No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 7, 1999�M." A N N O T A T E D A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting • September 7, 1999 5:OOp.m. Council Chamber Conference Room MEN Irf Mimi ii ACTION ROLL CALL: Council Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler All present 1. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) RE: 5:OOP.M. SESSION Fred Jahnke 2. STUDY SESSION a. Discussion and direction concerning cable television rant funds. Direct staff to replace TV equipment in Council Chambers (approx. $200,00) & transfer the rest of the grant funds to the Sch. Dist. 5 -0 b. Discussion and direction concerning new Police Facilit . No more than $$M for the bond. If project costs under 16M the remainder to payment of the bond. 5 -0 Police facility Needs Assessment approved 5 -0 7:OOp.m. Council Chamber INVOCATION Reverend Dan Earp, Calvary Chapel of Arcadia PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE James Dale, Director of Administrative Services ROLL CALL: Council Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler All present 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS See minutes MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive Adopted 5 -0 reading in full. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 2116 Pub. Hrg. Closed a. Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No.ZM, An Ordinance of the Tntrod„.ed 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving zone change Z -99 -004 from R -1 (Single - Family Residential 0 -6 du /ac) to R -3 (Multiple Family 24 du /ac) maximum at OAA W. Duarte Road. 615 • ACTION 5. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Thora Askins 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports /Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda items see minutes RECESS CITY COUNCIL 7. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the August 17, 1999 Regular Meeting. Approved 5 -0 b. Recommendation to approve the Design Review for two (2) 19,600 square Approved 5 -0 foot office buildings at the northeast corner of east Santa Clara and north Second Avenue. ADJOURN the Redevelopment Agency to September 21, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 8. CITY CLERK a. Recommendation to appoint a voting delegate and alternate for the League xarbicht and of California Cities annual conference on October 10 -12, 1999. Alford 9. CONSENT a. Minutes of the August 17, 1999 regular meeting. Approved 5 -0 b. Recommendation to approve Final Map No. 52497 for a 5 -unit residential Approved 5 -0 condominium project at 907 -913 Sunset. C. Recommendation to accept all work performed by Zaino Tennis Courts, Approved 5 -0 Inc. for park improvements and tennis court resurfacing at various locations as complete and authorize the final payment subject to a retention of $6,851.53 as set forth in the contract documents. d. Recommendation to approve the closure of the 1100 -1200 block of Approved 5 -0 Valencia Way on September 11, 1999 from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for a neighborhood block party. e. Recommendation to approve a twenty -year extension of the Reciprocal Approved 5 -0 Parking Easement with the Arcadia Medical Center. 2 Consent Continued ACTION Recommendation to ratify an emergency purchase order in the amount Ratified 5 -0 of $35,508.00 to General Pump Company for the replacement of the Camino Real "H" Booster. g. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 6138, A Resolution of the Adopted 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for fiscal year 1999 -2000 to pay for authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts. Report and Recommendation to cooperatively purchase one (1) Elgin ADDroved 5 -0 Regenerative Air Street Sweeper, for the Public Works Services Department, with the City of Oakland from Ricker Machinery Company for $130,239.69. Recommendation to approve the appointment of Don Penman as City Approved 5 -0 Manager Pro Tempore. j. Recommendation to adopt new and revised class specifications: Youth Approved 5 -0 Services Supervisor, Engineering Services Administrator /City Engineer, Storekeeper /Buyer, Senior Police Records Technician, Maintenance Worker, and Redevelopment Project Analyst. 10. CITY MANAGER a. Presentation on the 2000 Census. Jimmy Randall Census Bureau 11. CITY ATTORNEY Recommendation to Adopt Ordinance No. 2113, An Ordinance of Adopted 5 -0 the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City of Arcadia and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. b. Recommendation to Adopt Ordinance No. 2114, An Ordinance of the Adopted 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, revising in its entirety, Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5, Divisions 1 and 2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to the R -O and R -1 single family zones. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL to September 21, 1999 at 6:OOp.m ♦' %Awe U /,W, ' " ►Oip STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James Dale, Administrative Services Director By: David T. Bell, Assistant Human Resources Manager /Risk Manager � SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2113, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. SUMMARY Adoption of Ordinance No. 2113 is required by the Government Code. This ordinance allows the City to contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System to provide local fire members level 4 survival benefits. DISCUSSION This Ordinance was introduced at the August 3, 1999 City Council meeting and is now presented for adoption by the City Council. Attached is a copy of the original staff report. The contract amendment is consistent to and in support of the prior City Council action relative to the M.O.U. bargained with the Arcadia Firefighters Association. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with Ordinance No. 2113, based on an actuarial report provided by PERS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2113, Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City Council of the City of Arcadia and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. APPROVED: W� William R. Kelly, City Manager CC: Michael Miller, City Attorney LASER IMAGED *4W 1-440 ORDINANCE NO. 2113 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That an amendment of the contract between the City of Arcadia and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. SECTION 2. The Mayor of the City of Arcadia is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of '1999. