Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 20, 1990i; 0 A G E N D A ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1990 7:30 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meetings of November 6, 1990 MOTION: Read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. PRESENTATION of Proclamation - Arcadia Family Week PRESENTATION by Scott Sullivan, Arcadia Music Club 11 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration and review of the Revised General Plan, which contains the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Safety and Noise Elements and Spheres of Influence. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of the adoption of a resolution declaring a public nuisance and order to abate for property located at 415 -417 S. Second.(Chris Vance, repsonsible party). RESOLUTION NO. 5557, declaring a public nuisance and ordering the rehabilitation of real property located at 415 -4.17 S. Second Avenue, authorizing corrective work by City, and placement of a lien against the property (Chris Vance, respon- sible party). ACTION All Present Approved Adopted Public Hearing Closed; Add statement to discourage population growth and delete Planning Commission goal of rezoning commercial o resicentia Public Hearing Closed; Adopted AGENDA 11/20/90 r 3. BOARDS AND COMMISSION 4. 5 ACTION a. Recommendation from Library Board to accept Approved; Mayor to donation from the Friends of the Library. send letter of thanks b. Recommendation from Recreation and Parks Commission to provide financial assistance to local youth baseball leagues. Approved Bob Henkel Time reserved for those in the audience who wish Rebecca Fisher Julie Draper to address the City Council (five- minute time .limit per person). Scott Downey Dr. Kurwa Lorraine Fricke RECESS CITY COUNCIL Robert Debache 6. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young All Present b. MINUTES of the meeting of November 6, 1990 Approved C. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., December 4, 1990 7. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 8. CONSENT ITEMS a. Report and recommendation for the purchase of six police patrol vehicles. Approved b. Recommendation to appoint City representative to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District. Approved C. Report and recommendation for approval of graffiti abatement and removal from the exterior surfaces of residential, commercial, and industrial facilities on private prop- erty. Approved d. Recommendation to help reduce commuter traffic on Portola Drive. Approved e. Recommendation to approve installation of left -turn lanes on First Avenue at Huntington Drive. Approved -2 AGENDA 11/20/90 8. CONSENT ITEMS (continued) ACTION f. Ratification of Settlement - Workers Compen- sation Case: L. Wingenbach Approved g. Rescission of Reclamation Plan Approval Rodeffer Quarry Approved 9. CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 5556, approving an amendment to the Independent Powers Agreement to provide for the admittance to membership of the cities of Costa Mesa, E1 Segundo, and Upland and designating Adopted City representatives. P 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF 11. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 12. 'ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., December 4, 1990 Miller - Report re: ordinance limiting cigarette vending machines. Woolard.- Report and recommendation re: Tree Ordinance (Oak and others). -3- AGENDA 11/20/90 w Foe FROM: SUBJECT: 0/j- o -tea SG v r3at1t7 TnemotaiFdum Date November 20, 1990 City Council George J. Watts, City Manager 4 Appointment of City Representative to San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District As you know, Mr. Bill Kern has been the Trustee representing the City of Arcadia on the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees. His term will end on January 2, 1991. I have spoken with Bill and he has expressed a strong interest in being reappointed. It is therefore recommended that he be reappointed for a two -year term from January 2, 1991 to January 2, 1993. GJW:cr Attachment LASER IMAGED As A0WAF ROBERT C. (SATES, Director COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES 313 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974 October 9, 1990 Geroge J. Watts, City Manager City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. P.O. Box 60 Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Mr. Watts: CITY OF ARCADIA OCT 1 i; 1990 CITY MANAGER The term of the Trustee representing your city on the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District (SGVMAD) Board of Trustees will expire on January 2, 1991. The statute provides for the appointment of one trustee by the governing body of each participating city and the County. Each member of the Board of Trustees must be an elector and a resident of the city from which he is appointed. Each subsequent consecutive reappointment may be for a term of two or four years, at the discretion of the appointing power. However, the term of each subsequent member shall be two years from and after the expiration of the term of his predecessor (e.g., from January 2, 1991 to January 2, 1993). The District's Counsel has advised that there are no statutory provisions for alternates. It is recommended that your City Council appoint or reappoint its designated member to the SGVMAD Board of Trustees prior to January 2, 1991. Please notify me with the name of your City's Trustee and the length of term for all reappointments. If you have any questions regarding appointment procedures or need additional information, please contact me at (213) 744 -3250. Very truly yours, Barbara Gondo Environmental Health Specialist III Board of Trustees LASER IMAGED 4 "? 11nemotaidum Date __.November 20, 1990 TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Arcadia Recreation and Parks Commission SUBJECT: Recommendation to Provide Financial Assistance to Local Youth Baseball Leagues Funds have been budgeted in the 1990 -91 Capital Budget to be used for the maintenance and improvement of facilities used by local baseball leagues. The leagues have agreed to purchase all needed materials and provide all necessary labor and equipment to complete the various projects. All proof of purchase will be made available to the City. The leagues have made the following requests for funds in order to help defray the costs of the improvements. 1. National Little League - $1,700 (Longden Ball Field) - Repair of backstop & scorekeeper stand - Fence Repair 2. Santa Anita Little League - $1,700 (Eisenhower Park) - Purchase of "T" Ball bleachers and benches - Renovate "T" Ball Diamond 3. Coast Little League - $1,700 (Hugo Reid Primary) - Renovation of infield sprinkler system - Backstop Extension 4. Arcadia Pony /Colt Baseball. Inc. - $2,500 (Bonita Park) - Complete renovation of outfield - Repair backstop & bleachers 5. West Arcadia Little League - $4,100 * (Baldwin Stocker and Longley Way) - Renovation of bleachers - Prune trees * Includes $2,400 originally budgeted for Wilderness Park. Renovation of bleachers at Baldwin Stocker is a priority item. Staff has reviewed the requests and recommends that $11,700 be allocated to the various leagues as requested. Expenditures will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Fund. Staff would monitor the progress of the improvements so that they would be completed in a timely manner. The requests and recommendations were reviewed by the Recreation and Parks Commission at their meeting of November 14, 1990, and they unanimously agreed that the proposal should be forwarded to the Council for your approval. Should Council agree, staff should be directed to prepare and distribute funds as indicated above. JJC:tm For t e Commission, 4&w-�-Wt. � a &-* �� JeronM J. Collins LASER IMAGED Director of Recreation J P (. o sao- Z1 -� • November 20, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND ORDER FOR REHABILITATION 415-417 SOUTH SECOND AVENUE This hearing has been scheduled pursuant to Section 9407 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow the City Council to determine whether a public nuisance exists and what action is necessary to abate the nuisance on property located at 415-417 South Second Avenue. As per the above Section a "Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate" was mailed on October 30 to Chris Vance, responsible person, for the property located at 415-417 South Second Avenue. A notice was also posted on the property on the ' same day. The following violations have been cited on the property: • '1. Deteriorated structures due to severely deteriorated exterior paint; defective wooden fence. 2. Weeds and dead vegetation on the premises and parkway area. 3. Excessive accumulation of trash and debris, discarded miscellaneous items which are not screened from public view. 4. Refuse which is not being disposed of according to law. 5. Lack of landscape maintenance, i.e., trimming of tree branches, overgrown vegetation, ground cover on the premises which is out of conformity with adjacenf residential properties. 6. Parking and storing of vehicle on unpaved area in the rear yard. The purpose of the property maintenance ordinance is to ensure maintenance of property within the City so that the public health, safety and welfare are not endangered by substandard properties and the blighting effect such properties have on the entire community. 