Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 4, 1997March I,1997 7:00 p.m. Council Chambcfl INVOCATION City Clerk June D. Alford PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director of Recreation Jerry Collins U_ ! ...''. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic Young and Kuhn All Present 1. PRESENTATION by the Arcadia Festival of Bands Chariman, Jim Burrows PRESENTATION to American Red Cross, Arcadia Chapter - Chris McClain and Jill Harkema 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None 3. QUESTIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY See Minutes REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive Adopted reading in full Pub. Hrg. Closed 4. Report and recommendation to approve Text Amendment 97-001 amending Approved 5 -0 the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to wall and fence height and establishing architectural design guidelines for walls, wrought iron fences, decorative columns and lighting located within the front yard area. Pub. Hrg. Closed 5. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5985, A Resolution AA2EL Res. 5985 as of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, setting forth certain fees amended 5-0 relating to engineering services. 6. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/ FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) I No one spoke City Council Reports/Announcements/Statements/Future Agenda Items See Minutes NAM *, ffl 8. MEETING OF THE ARCA A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY &CTION ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Kuhn All present a. Minutes of the February 18, 1997 Regular Meetinno b. Report and recommendation to approve a contract in the amount of $23,000.00 between the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. for low to moderate income housing services. Avnnl��,' Approved 5-0 a. Minutes of the February 11, 1997 Adjourned Regular (Budget Session) .Approved 2/11/97 & and February 18, 1997 Adjourned and Regular meetings. 2/18/97 Reg. 5-0 2/18/97 Adi.Reg. Minutes withdrawn b. Report and recommendation to approve Resolution No. 5962, A Adopted Res. 5962 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, 5-0 providing for the participation of the City in the Los Angeles Inter-Agency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (L. A. Impact). C. Report and recommendation to appropriate $33,000.00 from the Approved 5-0 Water Facility Replacement Reserve Fund for the disinfection and repair of Longden Well #1. d. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5986, A Adopted Res. 5986 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, 5-0 approving the application for grant funds from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Bond Act of 1988. IN e. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5984, A Adopted —Res. 5984 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, 5-0 approving the application for grant funds from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Oil Recycling Enhancement Act. a. Report and recommendation to establish the Logistical Services Apkrqyed 4-1 Officer classification; revise Senior Citizen Program Specialist and Dr. Chang opposed Information and Health Specialist Classifications; revise and retitle the Building Clerk, Building Technician, and Legal Secretary classifications; and reclassify a Librarian to Principal Librarian and Engineering Aides • Assistant Engineers. a. ADOPTION - Ordinance No. 2066 - An Ordinance of the City Council Adopted Ord. 2066 of the City of Arcadia, California amending various sections of Article VII, -0 Division 3, Chapter 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to water service fees. ADOPTION - Ordinance No. 20• 7 - An Ordinance • the City Council A 20 • of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Sections 9240, 9401, 9402.3, 5-0 9405 and adding a new Section 9407.3 prohibiting the placement • signs, banners and posters on private property that are not permitted uses and declaring a public nuisance subject to abatement, civil penalties and cost assessment. a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to confer with Agency negotiators, William R. Kelly and Peter P. Kinnahan, concerning negotiations with the Summerfield Hotel Corporation (Joe Carey) pertaining to price and terms and conditions for the potential sale • up to 4 acres of Agency-owned property located at the northwest corner • Second Avenue and Huntington Drive. b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - City Manager - Annual Performance Evaluation. 8:10 p.m. to Closed Session ADJOURN to March 18, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNED at 9:00 p.m. 91 f eJ J O C0RP °R"TLD STAFF REPORT MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 4, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: C. Stephen Bucknam Jr., Acting City Engineer Prepared By: Tom A. Shahbazi, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5985 SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FEES RELATING TO ENGINEERING SERVICES. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 4, 1997 Financial pressures are forcing many city governments to take a close look at the cost to provide public services. Specifically, local governments are reviewing their fees and charges in order to assure that the beneficiaries of those services, where appropriate, are paying their "fair" share on the cost incurred in providing the service. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5985. Discussion The rationale behind service charges is that certain services are primarily for the benefit of individuals rather than the general public. Thus, the individual benefiting from a service should pay the cost associated with providing that service. Subject fees are to cover the administration costs and are based on an estimation of current actual costs. Fiscal Impact The proposed increases in Engineering Service fees reflect the costs incurred by the City in providing this service. If these proposed increases are not implemented, the General Fund revenues would be impacted, possibly resulting in a negative fund balance requiring a transfer from other City funds to fund the difference. The proposed fees will generate approximately $8,000 per year. 40/ r� #. * s l.A'R NAGED f. Z -Z� On Mayor and City Council March 4, 1997 Page Two Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council: M 1. Hold a Public Hearing to receive any comments or objections to the adoption of the fees set forth in Resolution No. 5985. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 5985 setting forth fees relating to Engineering Services. Approved By: CSB:TAS:mIo Attachments WILLIAM R. KELLY City Manager in DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION FEES in Service Cost to City Current Recommended Estimated Charge Charge Revenue per Year Grading, Drainage, and $111.68 $0 $50 $600 Erosion Control Plan Checking Street Vacation $2,947.14 $0 $700 $700 Off -Site Improvement Plan $58.08 $0 $25 $3,000 Checking (Residential) Street Address Change $96.61 $500 $100 $2,000 Copies and Reproduction of Plans and Specifications Contracts under $50,000 $26.50 $10.00 $26.50 $106 Contracts $50,000 4100,000 $26.50 $20.00 $26.50 $928 Contracts $100,000+ $26.50 $25.00 $26.50 $424 Copies and Reproduction - Misc. 81/2" x 11 " and 8'/2" x 17" $7.79 $0.10 Cost per sheet $1.00 $100 15" x 20" $35.03 $2.00 $2.00 $30 18" x 24" $35.03 $2.25 $2.50 $30 24" x 36" $35.03 $2.50 $3.00 $50 30" x 36" $35.03 $3.25 $3.50 $90 24" x 36" Mylar Original $3.00 $5.00 $80 1�� �c ° °' ° °•_ STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: March 4, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ronnie D. Garner, Assistant City Manager /Chief of Police "i By: Nancy Chik, Management Analysts Y SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to Approve Resolution No. 5962 - a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, Providing for the Participation of the City in the Los Angeles Inter- agency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (LA. IMPACT) SUMMARY The Arcadia Police Department has participated in the Los Angeles Inter - agency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (L.A. INTACT) since its inception in 1991. The task force has requested all member agencies to ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) of L.A. IMPACT by legislative action. Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5962 to ensure the City's total participation in L.A. IMPACT. DISCUSSION L.A. IMPACT is a county wide, multi jurisdictional major crime task force. It became operational on July 1, 1991, with local, state, and federal support with the consolidation of drug enforcement agencies. The task force gives smaller agencies a much greater ability to combat criminals and narcotic traffickers by pooling personnel and resources. The task force is also able to attack the multitude of crimes associated with the pervasive gang movement in and around Los Angeles County. By participating in the task force operation, intelligence information is readily shared. As such, many potential crimes are suppressed before they have a chance to materialize in our own community. The Department also has the ability to call on the task force to assist with special investigations that exceed our local manpower capabilities. Recently, L.A. IMPACT has requested that all member agencies approve amendments to their current M.O.U. The proposed resolution will amend the L.A. IMPACT M.O.U. to authorize the Chief of Police to act as the exclusive agent and representative of the City in the task force. It further authorizes the Chief to allocate personnel and financial resources in accordance with the M.O.U. and applicable Cal. yi . 1 e : NOGED M M provisions of law governing asset seizures and forfeitures. The Chief shall also report significant actions and nonconfidential information to the City Manager and City Council. In addition, the proposed resolution will assure that all parties to L.A. IMPACT share potential liabilities attributable to their membership in the organization. The CityAttorney has reviewed and approved the L.A. IMPACT M.O.U. and Resolution No. 5962. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5962, a resolution providing participation of the City in L.A. IMPACT. Attachment: Resolution No. 5962 Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager Szo-7eh�p CGG G�LI/� A • ARCAD 7r pri Rp°R"T STAFF REPORT MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 4, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PAT MALLOY, MAINTENANCE SERVICES DIRECTO' PREPARED BY: DAVID HARADON, ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE1, SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5984 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE USED OIL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE OIL RECYCLING ENHANCEMENT ACT Summary In May of 1996,the City received a grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board to continue the City's Used Oil Recycling Program. The State has consolidated the grant from an annual application to once every three years. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5984 approving the application for grant funds for the California Used Oil Recycling Program. Discussion The California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act of 1991 mandated that the Integrated Waste Management Board provide annual block grants to local governments for used oil collection programs. Each year since 1991, the City has applied for and received grant funding for this program. In May of 1996,the City of Arcadia was awarded a grant of$17,334.00. The block grant funding is based on population rather than a competitive application process. Similar to the past two years, the City has again purchased 1,000 used oil collection containers to distribute to Arcadia residents free of charge. The grant funds are also used to promote the proper collection of used oil through various public education mediums and through the purchase of permanent storm drain markers. This grant application requests grant funds for the next three years (FY 1997-2000). Any funds that are not used during the first year will be rolled over to the next. After the end of the third year, any remaining grant funds are taken back. • MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 1997 PAGE 2 • In addition, the City intends to contribute 10% of the first year's allotment to the Los Angeles County Used Oil Outreach Program. In cooperation with the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles,who have collectively provided $500,000 for the project,the County Department of Public Works will coordinate a comprehensive radio outreach program that' involves the participation of other cities and non-profit groups to spread the message about used oil recycling. In addition to this cooperative effort,the City will again purchase. used oil collection containers,and continue to actively promote the proper disposal of used motor oil. In previous years,the City only had one collection site for residents to recycle their used motor oil(Chief Auto Parts).This past year, the program has been expanded to include two(2)additional collection locations.The three locations for used oil collection are: . Chief Auto Parts: 1451 S. Baldwin Ave. Firestone: 1500 S. Baldwin Ave. Jiffy Lube: 5 W. Huntington Dr. This grant application requires that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing the filing of the application and authorizing the City Manager to execute any agreement, contracts, and requests for payment regarding this matter on behalf of the City. Fiscal Impact If this grant is approved,the City will receive$16,151 and is adjusted for population each year and will be used to implement the programs noted above. No City funds will be utilized to implement this program. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No 5984 approving the application for grant funds from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Oil Recycling Enhancement Act and authorizing the City Manager as the agent of the City Council to execute any agreement, contract, or requests for payment regarding this grant consistent with the above. Approved: Li William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 5984 A,� l r.4 77- �0, STAFF REPORT �RpoAASSC• DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 4, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: William E. Stokes, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Report and recommendation to approve Text Amendment 97-001 amending the Municipal Code relating to wall and fence height and establishing architectural design guidelines for walls, wrought iron fences, decorative columns and lighting located within the front yard area. SUMMARY This text amendment has been introduced to address the frequent requests for excessive fencing and lighting heights within front yard and street side yard areas. Consideration of the proposed amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their October 8, 1996 meeting, at which time Commission members gave feedback to a variety of height and design issues. As a result, specific target areas were addressed for discussion at their December 10, 1996 meeting. The following amendment sets forth specific regulations for fences, walls, gates and lighting within the front yard areas and street side yard and represents the Planning Commission's comments and reccomendations from both meetings. The staff is recommending approval of the text amendment as proposed in this report. DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL • The Development Services Department proposes to amend the current code by creating a separate code section for fences, walls and gates, and deleting sections 9283.8.7. and 9283.8.8. The details of the proposed height and design changes can be best understood by reviewing the exhibits attached to this report. Photographs of numerous front yard fences and gates with _. columns and lighting will be presented at the meeting. Proposed Amendment (In Bold Type) 9283.9. FENCES, WALLS AND GATES. SAFETY PROTECTION Fences, walls or guard railings for safety protection around depressed ramps. if not more than four (4) feet in height, may be located in any front yard, side or rear yard. except within twenty-five (25) feet of an intersection where the height shall not exceed three (3) feet. and provided that it does not interfere with the visibility or ingress and egress to the property and adjoining properties as per the standards on tile with the Community Development Division. TA 97-01)1 LASER IMAGED Nlarch 4. 