'll back up, I will make a motion to adopt ordinance nwnber 2141, and noticed that I did not specifY for single family dwellings. Mr. Kelly: It's introduction, It introduces the ordinance. Councilmember Chandler: It says adopt, here, Mr. Deitsch: May I explain? This action if approved by a four-fifths vote of the Council tonight, takes only tonight's reading to become effective. And it is an ordinance that takes only one reading because of the extension nature of an urgency ordinance under government code 65858, And while I have the microphone, perhaps I can suggest some language for addition to Section 3 on Page 3 of the ordinance, which I think reflects the Council's intent. In Section 3, if you go down four lines, beginning the line, "A (Study Area)," This is Page 3 of the ordinance, section 3. Right after that parenthetical study area comma, we would insert: "Other than for one single-family residence per lot." Then the next line down, the line beginning "commence construction," or development on property within the study area comma, we would insert, "other than one single-family residence per lot comma," And I think that accomplishes what I've heard. Councilmember Chandler: All right, I do have a motion. I'd like to include the language just stated by the City Attorney, and I'd just would like to be, to make it correct, is it for adoption or an introduction? Mr. Deitsch: This is for adoption, Councilmember Chandler: OK. Mr. Deitsch: One reading tonight. Councilmember Chandler: That's my motion, Councilmember Chang: Second. Councilmember Kovacic: Could I ask a point of clarification? . Staff report mentions single family dwelling. Council mentions single family residence, Does it matter if we call it a residence or a dwelling? Mr. Deitsch: I don't believe it matters, but it's Council's wish, whichever. Councilmember Chandler: There are one provision, that covers it all. Mr. Kelly: Residence (dwelling). I I I 15 I Councilmember Kovacic: OK. Mayor Segal: Any other conunents? Roll call. City Clerk June Alford: Councihnember Chandler? Councilmember Chandler: Yes, City Clerk Alford: Chang? Councilmember Chang: Yes, City Clerk Alford: Kovacic? Councilmember Kovacic: Yes. City Clerk Alford: Marshall? Mayor Pro Tem Marshall: Yes. City Clerk Alford: and Segal? Mayor Segal: Yes. I I 16