415-417 S. Second November 20, 1990 Page 1 LA3ER 1MAGF_D n � . The City Council in adopting the ordinance determined that the City "has a widely recognized history and reputation for well-kept properties and that the general welfare of the City is founded, in part, upon the appearance and maintenance of properties." The Council further determined that "the keeping or maintaining of properties at variance with the level of maintenance of surrounding properties will result in substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use, aesthetic and property values of the surrounding properties: It is desirous to enhance and promote the maintenance of property and the enhancement of the liveability, community appearance and the social economic conditions of the community." The Property Maintenance Ordinance states: "The provisions prescribed...will enhance the appearance and value of such properties rather than be a burden on the owners thereof:" "That unless corrective measures of the type set forth in this chapter are undertaken to alleviate such existing conditions, the public health, safety;and general 'welfare, and the property values and social and economic standards of this community will be substantially depreciated; that the abatement of the conditions will enhance the environment of the residents of the City." HISTORY . In August, 1988, the property was first cited for maintenance problems. The violations included an inoperable vehicle being stored on unpaved area, lack of adequate exterior paint, an accumulation of weeds, debris, etc. visible to the public. The applicant was given notice to comply by August.15. As a result of inaction,)a "Notice to Abate" was sent to the property owner, Mrs. Margaret Vance on August 17. On September 22, the property was reinspected. Some of the trash and debris had been removed, however, no attempt had been made to maintain the yard areas or paint the structures. In March, 1989 another letter was sent noting the same violations. A notice was also sent by the Fire Department regarding "excessive amount of combustibles on front porch (boxes, old couch, etc.) Dead grass and weeds in back yard also need to be removed." In response to the letters from both Fire and Code Enforcement, Chris Vance, son of Margaret Vance, sent'a letter responding to the problems stating in part that: "Although I do not much consider the articles on the front porch much of a fire hazard, I do.consider them a poor sight, and they will be removed.... 415-417 S. Second November 20, 1990 Page 2 LASER IMAGED 32 • "There is no dead grass on this property, aside of grass sitting the winter out that is so short one couldn't cut it with scissors. The 'weeds' in the back yard are green, and while they will be gone after a while, they support wildlife' right now." "Referring to Item no. 2, 'Faulty, deteriorated paint,...' You are right, and I am not disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, my sister is suing me to break rimy deceased mother's will....I expect to win this suit...and when I do you'll know. it, for all the paint that goes on here." "Referring to Item no. 3 - there are some weeds, which will go after a while. There is no dead vegetation worth mentioning." "Item no. 6 - Regarding the landscaping, I rather like it. It's green and that green is the stuff that will set right the breakdown of our.upper atmosphere by carbon dioxide plus freon and other goodies. If I can help it, I will not allow this lot to be landscaped with concrete as some of my neighbors have." "Item no. 7 - One automobile here is a classic (of sorts) - so I only drive it for special occasions. I do run it on the freeway every month or two to keep it operational. The other two vehicles I would also drive every couple of months, but they get more common usage than that anyway." "To conclude, thank you for your interest in this property. As I wrote earlier in this letter, when my sister's suit is finally settled, hopefully April 10 [1989], when the next hearing is scheduled, you will see this property look better overnight. In the meantime should you care to check, you will notice improvements in view of your letter." It appears from the files that no further action was taken until January 16, 1990. A reinspection of the premises at that time indicated a TV, rain-soaked boxes, debris • on the front porch and no changes in the condition of the structures (house and fence). . On September 11, 1990 the Fire Department sent a letter to Mr. Vance regarding the fire safety problem of combustible trash all around the building. On September 112., another letter was sent from Code Enforcement regarding the same types of problems that had been cited in the past. Mr. Vance responded to these violations in writing.stating that "I have received your report about the,supposed violations here, and the majority of them will lie remedied in the next month. The house painting will have to wait a while, as the other items will have to come first." . • 415-417 S. Second November 20, 1990 • Page 3 L ai dirtL c. • An office conference was held on October 19 and it was suggested to Mr. Vance that he begin clean up of the property, however, the City was going to pursue abatement action. On October 30, 1990, a "Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate" was sent to Mr. Vance and posted on the property. The purpose of the abatement procedure is to provide a way in which the city can resolve property maintenance problems that are uncared for over extended periods of time. As.noted above, this problem has been ongoing since 1988. Although there has been sporadic clean-up of the weeds, dead vegetation and refuse, the site has never undergone any major clean up or repair. The following violations have not been taken care of since the first notice was issued in 1988: 1. Parking and storing of a vehicle on an unpaved area (gravel) 2. Painting the house 3. Repairing the wooden fence 4. Lack of landscape maintenance (tree trimming, overgrown shrubbery, etc.). Attached for the City Council's review is the Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate. ACTION The City Council should open the hearing to receive public input. Based upon information submitted and the public input the Council may: 1. Determine that the property is not a public nuisance and take no further action; or 2. Determine that a public nuisance exists and adopt Resolution 5557 declaring a public nuisance and ordering the rehabilitation of real property located at 415- 417 South Second Avenue (Chris Vance, responsible party), authorizing corrective work by the City and placement of a lien against the property. 415-417 S. Second November 20, 1990 Page 4 34 An office conference was held on October 19 and it was suggested to Mr. Vance that he begin clean up of the property, however, the City was going to pursue abatement action. On October 30, 1990, a "Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate" was sent to Mr. Vance and posted on the property. The purpose of the abatement procedure is to provide a way in which the city can resolve property maintenance problems that are uncared for over extended periods of time. As noted above, this problem has been ongoing since 1988. Although there has been sporadic clean-up of the weeds, dead vegetation and refuse, the site has never undergone any major clean up or repair. The following violations have not been taken care of since the first notice was issued in 1988: 1. Parking and storing of a vehicle on an unpaved area (gravel) 2. Painting the house 3. Repairing the wooden fence 4. Lack of landscape maintenance (tree trimming, overgrown shrubbery, etc.). Attached for the City Council's review is the Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate. ACTION The City Council should open the hearing to receive public input. Based upon information submitted and the public input the Council may: 1. Determine that the property is not a public nuisance and take no further action; or 2. Determine that a public nuisance exists and adopt Resolution 5557 declaring a public nuisance and ordering the rehabilitation of real property located at 415- 417 South Second Avenue (Chris Vance, responsible party), authorizing corrective work by the City and placement of a lien against the property if the. violations are not corrected (abated) by the responsible party within thirty (30) days of Council's action. 415-417 S. Second November 20, 1990 Page 4 TM of ,y to ) - CHARLES E. GILB„"szada•0:1 itt MAYORPROTEMPORE. JOSEPH C. CIRAULO 240 West Huntington Drive GEORGE'FASCHING ISY OP ARCADIA Arcadia, California 91007 ROBERT Cl HARBICHT (818)574-5400 COUNCILMEMBERS '3R!'0RATE9- GEORGE J. WATTS MARY B. YOUNG JUNE D. ALFORD CITY MANAGER MAYOR CITY CLERK October 30, 1990 Chris Vance . 417 South Second Avenue Arcadia,CA 91006 SUBJECT: 415-417 South Second Avenue NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDER TO ABATE P ER ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9407 • TO THE OWNER,AGENT OF THE OWNER,LESSEE,OCCUPANT,OR PERSON IN POSSESSION OF AND/OR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED: Said property is situated in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, on premises located at 415-417 South Second Avenue, described as Lot 18, Block 64 of the Arcadia Santa Anita Tract. YOUR ATTENTION IS HEREBY CALLED to the provisions of Sections 9405.3, 9405.8 and 9405.10, 9405.11, 9405.12 and 9405.14 of the Municipal Code of the City of Arcadia, California, on file in the office of the City Attorney in the City Hall. Pursuant to the provisions.of said sections, you are hereby notified that the following conditions of your property are in violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code and shall be abated: 1. Faulty, deteriorated, defective structures due to severely deteriorated exterior paint; defective wooden fence.. 2. Weeds and dead vegetation on the premises and parkway area. 3.: Excessive accumulation of trash and debris, discarded miscellaneous items which are not screened from public view. 4. Refuse which is not being disposed of according to law. LASER IMAGED 3 k3,, o • 417 South Second Avenue Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate October 30, 1990 Page 2 5. Lack of landscape maintenance, i.e., trimming of tree branches, overgrown vegetation, ground cover on the premises which is out of conformity with adjacent residential properties. 