1997 rd 1 . > r r 9283.9.1. FENCES,WALLS AND GATES. FRONT YARD Decorative wrought iron fences and decorative columns with caps located in the front yard area shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. No solid decorative walls greater than two (2) feet in height shall be allowed in the front yard area. Decorative wrought iron shall mean aesthetically significant in design and construction with a non-detracting color compatible finish, consistent with the main dwelling and adjacent properties. A column is the vertical supporting member located between wrought iron fencing or which flanks a gate entrance. A decorative column is a vertical supporting member with an aesthetically significant textured surface, including, but not be limited to stucco, split-face, stoned veneer, brick veneer, wood veneer, solid stone, solid brick, solid wood and glass block. A cap is the horizontal surface atop a column. All decorative wrought iron fences, walls, gates, columns, posts and caps shall be subject to Community Development Division review and approval. Chain link or wire type fencing shall not be allowed in the front yard or front street side yard areas, unless used as a temporary construction fence. EXCEPTION. (a) Any arched or curving portions of a decorative wrought iron fence/gate shall not exceed six (6) inches in height above the four (4) feet height maximum fence/column height. (b) Front gate entrances of decorative wrought iron with decorative columns shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in the R-0 Zone nor five.(5) feet in height in the R-1 Zone. (c) On corner lots, fences and walls within the required side yard shall not exceed five (5) feet in height, measured at the street side property line. (d) On lots containing less than seventy-five (75) feet of frontage, decorative wrought iron front gate entrances and columns shall not exceed a height of five (5) feet in any residential zone. (e) On lots where more than twenty (20) linear feet of any portion of the main dwelling is set back less than thirty (30) feet from the front property line, the maximum front yard fence,wall and gate entrance height shall not exceed four (4) feet at any point. 9283.9.2. SAME. FENCES, WALLS AND GATES. DESIGN ELEMENTS. (a) Decorative wrought iron fences with decorative columns located in the front yard area shall be of open work design. Said fences with columns extending from the front property line along the side property line, shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and shall be a compatible continuation of the fence and columns along the front property line. (b) Columns including caps or posts shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and placed at horizontal intervals no less than seven (7) feet, six (6) inches apart. Said columns or posts shall not have any dimension greater than twenty-four (24) inches and caps atop said columns shall not have any dimension greater than thirty (30) inches. (c) Decorative lights may be attached to decorative columns, posts, walls or fences within the front yard or street side yard areas and shall be limited to entry points at driveways and pedestrian entrances only, and shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches in height above the maximum fence/column height. TA 97_001 March 4, 1997 Pa2c 2 (d) Solid decorative walls extending from the front property line, located along the front side property lines, shall not exceed two (2) feet in height above adjacent grade. Decorative wrought iron may be placed atop of the solid decorative wall, not to exceed a combined total height of four(4) feet to four(4) feet, six (6) inches above adjacent grade. (e) Where a front or street side property line abuts an existing sidewalk, proposed fences and walls shall be set back a minimum of eighteen (18) inches from said property line. 9283.9.3. SAME. FENCES, WALLS AND GATES. SIDE AND REAR YARD Fences, walls and gates not more than six (6) feet in height, may be located along the side or rear lot lines, provided such fence, wall or gate does not extend into the required front yard, nor into the side yard required along the side street on a corner lot, nor in the case of a corner lot into that portion of the rear yard abutting the intersecting street wherein accessory buildings are prohibited. The provisions of this section-shall not prohibit the erection of a fence enclosing an elementary or high school site if such fence does not project beyond the front line of the building. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Division has prepared an initial study for the proposed text changes. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the areas affected by the text changes including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed text changes will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this text amendment. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no cost to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission on February 11, 1997 voted to approve TA 97-001 as worded, with items pertaining to safety protection listed as a separate code section. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of the proposed changes as set forth above. TA 97-O()I March 4. 1997 Page 3 r FINDINGS AND MOTION Approval If the City Council intends to take action to approve this text change or any portion thereof, the Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption at a later meeting. Denial If the City Council intends to take action to deny this text change, the Council need only to move for denial (no ordinance is necessary). ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits, CEQA determination tan 1^ Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager FA 97-00 I March 4. 1997 pd, e4 ti A. I ----)TYPICAL SITE PLAN • Rear Yard • Pool f I I I Main Dwelling • .. Driveway Front Yard Wrought Iron Fence with Colums Prop. Line 3 C jJ 0 • j rMIin. 18"set back from sidewalk Sidewalk Street , 4h. ._.,.'\VROUGHT IRON GATE ENTRA___JE with COLUMNS and DECORATIVE LIGHTS Wrought Iron 5' max Decorative Lights fencing 4 Cap 4' max 1— f . T1 )17____oirc.•••...i ....Hr.. , ---i----T----...t---. A.-....9=-9- -.2.----- . -, ; i , I:-.1._.v- -- >- • :: i il 1 i ! I ; I I i , -‹ -y,102. il - , . iii _ • ..i. • i ; , : i . . _I _i_ . ;I • 0 ! :! i . 