6. Parking and storing of vehicle on an unpaved area in the rear yard. You are hereby notified that a hearing date has been scheduled before the City Council on November 20, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California to determine whether a public nuisance exists and what action is necessary to abate the nuisance. If a nuisance is determined, you will be directed to abate the public nuisance • and you will be subject to abatement by the City with cost assessment imposed on you and the subject property pursuant to the attached provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. • Dated at Arcadia,California this 30 day of October, 1990. Donna L. Butler Assistant Planning Director cc: City Attorney Code Enforcement LASER IMAGED 3 . w D 5 s"--/ O C-erier a P 41 November 20, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT REVISED GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission at its November 13, 1990 meeting voted 5 to 0 to adopt Resolution 1447 recommending to the City Council approval of the Draft General Plan for the City of Arcadia with some specific changes. GENERAL INFORMATION The Draft General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space and Conservation; Parks and Recreation; Safety and Noise. It also includes a discussion on the City's Spheres of Influence. In 1972 the City adopted the General Plan which contained a Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Public Facilities Element, Public Utilities Element, Community Design Element, Parks and Open Space and Housing Element. The Scenic Highway Element was also adopted in 1972. The Open Space and Conservation Element was adopted in 1973. In 1975 the Noise, Public Safety and Recreation Elements were adopted. There have been several amendments to the General Plan during the past 18 years; however, there have been no major revisions to any of the elements with the exception of the Housing Element which was amended in 1981. Purpose and Characteristics of the General Plan The General Plan provides the basis for rational decision making regarding the city's long-term physical development. It is a policy document to guide future growth and development in the City. The Plan is the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. Each element of the general plan sets forth "objectives", "policies" and "action programs". The "action programs" are not detailed regulations and are not "law". "Action programs" are implemented as a result of changes to the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, etc. CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 Page 1 LASER IMAGED e qV ' I • • • • Relationship of the General Plan to the Zoning Ordinance The General Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations all deal with the private uses of land. The General Plan, however, sets forth only broad categories for general areas of the City. The City's Zoning ordinance, the official zoning map and the subdivision regulations are specific and detailed legislation which are intended to carry out the general provisions set forth in the General Plan. REVISED GENERAL PLAN The revised General Plan is a consolidation of the Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space and Conservation; Parks and Recreation; Safety and Noise elements into an internally consistent, single comprehensive document. The Plan includes the State mandated elements as well as the optional Parks and Recreation element. As noted in the General Plan Summary, the revision achieves the following: 1. It reduces the number of separate elements by incorporating common issues into one document. 2. Incorporates issues addressed by the previous elements of "Public Facilities" and "Community Design" into the "Land Use Element". 3. Maintains the "Parks and Recreation Element" as an optional element. 4. Provides a single document which is easier to understand by the community. 5. Incorporates the data and statistics pertaining to the elements into a separate Technical Appendix. 6. Presents each element in a common format. 7. Updates the contents of the previously adopted elements and of the Housing Element amended in 1981. 8. Focuses on the most important aspects of each element. 9. Achieves a general plan that in written statements and illustrations communicates to the community the City Council policies on future development within Arcadia. A brief description of each of the elements is outlined in the October 23 Planning Commission report. CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 Page 2 LASER LMA-G D PLANNING COMMISSION' COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission in its consideration of the General Plan recommended: 1. That the following should be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Goals: (page IV-7 of the General Plan) 10. Maintain and preserve single-family large lot neighborhoods. 11. Preservation of mature trees within the community. 12. Review the possibility of rezoning some undeveloped or under utilized commercial areas to residential. Objectives: (page IV-7 of the General Plan) 10. To preserve, where feasible, mature native trees on both commercial and residential properties. 11. Discourage the subdividing of predominantly large lot neighborhoods into smaller lots incompatible with the surrounding area. 12. To insure that new single-family subdivisions do not result in leap frog development which leaves existing lots which are out of conformity with the general development of the area and which are not capable of being subdivided in the future. 13. To determine if there are undeveloped or underutilized commercial properties which might be more appropriately developed with residential uses. Policies: (page IV-8 of the General Plan) 11. Encourage the preservation of large lot neighborhoods where residents in the area wish to maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood. 12. Require that new streets be a minimum distance from existing parallel streets. 13. Discourage developments which leave existing lots which cannot be subdivided in the future. Action Programs: (pave IV-9 of the General Plan) 13. The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify the single-family neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots and look into the adoption of measures to preserve these areas. CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 LASER IM4GED Page3 tv 6 14. Adoption of minimum standards between streets. 15. Continue to encourage the preservation of mature native trees;as part of the subdivision and development of both residential and commercial properties. 16. The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify commercial properties which are undeveloped or under developed which they feel might be more appropriately zoned residential;and, if appropriate, adopt measures to change these areas. 2. That the following changes be made to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (page IV-8 ): Action Programs: 1. Review existing subdivision regulations to determine if criteria can be developed to prohibit single-sided cul-de-sacs except under specific circumstances. 4. Review the existing "H" high rise zoned commercial and residential areas to determine the appropriateness of the zoning and whether to retain or remove the high rise overlay. 3. That the following "Action Program" be added to the Noise Element of the General Plan (page X-6): 5. That the Noise Study completed in 1975 be updated to reflect the current conditions within the City. 4. That the General Plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis. PUBLIC'S COMMENTS • The following is a brief summary of the public's comments (see August 14, August 28 and October 23 Planning Commission minutes). 1. The City should discourage population growth. 2. New construction in the community should be harmonious and compatible in size and design with other existing houses in the neighborhood. 3. The "H" high rise overlay should be eliminated. 4. Thought that the school districts should be addressed in the General Plan. 5. Thought that Anoakia should be saved because of its historical significance and turned into a park. 6. Concerned with saving mature trees in the City. 7. Address the issue of building a city auditorium on the armory site. 8. Thought the size of homes should be limited which would help eliminate density and traffic problems. CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 LASER IMAGED Page 7 9. Discourage mini-malls in the city. 10. In the Recreation Plan it should be noted that in addition to Little League and soccer the City has a Junior All-American Football program. 11. Zero population growth. 12. Avoid single-sided cul-de-sacs. 13. Obsolete data in the General Plan should be updated. HOUSING ELEMENT Under separate cover is a copy of the revised Housing Element. On July 11, 1990 a copy of the Housing Element was forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. On September 4 we received the State's comments (under separate cover). The revised Housing Element addresses the comments received from the State. The changes are in bold type (with the exception of the headers). A copy of the approved Housing Element will be forwarded to the State upon adoption by the City Council. FINDINGS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the revised General Plan. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Attached for the City Council's review are: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 1447 2. The October 23 report to the Planning Commission 3. Minutes of the October 23 meeting 4. The Revised Housing Element (under separate cover) 5. The letter from the State regarding the Housing Element (under separate cover) • CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 LASER IMAGED Page5 ACTION After receiving the public testimony and reviewing the Draft General Plan and the attached material the City Council may: 1. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution setting forth the Council's findings and recommendations for adoption at its next meeting of December 4, 1990. 2. Determine that further review is necessary and continue its consideration to the next meeting of December 4, 1990, CC General Plan Report November 20, 1990 LASER IMAGED Page G' RESOLUTION NO. 1447 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA. WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on August 14, August 28 and October 23 to consider the revised General Plan which contains the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Safety and Noise; and includes a section on the City's Spheres of Influence. WHEREAS, all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at said public hearings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission finds that the revised General Plan provides a single comprehensive document which updates the contents of the previously adopted elements and presents each.element in a common format that communicates to the community through written statements and illustrations, the City's policies on future development within Arcadia. Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised General Plan with the recommendations set forth in this Resolution. Section 3. That the following should be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Goals: (page IV-7 of the General Plan) 10. Maintain and preserve single-family large lot neighborhoods. 11. Preservation of mature trees within the community. 12. Review the possibility of rezoning some undeveloped or under utilized commercial areas to residential. Objectives: (page IV-7 of the General Plan) 10. To preserve, where feasible, mature native trees on both commercial and residential properties. 11. Discourage the subdividing of predominantly large lot neighborhoods into smaller lots incompatible with the surrounding area. -1- 1447 0 LASER IMAG'ED 12. To insure that new single-family subdivisions do not result in leap frog development which leaves existing lots which are out of conformity with the general development of the area and which are not capable of being subdivided in the future. 13. To determine if there are undeveloped or underutilized commercial properties which might be more appropriately developed with residential uses. Policies: (page IV-8 of the General Plan) 11. Encourage the preservation of large lot neighborhoods where residents in the area wish to maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood. 12. Require that new streets be a minimum distance from existing parallel streets. 13. Discourage developments which leave existing lots which cannot be subdivided in the future. Action Programs: (pave IV-9 of the General Plan) 13. The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify the single-family neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots and look into the adoption of measures to preserve these areas. 14. Adoption of minimum standards between streets. 15. Continue to encourage the preservation of mature native trees as part of the subdivision and development of both residential and commercial properties. 16. The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify commercial properties which are undeveloped or under developed which they feel might be more appropriately zoned residential and, if appropriate, adopt measures to change these areas. Section 4. That the following changes be made to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (page IV-8 ): Action Programs: 1. Review existing subdivision regulations to determine if criteria;can be developed to --• . - - - • - - •-- _. : .•- -•_ - . _ . - •- : - �ided cul dc sac streets prohibit single-sided cul-de-sacs except under specific circumstances. -2- 1447 11 LASER IMAGED 4. Review the existing"H" high rise zoned commercial and residential areas to determine the appropriateness of the zoning and whether to retain or remove the high rise overlay. Section 5. That the following "Action Program" be added to the Noise Element of the General Plan (page X-6): 5. That the Noise Study completed in 1975 be updated to reflect the current conditions within the City. Section 6. That the General Plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Section 7. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of October 23, 1990 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Clark Section 8. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13 day of November, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -3- 1447 i c) LASER IMAGED October 23, 1990. TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DRAFT REVISED GENERAL PLAN SUMMARY On August 28, 1990 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Draft General Plan to tonight's meeting to allow more time for both public and the Planning Commission to review and comment on the Draft General Plan. The Planning Commission should: 1. Open the hearing and receive public input 2. Present their (Commission's) comments on the General Plan. The Planning Commission's findings and comments will be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a resolution. The public's comments will be summarized and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. INFORMATION The Draft General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space and Conservation; Parks and Recreation; Safety and Noise. It also includes a discussion on the City's Spheres of Influence. In 1972 the City adopted the General Plan which contained a Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Public Facilities Element, Public Utilities Element, Community Design Element, Parks and Open Space and Housing Element. The Scenic Highway Element was also adopted in 1972. The Open Space and Conservation Element was adopted in 1973. In 1975 the Noise, Public Safety and Recreation Elements were adopted. There have been several amendments to the General Plan during the past 18 years; however, there have been no major revisions to any of the elements with the exception of the Housing Element which was amended in 1981. Revised General Plan October 23,1990 Page 1 LASER IMAGED 13 • The General Plan is not a static document. As conditions in the community change it is necessary to review the General Plan to determine if "objectives", "policies"land "action programs" are still valid or whether the City may have to modify or revise the General Plan. Revisions or changes to the General Plan may only be done through the public hearing process. PURPOSE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GENERAL PLAN The essential characteristics of the general plan are that it is comprehensive, general and long-range. "Comprehensive" means that the plan encompasses all geographical parts of the community and all functional'elements which bear on physical development. "General" means that the plan summarizes policies and proposals and does not set forth specific locations or detailed regulations. "Long, range" means that the plan sets forth policies and goals which clarify the City's idea of the kind of community they want 20 to 30 years in the future. The General Plan provides the basis for rational decision making regarding the city's long-term physical development. It is a policy document to guide future growth and development in the City. The Plan is the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. Each element of the general plan sets forth "objectives", "policies" and "action programs". The "action programs" are not detailed regulations and are not "law". "Action programs" are implemented as a result of changes to the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, etc. Relationship of the General Plan to the Zoning Ordinance There is often confusion between the zoning and subdivision regulations, and the sections of the general plan which deal with the private use of land.' The General Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations all deal with the private uses of land. The General Plan, however, sets forth only broad categories for general areas of the City. The City's Zoning ordinance, the official zoning map and the subdivision regulations are specific and detailed legislation which are intended to carry out the general provisions set forth in the General Plan. REVISED GENERAL PLAN The revised General Plan is a consolidation of the Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space and Conservation; Parks and Recreation; Safety and Noise elements into an internally consistent, single comprehensive document. The Plan includes the State mandated elements as well as the optional Parks and Recreation element. Revised General Plan October 23,1990 Page 2 LASER IMAGED 14 • As noted in the General Plan Summary, the revision achieves the following: 1. It reduces the number of separate elements by incorporating common issues into one document. 2. Incorporates issues addressed by the previous elements of "Public Facilities" and "Community Design" into the "Land Use Element". 3. Maintains the "Parks and Recreation Element" as an optional element. 4. Provides a single document which is easier to understand by the,community. • 5. Incorporates the data and statistics pertaining to the elements into a separate Technical Appendix. 6. Presents each element in a common format. 7. Updates the contents of the previously adopted elements and of the Housing Element amended in 1981. • 8. Focuses on the most important aspects of each element. 9. Achieves a general plan that in written statements and illustrations communicates to the community the City Council policies on future development within Arcadia. DESCRIPTION OF ELEMENTS The following is a description of each of the elements as set forth in the General Plan Summary: Land Use Element The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public facilities, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. The element explains these land use categories and their location in text and map form. Among other things, the element recommends: 1 • Review of the existing "H" zoned residential areas to determine the appropriateness of the zoning designation. • Review of the subdivision regulations as they pertain to single-sided cul-de- sacs. Revised General Plan October 23, 1990 Page 3 LASER IMAGED 15. • Insuring that any future uses of the two gravel quarries located within the City provide for the protection of water quality and minimize to the extent possible the impact on adjacent land uses. • Evaluation of the adequacy of the library facilities within the city to meet future needs of the community. • Continuation of the use of architectural design review for multiple-family, commercial and industrial developments. Circulation Element The Circulation Element is correlated with the Land Use Element and identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, trans- portation routes, and terminals. An issue which has been included in the revised circulation element is to cooperate with the regional planning agency in studies of additional mass transit systems and evaluate the best possible locations for terminals that would serve Arcadia residents. Housing Element The Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. In addi- tion, it embodies policy for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for this purpose. The Housing Element reflects the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 1988 revised regional housing needs assessment and the special housing needs of the City. On July 11, 1990, a copy of the Housing Element was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. The City has received the State's comments and is currently preparing responses to the comments. Open Space and Conservation Element The Open Space and Conservation Element addresses the conservation, develop- ment and use of natural resources induding water, soils, and mineral deposits, measures for preserving open space for natural resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. The element addresses the existing gravel quarry on Lower Azusa Road and the possibility of a proposed landfill. It eliminates from the Open Space designation, the gravel quarry located north of Clark Street (previously this was listed as Open Space). Revised General Plan October 23,1990 Page 4 LASER IMAGED 11 Noise Element The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use. The element provides information on current;and future noise levels and identifies the most suitable locations for various land uses, especially those that are particularly sensitive to noise impacts. The adopted Noise Element also facilitates the enforcement of standards and codes thereby protecting the health and well-being of persons living and working in Arcadia. Two action programs recommend: (1) the adoption and enforcement of a community noise ordinance and (2) continuation of the City's efforts to obtain.noise barriers along the Foothill Freeway. The Noise survey was completed in 1975. Although, with a few exceptions, staff does not believe there have been significant changes to noise levels in the City, the Commission may wish to include as an "Action Program" that the noise survey be updated to provide the City with more accurate information to evaluate and prepare a noise ordinance. Safety Element The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, urban fires, and wildfire hazards. The Element provides information and establishes guidelines which are intended to inform and assist in protecting the Arcadia community from any unreasonable risk associated with the effects of seismic induced hazards; other geologic hazards; flooding; wildland and urban fires; and hazardous wastes. The Element also.. addresses items related to fire hazards such as.evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements and minimum road widths and clearances around structures. On July 13, 1990 a copy of the revised Safety Element was forwarded to the State Division of Mines and Geology. We have not received any comments from the State. Included in the revised Element is a discussion of the cities emergency response; preparedness and recovery plan. Parks and Recreation Element The Parks and Recreation Element provides a comprehensive analysis, policy recommendations and implementation plan to guide the development, maintenance and operations of the City's park and recreation resources. The revised element includes a list of all city parks and programs. Revised General Plan October 23,1990 Page 5 LASER IMAGED • • Spheres of Influence Spheres of Influence are unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County adjacent to the City which are within a logical extension of Arcadia's services and which could possibly be annexed to the City at some time in the future. These areas are included in the City's General Plan because prior to annexation by a city the Local Agency Formation Commission requires that an area be general planned and zoned by the City. These areas are induded within the City's General Plan so that the County may consider the City's long range planning policies and designations in the County's review of any zone change or use permit within the area. FINDINGS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the revised General Plan!. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative Dedaration has been prepared. The Planning Commission should open the public hearing and receive public testimony on the revised General Plan. The Planning Commission's findings and comments will be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a resolution. The public's comments will also be , summarized and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ACTION • Attached for the Planning Commission's review are: 1. Exhibit A which sets forth comments from the October 16 joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council; and 2. Minutes of the.August 14 and August 28 Planning Commission meeting The Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution setting forth the Commission's findings and recommendations to the City Council for adoption at the Commission's next meeting of November 13, 1990. • Revised General Plan October 23,1990 Page 6 LASER IMAGED- 13 f EXHIBIT A COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 16 JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL Preservation, of large lot neighborhoods: The following may be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Goal: Maintain and preserve single-family large lot neighborhoods. Objective: Discourage the subdividing of predominantly large lot neighborhoods. into smaller lots incompatible with the surrounding area. To insure that new single-family subdivisions do not result in leap frog development which leaves existing lots which are out of conformity with the general development of the area and which are not capable of being subdivided in the future. Policy: Encourage the preservation of large lot neighborhoods where residents in the area wish to maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Require that new streets be a minimum distance from existing parallel streets. Discourage developments which leave existing lots which cannot be subdivided in the future. Action Program: The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify the single-family neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots and look into the adoption of measures to preserve these ' areas. Adoption of minimum standards between streets. LASER IMAGED 19 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration and review of the Revised General';Plan, which GENERAL PLAN contains the Land Use,Circulation,Housing,Open'Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Safety and Noise Elements and Spheres of Influence. The staff report was presented... Staff suggested continuing this to the Commission's next meeting. It was noted that there have been!no major changes and remarked that the State has made some comments which the City will have to respond to. This item has been tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on 9/18. Mr. Woolard explained that annexations'are up to the City and the City can determine whether it would be appropriate or not. Staff said that some time ago the City received a request to annex the area in the southwesi part of the City and the City was concerned with the water and commented that many issues are taken into consideration when annexing an area. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark,seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the hearing to the Commission's August 28th meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato,Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 10 • LASER IMAGED 20 • 1 i CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING Consideration and review of the Revised General Plan, GENERAL PLAN which contains the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation,.Safety and Noise Elements and Spheres of Influence. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Harold Ellis, 1504 S. Eighth, said that the plan as proposed is very general, vague and not,very specific and needs to give definite direction that the City should take. He felt that the plan is very evasive and that it should be utilized as a guide for the City. Some of the studies that are used are from 1987 and even 1975 which are old and obsolete. He said that Orange Grove Avenue should be made as a scenic route through the City before all the beautiful trees are torn and the street is widened. He said that if the City is displeased with single-sided cul-de-sacs, then they should not be approved unless there is a physical barrier preventing the development. He thought that the plan should beIsent back to staff for updated data. He said that there are enough people in Arcadia and the City should take into • consideration that additional people translate into more traffic, pollution, water, trash, noise problems. He thought that the only way to keeping the density down is to take positive steps to limit more people from coming into the area. He stated that in some parts of town a developer can build an 8-story residential building and he thought that that is absolutely ridiculous. He felt that at the present rate, there is no need to make any new developments, just replacing the existing development will have a very substantial impact on the quality of life in the City. He noted that if a developer doesn't have ample room on a lot, then the project should be denied and the City should not approve substandard lots. Craig Pearson,, 2424 Albert Way, said that he was in agreement with Mr. Ellis's testimony. He asked what is a Density Bonus Ordinance which is discussed in Part 6, Page 14, under Objectives? Staff explained that a Density Bonus Ordinance is required by the State, to grant a developer additional units on a project provided they are for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Pearson remarked that by allowing this type of a development it would be further density, traffic, pollution and added stress on the City. He thought that the plan should address issues such as traffic, monster houses and overdevelopment. Staff stated that every city is committed to offer the Density Bonus Ordinance and the City does not have an option. This is a requirement by the State to offer low and moderate income housing. If a Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/28/90 Page 5 • • LASER IMI4 ED 41 developer does not want to provide low and moderate housing, they are not going to get a density bonus but it is the State's way