1 : ' i I ' 1 i 1___ i 1 ...I_.. i I I • • .I I; , li ' 1 1 11 II 1 : 1 . 1 11 1 I • in- ... 1 I 11 11 i 1 1 I 11 il 1 ' I I II I' , 1 !I 1 . i I ;I ' I I .-- .:..... . ,. . . ..., :..\......4, :...t._If.::::_ I <, >;. 77: .\ / :7:17 \\I .: .1 • N .1 I I 11 11 1 1 i. li 11 I 1 • "'- . , -.' 1 I 1 I Xl[>( I )..‘g. ir),1 ,>-\1, ..i: ,.. .....____ •, . - ÷ , •Open Work design ' Decorative Column • • 6' max Curved portion of - _.,_,--)1,1:--I ..---7:-.s-,—,---ss:. 7.7-E-----,; •, --7-------,.. ..,---,-.;•;---\_,I..y (:,.) Z.r) p::.- k..• !.;,----,,;_>, 1 • • • -.r.:-!"--r•A-r- . , I-- i'K.-•,'"'r-jj/t _( - 1 ,; 1 - i 1 .• - ' . • — ---, d 4' max- \ ..6. -L-- 1.___D------• .. ,I II ii ! 1 • i I . -- . i'•1J.:,, . i ,; ,; ,• 1 . ; 1: 1 1 i — P-I-- il . ,I I, I, I ■ : : ! . . . . -.. '-: - . !! li li ! I 11 : 1 • I . ._!.._ AMmiliblgibIlldbl■ft ---1-i. I.., . ! 11 1 j! ! 11 i ; , 1 11 11 1 I T . I I , ; . i iiiiii "-7-. 1 I 1 "; !; i : .11 11. 1 II _ 11111111111111 -A:I....I-ill ' I 1 1 1 il II II ., „1 1 mr ---1-i-iL_.,_ _. ___I . _____,. . t . _= --i____ .:,..:____,_ . , __-,- ,--,. - -\,\ -F..-,-1- 1 -,h,...1.x. ,\ , i ,, !----- ./ F. •••:- I.; II %; ••• \:_li/ N ..;, ., _ i •1 (` ) - DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE COMBINED WITH DECORATIVE BLOCK WALL Total height not to exceed 4'-0"— Max_18" allowance for decorative lights Decorative Solid Wall atop 4'-O" high columns with Decorative Wrought Iron atop Distance between columns Max 6" allowance for curved portion not to exceed 7'-6" in excess of 4'-0" max.Hgt. ] II I I , [—Ira i, -----.)'1-4 ------' 4 7- 2'- T. ( 1- 1----1 ( I- 1 ( I TYPICAL CAS'DIMENSIONS ATOP DECORATi VE COLUMNS 30" 24" SQ 30^ l` ¶_c I 4 27 3/4" SQ ------ --� y°F, f l CITY OF ARCADIA `� ADI'' 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 '"ApoRA2so' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Text Amendment No. 97-001 Text Amendment which sets forth specific regulations for fencing, walls and lighting in the front yard areas: DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL The Development Services Department proposes to amend the current code by the following: Creating a separate section for fences,walls and gates,and delete section 9283.8.7.and 9283.8.8. B. Location of Project: 240 W.Huntington Dr.,Arcadia, CA 91007 C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: City of Arcadia D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures,if any,included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Date: I ) i 1 c i9 7 Date Posted: I/10/97 assistant Planner • w• File No.TA 97-001 "4. o, CITY OF ARCADIA a:xzso" 240 WEST HUVTINGTONDRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Text Amendment 97-001, Consideration of Text Change, amending Code Section 9283.8.7., etablishing new height requirements for fencing, walls and lighting within the front yard and street side yard areas. 2. Project Address: N/A 3. Project Sponsor's Name,Address and Telephone Number: City of Arcadia. Community Development Division (818) 574-5423 4. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: W.E. Stokes, Assistant City Planner (818) 574-5423 6. General Plan.Designation: N/A 7. Zone Classification: N/A 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A proposed text amendment, establishing new regulations. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) City Building Services (same) . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems CI Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Signficance N.I.R. c_liu.:Llist DETERiMINATION To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. y ❑ , L � January 16. 1997 Signature Date W.E. Stokes (Assistant Planner) City or Arcadia Printed Name For FIR. Lluot:Llist -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside.a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII. "ealier Analyses." may be cross-referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Refernce to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. L.I.R. c_lu:cklist -4- 4. File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposal is consistent with the Single-Family designation in the General Plan and is a use for which is authorized by Section 9251 of the Zoning Ordinance.) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental plans. E.Q., the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed use is a multiple family residential condominium project which is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (There are no agricultural resources or operations in the area.) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed use is a multiple family residential condominium project which is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official reg=ional or local population projections? [ I [ I [ ] [X] (The proposed use is a multiple family residential. condominium project which is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) CEQA Checklist _5_ 7 95 File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: • a) Fault rupture? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault.) b) Seismic around shaking? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is not more susceptible to seismic around shaking than any other site in the area. The proposed use will occupy an existing building that complies with current seismic standards.) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The site for'the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.) d) Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ I [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and not within an inundation area.) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading_, or fill? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) t) Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to subsidence.) • CEQ \ Checklist -6- 7 95 f 1 • File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Expansive soils? [ I [ I [ I [X] (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to expansion of soils.) h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ I [ ) [X] (No such features have been identified at the site of the proposed use.) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or • the rate and amount of surface runoff? [ I [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no such changes are included in the proposal.) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? [ I [ ii [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is not within an inundation area.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen,or turbidity)? [ ] [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ I [ I [ 1 [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or -water movements.) t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of around water recharge capability? [ I [ I [ 1 [x1 (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) CEQ:\ Checklist -7- 7 95 • • File No.: TA 97-001 . Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening•analysis,the • proposal will not affect ground waters.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] .. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not affect ground waters.) 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: • a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) • b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) 6. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? I I I ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) CEQA Checklist -3- 7 95 M r (� 1 _ � r File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan. The location that has not been identified as hn7ardous.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] . [X] (The site of the proposed use is readily accessible and the proposed use will not inhibit access to adjacent or nearby uses.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (There is adequate on-site parking for both the tenants and guests to serve the proposed use.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] X (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation.) g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants. fish, insects, animals and birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [N] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) h) Locally designated species(e.g., heritage trees)? [ I [ ] [ [NI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist -9- 79: • i File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CFQA Checklist -ID- 7 95 I p - 0 0 File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. HAZARDS • Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to: oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQt1 Checklist -I I- 7 95 File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? y [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ I [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist -12- 795 e. File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: • a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? I ] [ ] I ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ I [ ] [NJ (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CIiQA Checklist -I3- 795 File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ I [ I [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ I [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ 11 [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) • b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ I [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQ1\ Checklist -14- 7;95 r ( ) File No.: TA 97-001 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) . Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) • d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to analyze any noted effect(s)resulting from the proposal. CEQA Checklist -15- 7 95 .. iti/C�j TY - e46\ File No. —7A 9 7—0 0 / CITY OF ARCADIA AxcaDtn `��, 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE \cORF'ORwTS/ ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: /— io — 9 7 General Information 1. Applicant's Name: C i T% c-4--D i 4 Address: 2 ^/&7-0"/ ./r�rZ ./ . c/4-v.,a-, CA 9/O 07 2. Property Address (Location): S /'r' �- Assessor's Number: A// 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: G . S a,e�—S (4-s s s-,g-^/T ��- • /i 7 ) g�g -S7y- 4,4/4/ 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 5. Zone Classification: A//A 6. General Plan Designation: NVA Project Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): ^��A 8. Site size: N,A 9. Square footage per building: /.//4 10. Number of floors of construction: /3/4 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: Nf A 12. Proposed scheduling of project: N/A 13. Anticipated incremental development: N/A ) 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices o; rents, and type of household sizes expected: /✓/A 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: './/4 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A • 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/j9 Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground ❑ 21 contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public ❑ 2/ lands or roads. 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. ❑. 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ❑ [ 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ❑ ❑/ F.I.R. 3;95 • YES •NO 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing ❑ l drainage patterns. 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. Li 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, ❑ 21 flammable or explosives. 