of trying to provide a range of alternative housing which a lot of cities are unable to do. Mr. Woolard said that the City does not have an option and has to provide this type of a program. He noted that the City would like to hear about issues such as monster homes, traffic and pollution which can be addressed in the General Plan. Mr. Pearson said that in Section 1.4, Objectives, what is the definition of mixed use projects which is being proposed along Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road? Staff said that a mixed use project is a mixture of commercial and residential type of developments which would be providing alternatives to housing and possibly lower income housing. Mr. Woolard said that a mixed use project does have benefits and explained that sometimes when a residential use is close to commercial areas, which are generally along major transportation lines, where they may be able to use the alternative transportation, rather than drive their car, it would actually reduce some of the problems that occur with growth in Southern California. Mr. Pearson asked what is "planned unit development" and said reading the definition in the General Plan, he interprets it to mean the breaking up of large lots to smaller lots. Staff said that for single-family developments, Code requires a minimum of 3 acres before a planned unit development can be considered. Recently, Council approved a planned unit development on North First Avenue on R-1 and R-2 lots, which could have allowed 60+ units but with the planned unit development they will be building 40 units. The planned unit development allows for flexibility and is used where a conventional subdivision can't be done. Mr. Pearson said that the plan needs to be more specific and he felt strongly about restricting the cutting of mature trees or encouraging proper landscaping of projects. Mr. Ellis said that the General Plan should be something that is utilized and not just be put on the shelf after its adoption. He asked for a 60 day continuance to allow him to get public input to allow him time to get the word out to the public regarding these hearings. There were no other persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Chairman papay asked if a public hearing had been scheduled before the City Council on this item? Staff remarked no public hearing had been scheduled before Council. A tentative schedule was to have a hearing before the Council on September 18th, however that has changed and there is no specific date at this time. After the Planning Commission has made their comments, there will be incorporated into a resolution which is forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Papay commented that what has been done is to consolidate all the documents into one single document. Staff indicated that was correct and this was an update which separates the text from the technical appendix. So that the major document contains the meats and guts of the plan. I Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/28/90 LASER 1MAGf bge 6 • Commissioner Szany was concerned that somebody purchasing several lots in the Baldwin Stocker area would be able to put a cul-de-sac in and reduce the sizes of the lots to 12,000 sq. ft. and still comply with Code and noted that presently there are lots that are 30,000-40,000 sq. ft. in size. He felt that the General Plan should address that. He stated that the lot split that was heard by the Commission is an example of what he is referring to and commented that this could set a precedent. He also thought that the trees should be included. He thought the General Plan should include a policy which would encourage the preservation of large lots. Commissioner Amato said that he would like this item to be continued so it can be reevaluated and thought that he would like to have the hearing postponed until after the joint meeting with ,Council. In response to Chairman Papay's comments Councilman Ciraulo stated that he likes the idea of postponing.the Commission hearing until the Council and the Commission have met. In response to questions from Chairman Papay, Mr. Woolard stated that there are no time constraints. Commissioner Hedlund said that he did not like to chop up large lots and create smaller lots and would' like to address the density bonus and would like to discuss that with City Council. He was also concerned with one-sided cul-de-sacs and the increase in traffic generated by them. In answer to Chairman Papay's question, Mr. Miller said that the Supreme Court decisions on several cases in the last five years have indicated that if you go too far in your regulatory action, and that is a judgment call, the government has to pay the compensation for it. In certain cases the Supreme Court has said that in certain situations this could be deemed to be taking of property and the government would be liable for financial damage: Staff thought that there are several items on the agenda for the joint meeting with Council and did not think that there would be ample time to discuss the General Plan especially since it is a major project. Commissioner Amato commended staff for doing an excellent job in preparing the Revised ,General Plan but felt that it should be continued to allow for more public input. Chairman Papay said that he would like to get Council's reaction to the Commission's ideas and said that if the Council is opposed to some of the ideas then it would be useless to pursue it. He remarked that he would like to see Council's general response to some of the issues. Councilman Ciraulo agreed with Chairman Papay and felt that it would be a good idea to get an overall feeling of how most of the Council feels and did not think that they would get into specifics in the joint meeting. Mr. Woolard said that staff will try to address everybody's concerns and will then forward all comments to Council. Staff is not looking for a consensus at this point from the Commission, but for individual input. The consensus of the Commission was to discuss the matter briefly with Council and get direction from them. It was noted that the joint meeting with Council is on October 16th and the next Planning Commission meeting following the meeting would be on October 23rd, which would also allow for more public input. MOTION • It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Szany to re-open the public hearing. The motion passed by voice with none dissenting. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/28/90 LASER 1MAGFPage 7 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Szany to continue the public hearing to October 23, 1990. ROLL CAW AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Clark AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Harold Ellis, 1504 S. Eight.Ave., was pleased with the Commission's action of the General Plan. He said that he would like to get more public input. Recently San Francisco denied a development due to incompatibility with the neighborhood and said that he would write to them and get the appropriate ordinance and he would then submit it to the City. He thought that this type of an ordinance, if adopted, would give the authority to deal with developments such as single-sided cul-de-sacs which tear up the neighborhoods. Alvin Albe, 458 W. Palm, said that the public is not aware of what the Commission is trying to achieve. The public is not aware that issues such as traffic, noise and pollution can be addressed in the General Plan and by continuing the hearing, the Commission is making the right decision. He stated that he would try to inform his neighbors of the hearing. He thought that this should be more publicized and it should be noted that the issues that are being considered can be addressed,by the public and can have an impact on the Commission's thought process. Staff said that a copy of the General Plan is available to check out from the Planning Dept. and also at the library. Chairman Papay said that everything that is being discussed is in general terms and are generalized criteria of necessity and the specifics come with specific properties. Mr. Woolard said that this document is a policy guiding document for future growth and development in the City. He said that comments made should be productive criticism of the plan and the comments should be constructive. The public should state their concerns and what they think the City can do to address them. The General Plan is not going to solve traffic and mansionization and it will only point out problems. Subsequent zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations or other Code changes will bring about the changes that are deemed necessary and identified in the plan. Mr. Miller said that when the General Plan is adopted and in place, it is only a guideline and it does not have the ultimate force of law. The 'subsequent implementation items will be the ones that will be enforced. Zone changes and text amendments require public hearing process, introduction and adoption of ordinances which will go through and during this process, depending on the outcome of the public hearings, some of those items may not necessarily be implemented. Acadia�Ci y I t�,la'n1Lh4 Dommission 8./28/9( 1 1 ' ' • I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Consideration and review of the Revised General Plan, GENERAL PLAN which contains the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation,;Safety and Noise Elements and Spheres of Influence. The staff report was presented. Staff said that the essential characteristics of the General Plan (GP) are that it is comprehensive, general and long-range. "Comprehensive" means that the plan encompasses all geographical parts of the community and all functional elements which bear on physical development. "General" means that the plan summarizes policies and proposals and does not set forth specific locations or detailed regulations - that is not the purpose of the GP. "Long range" means that the plan sets forth policies and goals which clarify the City's idea of the kind of community we would like to see 20 to 30 years in the future. The GP provides the basis for rational decision making regarding the City's long-term physical development. It is a policy document to guide future development of the City. Each element sets forth objectives, policies and action programs. The action programs, however, are not detailed regulations and are not law. They are implemented as a result of changes to the zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. The general plan, zoning and subdivision regulations deal with private uses of land, however, the general plan sets forth broad categories for general areas of the City. The City's zoning ordinance is the means by which the city sets forth more specific and detailed legislation which is intended to carry out the provisions that are set forth in the General Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission may want to include, as an action program, that the noise survey which was completed in 1975, be updated to evaluate and prepare a noise ordinance. Tonight's findings and comments will be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a resolution as well as the public testimony,' received tonight and the previous hearings. In answer to Commission's question, staff said that population growth has not been addressed in the GP. Exhibit "A" sets forth comments on the general plan which were discussed at the joint meeting with the , City Council. The public hearing was opened. Chris Vance, 417 S. Second, said that the previous GP which was adopted in the early 70's seemed to be much more detailed but this new proposal breaks down developments into light, medium and heavy density and asked how they relate to the residential uses. He was concerned about how this revised GP would affect his area. He noted that the maps included in the packet are not legible and felt that the General Plan has a strong influence on what is permitted in a specific area. Staff remarked that larger maps will be made available after this document has been adopted. The original GP was amended in the late 70's as currently shown. Based upon the previous designation, it would not be possible to back zone. The GP would have to be changed first before you could rezone to a lower.density. The old GP was very detailed and in the late 70s it was made more general. ;This GP creates one multiple-family designation. Mr. Woolard explained the reason these were done for the single-family and the multiple-family designations was so that zone changes could be easier to become more restrictive. If the GP had not been amended as it is now and the City wanted to make a larger lot requirement or change ithe allowable density, staff would have to amend the GP before changing the zoning. Alvin Albe, 458 W. Palm, said that in reading the GP he felt that some valid points were made. He stated that there is enough population in the City already and it should not be the City's policy to draw more people into the community. There is enough traffic and pollution problems in the City and an Arcadia City Planning Commission 10/23/90 LASER IMAGEDPage3 • 25 increase in the population would only add to the problem. He directed all his comments to the Land Use Section of the GP. In Section IV-8.1 and 3, he thought a statement should be inserted discouraging population growth. An effective way to limit growth would be to limit cul-de-sacs and subdivisions. Section 5-3, Issues and Opportunity, discusses the widening of Second Avenue from 40' to 60' and remarked that there are many cul-de-sacs on Second which add to the traffic. He felt that the population growth is in direct correlation with the traffic problems. Section IV-4, Finding 19,regarding street trees; he thought the City should have a policy of protecting mature trees on a lot. Section IV-6,.Goals and Objectives, states "to promote and preserve the character of single-family residential environments permitting individual expression which does not unnecessarily infringe on the rights of the property owner or adjacent owners". He felt that this concept should be expanded and that new construction ini the City should be harmonious or compatible in size and design with other existing houses in the neighborhood. He said that in the homeowner's associations (HOA) in the City, the words compatible and harmonious are applied to new homes and he felt that since most of Arcadia does not have HOAs then by inserting the above words in the GP, they would also be protected from monster homes. Section VI-14, Objective 1.1, delivers the wrong message, "one of the objectives of the City is to continue to facilitate the construction of 161 dwelling units per year...". He did not think that the City should allow.161 new developments a year. Cathy Tyson, 310 W. Norman, agreed with Mr. Albe and said in regard to the Land Use that future buildings should not infringe on,the property owners of adjacent properties. Many of the developments in the south part of the City have infringed on adjacent properties. She felt that the "H" overlay should be changed and thought that an 8-story building is unnecessary. In regard to Circulation, she noted that the large homes that are built bring in more people' and more cars which in turn create more traffic and an increase in noise. She thought that school districts should be addressed in the GP. In regard to Housing, she remarked that August 29th issue of the L.A. Times published the 1990 census and reported that Arcadia has had a 4% increase since the 1980 census. She felt that there were enough people in the City already and the City should not encourage increased population. She was against cul-de-sacs (especially single-sided cul-de-sacs), and felt that they create more population and traffic. She was also against lot splits and said that at the corner of Santa Anita and Palm there was a beautiful single-story home and now there are two large homes creating' more people and traffic. In regard to Conservation, she felt that Anoakia should be saved for historical importance and should be returned to the City as a park. She thought that the City should try to save mature trees and maintain the program of street planting and care. She thought large buildings have destroyed many,of the mature trees. She asked if a fee or a fine could be imposed on developers encouraging them to save mature trees? She felt that the City should give considerations to the parks within the City. In regard to Open Space, she said that since the armory is being returned to the City, why not build an auditorium for the high school. In regard to Noise and Safety, she thought that the Neighborhood Watch program should be promoted to aid the police to create a safe neighborhood. She thought that size of homes should be limited which would help eliminate problems such as density, traffic, the saving of large and mature trees, noise and population. Anthony Parrille, 654 Sharon, agreed with the previous speakers. He was concerned with mansionization, traffic and loss of trees in the community. He said that while driving on Lemon he saw Arcadia City Planning Commission 10/23/90 LASER 6 D`` that a house was demolished and the only thing left on the property was a tree and remarked that after a new home is built and landscaping put in it will take years to replace those valuable trees. He suggested discouraging any more mini-malls in the City and referred to the President's Square on Duarte and Golden West which has remained unused since it was remodeled. He didn't think that an area that is zoned for a commercial use should be used for mini malls which increase traffic. In regard to the Recreation Plan he noted that in addition to Little League and soccer, the City has a junior all American Football program. This program contributes to the City's program. Harold Ellis, 1504 S. Eighth, said that he would like to see a zero population growth in the City since there are enough people, cars, traffic in the community. He said that if the City is going to have a GP that guides the City it has to have some basic philosophy. Zero population growth is good philosophy. He was also concerned with mansionization. He said that the community feels that the City needs to give better direction as to the way development should go and remarked that on Eighth Avenue there is a single lot which is sandwiched between two cul-de-sacs and said that is poor planning. He talked about single-sided cul-de-sacs which the City should avoid. He said that he realizes that the GP should be general to a certain degree but its purpose is to provide a specific direction that the people want the community to take and is a document that should guide development. He was concerned with the number of cul-de-sacs on a specific street, preserving the few large lots, traffic, population and that the plan should address the above in much more detail. He said that a lot of the data in the GP is obsolete and it should be updated. There should be a better guideline from which the City can approve - or deny a project. There were no other persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. • MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Chairman Papay said that based upon the joint meeting with the City Council, Exhibit A addresses all concerns brought up at the meeting in regard to preservation of large lots and'cul-de-sacs: Exhibit A speaks to maintaining and preserving single-family large lot neighborhoods. It speaks about identifying single-family neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots,and to look into the measures to preserve these areas and the adoption of minimum standards between,streets which translates to distance between cul-de-sacs. It discourages developments which leave existing lots which cannot be subdivided in the future. Commissioner Szany said that there is nothing in the GP that says there should be no cul-de-sacs. He thought what the City is trying to do is requiring better designs of ones that are built in the future and also saying maybe there are some areas that should not be subdivided with cul-de-sacs because these areas are predominantly large lots neighborhoods and to chop these areas up with cul-de-sacs would not be appropriate. By leaving the GP in general terms the zoning can be changed (downzoned), if appropriate, without having to go through the GP amendment. Even though it will be a lot tougher to build in cul-de-sacs there are still some areas where cul-de-sacs are appropriate. He felt that Exhibit A leaves it