2$. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, ❑ sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, ❑ etc.). 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ❑ 2 Environmental Setting 31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. —/ - 97 Date Signature i���.�.-, ems►_ E.I.R. 3/95 -3- • ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by and before the ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL to consider whether or not the following TEXT AMENDMENT to the. ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE should be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. APPLICATION: Text Amendment 97-001 INITIATED BY: City of Arcadia PROPOSAL: A proposed text amendment which modifies existing walls/fence • heights and establishes architectural design standards for walls, wrought iron fences, and decorative columns and lighting, located • within the front yard area. ENVIRONMENTAL Negative Declaration - this document may be reviewed in the DOCUMENT: . Community Development Division at the Arcadia City Hall, February 19 through March 4, 1997. • DATE AND HOUR • OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF Arcadia City Hall Council Chambers HEARING: 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California . Persons wishing to comment on the proposed code amendment may do so at the public hearing or by writing to the Community Development Division prior to the March 4, 1997 hearing. For further information regarding the proposed text amendment, please contact William Stokes at (818) 574-5423 in the Community Development Division, City of Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. The Community Development Division is open Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., and every other Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed February the 28th. ne D. Alfor City Clerk Dated: February 19, 1997 Publish: February 19, 1997 The Star (Arcadia Tribune) • • LASER IMAGED • / 6 G Va ,?& la/Mid bi c e/n e Sdcs Fil pi II Memorandum arcad/a redevelopment agency DATE: March 4, 1997 TO: Arcadia Redevelopment Agency FROM: ,Pete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,000 BETWEEN THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSING SERVICES SUMMARY The Agency is required to update its Five Year Implementation Plan before December, 1997. Due to the specialized nature of low to moderate income housing, a proposal requesting professional consulting services in the preparation of the required housing component of the Five-Year Implementation Plan Update and in the development of a specific and detailed housing program to carry out the Plan was sent to three experienced consulting firms. Staff is recommending that the Agency contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group (RSG) in the amount of$23,000 for these services. DISCUSSION The Agency is required in FY 1997 to set aside 20% of its annual tax increment for low and moderate income housing. This will be approximately $400,000 in June, 1997. Funds must be spent or contractually obligated to be spent within two (2) years of transfer to the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund for this purpose, i.e., by June, 1999. Due to the specialized nature of low and moderate income housing, staff prepared a request for proposal for the services of an experienced professional consulting firm to assist in the preparation of two related reports: 1) Update the Agency's Five-Year Implementation Plan, Housing component. The Agency is required to revise and update the Five-Year Plan it adopted on December 20, 1994, prior to December 20, 1997. Agency staff will revise those sections relating to the Agency's 1997-2002 work plan, and the consultant will assist staff in the revision and update of the housing component and its coordination with the overall redevelopment Five-Year Implementation Plan. This process is expected to take about four months and will involve a maximum of four public meetings, two of which are intended to present the draft and final plan to the Agency. LASER IMAGED 40, no a e___a/ Staff Report Page Two March 4, 1997 2) Preparation of the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Program: After adoption of the Five-Year Plan by the Agency, the consultant will prepare a detailed program, including policies/guidelines, administrative procedures, list of service providers, and alternate sources of funding for low and moderate income housing programs, eg., mortgage assistance, tax credits, senior housing, Section 8 rent subsidies, home ownership, substantial rehabilitation, family housing, etc. This process is also expected to take about four months and will involve a maximum of four public meetings, two of which are intended to present the draft and final program to the Agency for adoption. Staff reviewed the proposals submitted by three experienced housing firms, interviewed each, contacted their references, and reviewed their estimates of cost. Based upon this review, staff recommends that the Agency contract with RSG. FISCAL IMPACT Phase 1 - $ 7,500- Update of Five-Year Implementation Plan Phase 2 - $12.500- Preparation of Low to Moderate Income Housing Program Total: $20,000, plus reimbursable expenses. Additional work will be billed at the hourly rate stated in RSG's proposal. Requested appropriation: $23,000 (15% Contingency) Funds can be taken from the Agency's Low to Moderate Income Housing Fund, instead of from the General Redevelopment Fund. RECOMMENDATION That the Agency appropriate $23,000 and authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., subject to approval of the Agency Attorney as to form. f�n I+ Approved By: . I��1 y l 9 Executive Director