broad enough so such problems can be addressed at a later date. Chairman Papay remarked that the GP does not changed the zoning but talks about the preservation of single-family neighborhoods that are predominantly developed with large lots. A recent zone change in the north part of the City which changed the zoning from R-O 15,000 to R-O 22,000. Although the GP does not state no cul-de-sacs it will make it more.difficult to develop a cul-de-sac just:because a person acquires several parcels of land. Arcadia City Planning Commission 10/23/90 Page 5 LASER I A ED e Commissioner Hedlund said that he didn't think that cul-de-sacs were bad but we want to where possible preserve large lots. Exhibit A discusses what the City would like to see done so not to infringe. on what people have and yet not deny other people their property rights. Commissioner Amato said that the City is trying to preserve the aesthetics of large lots and,said that he was opposed to one-sided cul-de-sacs. Staff said that Section IV, page 8, under action programs, item 1 states that "review existing subdivision to determine if the criteria can be developed to mitigate the visual impacts of projects which propose single-sided cul-de-sacs streets" and suggested alternative wording "review existing subdivision regulations to determine if criteria can be developed to prohibit single-sided ,cul-de-sacs except under "given" circumstances". Chairman Papay thought that the alternatives with respect to single-sided cul-de-sacs is a'good idea and would be for isolated deep. lots. The recommendation will include the incorporation of what is in Exhibit A as part of what is recommended for approval to the City Council. He thought they may wish to put some wording in the GP regarding preservation of trees on private property. In answer to the Commissioners questions, Mr. Woolard said that when a development comes in, every effort is made to work around the trees, or in some cases flip the design to save the tree but there are occasions where that is not feasible and the tree will have to be removed and replaced with a 15 gallon _ tree. In some cases it is possible to build wells around the trees to try to save them but that cannot always be done. The tree preservation plan is a fairly standard requirement in all subdivisions and multiple-family projects. Under existing circumstances, if the developer thinks that the tree is going to be a problem, there is nothing that prohibits the existing owner to remove some or all the trees before the transfer takes place. Looking at old historical pictures of Arcadia, there are more trees now than ever and said that a good example would be the condominium units on Naomi west of Baldwin which have over 100 trees. Commissioner Szany said that he has faced a situation similar to what Mr. Woolard explained and they were able to flip the driveway to save the tree. Staff said that developers are encouraged to save as many trees as possible and wording can be added to GP to reflect that. It was noted that more people are attempting to save trees but the City is also getting some real nice replacement trees. The landscaping on some of these new developments are much nicer than what was previously there and even though the trees may not be mature,,a lot of them within 10 years are going to be as nice if not nicer than what is presently existing. Chairman Papay suggested "preservation" or "replacement" and said that he realizes that trees cannot always be saved put can be replaced. Commissioner Szany asked if a no growth or slow growth policy could be adopted? He referred to a section in the GP which discusses the construction of 161 dwelling units and wondered if that would be net or gross. He said that in some instances 2 homes are taken down and replaced with 3 units which result in the net gain of one additional unit. Staff said that that would be net units. The Southern California Association of Governments. (SCAG)sets forth a certain amount of housing that the City is suppose to be built a year. Arcadia is a unique situation since it is built out and Mr. Woolard has discussed this with them and was able to reduce that number to 161 dwelling units a year. This is the housing need identified by SCAG as far as employment and other factors. The City might like to do a lot of different things but is mandated by State law to provide a certain number if housing units per year. Arcadia City Planning Commission 10/23/90 LASER IMAGE'age6 3 e Mr. Woolard further explained that both State and SCAG have made it clear that no community can stop growth and if they try they will be taken to court and will lose. SCAG states that within the LA Basin a certain amount of growth is going to occur and most of the growth is a result of birth rate and not because of people coming in from other states or countries. They feel it is a regional problem and that all the cities must bear the burden of absorbing the increased population. No city is going to be allowed to establish a no growth policy or growth limitation policies that have the same affect. The Housing Element tries to address this issue which they refer to our fair share of the anticipated growth in the region and that is what the numbers in element reflect. Mr. Miller said that sometimes findings can be made by stating that the infrastructure can't really support the growth but there isn't enough here to justify these kind of findings in terms of legitimizing a "no growth" type of a policy. Commissioner Amato indicated that the state will be fairly active in enforcing the requirement of providing housing. Mr. Woolard said that the City is trying to address the housing needs of low and moderate income persons and would not meet its fair share by providing homes that are $500,000. Part of the fair share will be met when Redevelopment Agency funds are eventually allocated for low and moderate income housing. An arrangement has been made to contribute a larger amount, beginning 1996, and at that time 25% of the tax increment will be going towards providing low and moderate income housing. -. It would be nice if a percentage of the 161 units were low and moderate housing. The City swill make efforts to make that possible by waiving fees, higher density and possibly providing modifications for parking. Because of the land values in the City there haven't been any inquiries to provide homes for • low and moderate income persons but that is being addressed in the Housing Element. Staff commented that the State has reviewed the Housing Element and has said that there are several things that should be more specific. It is very difficult to answer some of them in specifics since Arcadia is unique in respect that the property values are higher and it is difficult to address the needs of the overall population. There will be more changes before this is adopted because the Planning Department is in the process of gathering information to respond to the State's comments to address the issues of such things as handicapped persons, the elderly, homeless, special needs groups within the City. • Mr. Woolard noted that Councilman Harbicht has requested a report on the City's high risel zoning which is being prepared for both commercial and residential properties. There is a substantial portion of high rise residence in the area between Huntington and Duarte, between Santa Anita and First and a portion east of First to Second, which has population density potential of about 4 times of a large condominium. There is also the town center area which is zoned for high rise, the triangle between the rail road, Santa Anita and south side of Huntington Drive. A large portion of west Arcadia, extending as far north as Fairview and down to Naomi is also zoned for high rise residential. As a result of the report, it could be derived that high rise is not appropriate in these areas and the high rise zoning should be removed. If at a later date someone wants a high rise then it could be reviewed. at. He thought these areas should be reviewed and if appropriate remove the "H" overlay. i This should also be one way of rolling back the potential commercial density and residential density in area. Before the 1972 GP, it was attempted to take the high rise zoning off of those properties and at the hearing many people showed up who were against it and they felt that they purchased their properties as an investment and wanted the high rise zoning. Commissioner Hedlund said that there are many commercial properties in the City which he would prefer to see as residential. . Mr. Woolard said that in the 1972 GP, the whole area on the south side of Huntington Drive between Holly and Baldwin was zoned for commercial and was changed to multiple-family residential. The Arcadia City Planning Commission 10/23/90 Page 7 LASER IMAGED 23 •i f • • Commission should identify areas which they think could be changed and pass the recommendation to the City Council. He remarked that one potential site might be-the President's Square. In response to some questions, Mr. Woolard said that the Anoakia site was in escrow with Lewis Homes but he was unaware of any further developments there. Commissioner Szany felt that his concerns were being addressed in the GP with regard to cul-de-sacs, mature trees and high rise for both commercial and residential uses. Chairman Papay,wondered if the GP could be reviewed periodically and Mr. Woolard suggested that it could be reviewed annually. . • The Commission felt that they would be in favor of recommending approval of the G.P to the City Council with the following additional recommendations: . 1 . Exhibit A 2. Trees 3. High rise 4. Annual review of GP 5. Noise study 6. Review of under utilized commercial properties MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to recommend approval'of the Revised General Plan to the City Council with the recommendations.made above. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Clark • Mr. Woolard said that the resolution will be presented to the Commission at its next meeting for adoption. He said that all of the comments of both the Commission and the public will be forwarded to the City Council. He encouraged the speakers to also come to the Council meeting to express their views. PC ., /0/7,3 10 . • LASER IMAGED 30