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney of the City of Arcadia .% CaIPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System - - - 4iio- -- - EXHIBIT AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California ]Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council. City of Arcadia The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective October 1, 1945, and witnessed September 24, 1945, and as amended effective July 1, 1953, January 1, 1957, January 1, 1958, January 1, 1959, January 19, 1964, February 28, 1965, October 1, 1972, June 24, 1973, January 4, 1976, April 10, 1977, March 11, 1979, June 22, 1986, November 6, 1988, December 2, 1994 and June 4, 1999 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 4, 1999, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 50 for local safety members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after October 1, 1945 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. PLEF.SE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for local miscellaneous members for each year of credited prior and current service shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to March 31, 1977, termination of Social Security, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). 7. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members and local police members only. b. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation). C. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave). d. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post- Retirement Survivor Allowance). e. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976 for local miscellaneous members only. f. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local fire members only. Now vr/► 8. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on April 10, 1977. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 9. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per .covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members and local police members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local fire members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. cm n 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION v PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SY$` BY KENNETH W. MARZION, CHIEF ACTUARIAL & EMPLOYER SERV S DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRE T SYSTEM AMENDMENT PERS- CON -702A (Rev. 806) day of CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ARCADIA BY PRESIDING OFFICER �t Witness Date cj Attest: Clerk 19 o3vo -3v imp Pw� °°�`•T'� +'°' STAFF REP( PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPAET U September 7, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Man ger and Bryan E. Boeskin, Management Analyst i Reviewed by: Jan Steese, Purchasing Office, SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO COOPERATIVELY PURCHASE ONE (1) ELGIN REGENERATIVE AIR STREET SWEEPER, FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND FROM RICKER MACHINERY COMPANY FOR $130,239.69 SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract for one (1) 1999 Elgin Regenerative Air Street Sweeper in the amount of $130,239.00 to Ricker Machinery Company. The vehicle will be purchased through a cooperative purchasing arrangement with the City of Oakland, CA. Funds in the amount of $138,000.00 have been budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for this acquisition. DISCUSSION The 1999 Elgin Regenerative Air Street Sweeper will replace one (1) 1990 Mobil Street Sweeper. The new vehicle will be used by the Public Works Services — Street Section to assist in street sweeping operations that cover nearly 300 curb miles of local roadway. The vehicle will also be used to clean and maintain public parking areas throughout the City. The vehicle being purchased uses an innovative, regenerative air cleaning process that essentially vacuums pavement surfaces rather than the conventional sweeping method. This regenerative air process is environmentally sensitive, reducing particulate matter discharge (dust) and assisting in improving local air quality conditions. The new vehicle also complies with National Pollution Discharge and Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit requirements by preventing street sweeping debris from being swept into the local storm drain system. The vehicle being replaced has high - mileage, nearly ten years in service, and utilizes a conventional sweeping process. The existing vehicle is in marginal condition requiring frequent service and repair. Current maintenance costs for this vehicle are excessive and merit replacement. LASER IMAGED APP r u PI/ c ©N. y'4 . Mayor and City Council *W September 7, 1999 Page 2 Staff investigated the possibility of a cooperative purchase, commonly known as piggy- backing, with another municipality for the procurement of a vehicle with specifications equal to or greater than the City of Arcadia's. The City of Oakland, in cooperation with Ricker Machinery Company, has authorized the City to piggy -back on their purchase order. The City of Oakland's purchasing process allows certain vendor preferences for locally - owned business enterprises (LBE) and small locally -owned business enterprises (SLBE). These preferences effectively discount the bid by 10 %. Ricker Machinery Company has extended the same discounts to the City of Arcadia. Public agencies often utilize other agencies formal bidding results when the agreement between the agency and the vendor meets the specifications of the using agency. Staff has determined that Ricker Machinery Company is a qualified company. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $138,000.00 have been budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for this acquisition. The total cost to purchase one (1) Elgin, Air Bear Street Sweeper is $130,239.69. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Award a contract for the purchase of one (1) 1999 Elgin Regenerative Air Street Sweeper to Ricker Machinery Company in the amount of $130,239.69. 2. Waive competitive bidding process and piggy -back the City of Oakland bid and award a contract in accordance with the above recommendation. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. PM:GFL:dw Approved by William R. Kelly, City Manager 1 3 f O 3 ,~O0 J.ORATf��'o� STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 7, 1999 TO: City Council, City of Arcadia FROM: James S. Dale, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 6138 Fixing the Amount of Revenue Required to Be Raised from Property Taxes Necessary for the Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 to Pay the Authorized Maintenance and Operation Costs of the City Lighting & Parking Districts SUMMARY The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 [Division 14 of the California Streets and Highway Code Section 18,000 et Seq.] to establish Lighting Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts consist of five (5) districts ( Exhibit "K). These districts were formed to provide a source of revenue for the cost of power, maintenance and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs collected from the property owner form funds derived from a tax applied to land values. The City also formed two (2) Parking Districts in the downtown area, (Exhibit "B "), in accordance with the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. Funding for the maintenance of these districts is derived in part from property assessments and in part from contributions from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. DISCUSSION Each year a resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting and Parking Districts. This information is the basis for establishing tax rates, which are forwarded to L A County and applied to properties in specific districts. A separate schedule (Exhibit "C ") is attached to provide expanded detail of assessed valuations, beginning balances, estimated expenditures and the proposed tax rate for 1999 -2000 for the districts identified. The proposed tax rates are impacted by the additional costs associated with major repair and /or replacement of obsolete equipment. Where major replacement cost are anticipated, the proposed rates attempt to capitalize such costs over a fixed period rather than recover them through a single year rate increase. Capitalizing the costs over an extended period avoids significant tax rate fluctuations in any particular year. Ad aj" el- co N 9 M Attached also is a report from the Maintenance Services Department which identifies the annual operating costs within the lighting zones and a report from the Development Services Department fixing the amount to be raised from tax assessment to maintain the City's two (2) Parking Districts. These reports and the identified costs serve as the basis for establishing the proposed rates. FISCAL IMPACT The rates established for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 will recover the costs eligible for reimbursement within the established districts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council move to approve Resolution No. 6138. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 1999 -2000 to pay the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts. Attachment: Resolution No. 6138 APPROVED: William R. Kelly City Manager JSD:mlp See attachment. LIGHTING DISTRICTS In Exhibit "C" (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help insure districts maintain a positive balance. Balance 1999 -00 Estimated Estimated % Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates 7 -01 -99 Valuations Revenues Expenditures (2) 1999-00(3) Zone A 22,218 149,401,293 11,280 22,392 .009124 Zone B 17,666 804,475,344 62,090 79,760 .007719 Zone C (154,118) 149,481,106 175,660 89,635 .117511 Zone D ( 34,728) 205,443,587 59,268 22,317 .028849 Zone E ( 8,054) 171,343,302 58,732 50,678 .034277 (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help insure districts maintain a positive balance. (2) Where major capital costs are planned or have been completed, the proposed tax capitalizes such costs over a fixed period of years. (3) For comparison, last year's rate were as follows: Zone A - .009930 B-.000578 C - .106268 D-.038443 E - .032058 VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICTS Balance 1999 -00 Estimated Estimated % Parking Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates District 7 -01 -99 Valuations* Revenues'" Expenditures 1999 -00 No.1 84,481 7,527,866 880 9,020 .100000 No. 2 108,088 20, 782,133 2,057 14,160 .100000 *The Parking Districts are within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. Total assessed value includes base year assessed value and incremental increases since 1974. **Estimated Tax Revenues are based on 1974 base year assessment values. PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES D August 23, 1999 TO: James S. Dale, Administrative Services Director FROM: Pat Malloy, Maintenance Services Directo By: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Manager SUBJECT: Report on 1999 -00 Estimate of Costs of Operating the Arcadia Consolidated Lighting Maintenance District This report is submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18164 of the Streets and Highways Code for the purpose of levying assessments against the various zones in the District. The estimated cost of operating each zone during the 1999 -00 fiscal year, including power and maintenance, is as follows: Zone A An Edison -owned system of 311 sodium vapor lamps in commercial areas. This street lighting was installed at no cost to the property owners, and the property owners agree to pay 60% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 40 %. Maintenance & Power Costs $ 37,320.00 60% Charge to Zone A - $ 22,392.00 Zone B An Edison -owned system of 1,676 sodium vapor lamps in residential areas. System installed by Edison Company, and property owners pay 50% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 50 %. Maintenance & Power Costs $ 159,519.77 50% Charge to Zone B $ 79,759.88 Zone C A City -owned and maintained system of 642 sodium vapor lamps in commercial areas. City installed system at no cost to the property owners, and property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of operations. Power Costs $ 35,313.00 Estimated Maintenance Costs $ 54,322.56 Total Cost $ 89,635.56 100% Charge to Zone C $ 89,635.56 August 23, 1999 Page 2 In Zone D A City -owned and maintain system of 360 lamps of various types in residential areas. Property owners paid basic cost of installation, and by agreement, property owners pay 50% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 50 %. Power Costs $ 18,605.00 Estimated Maintenance Costs $ 26,029.56 Total Costs $ 44,634.56 50% Charge to Zone D $ 22,317.28 Zone E A City -owned and maintain system of 368 sodium vapor lamps in residential areas. Property owners paid 25% of the cost of installation, with the City paying the remaining 75 %. Property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of operation. Power Costs $ 18,989.00 Estimated Maintenance Costs $ 31,689.60 Total Costs $ 50,678.60 100 % Charge to Zone E $ 50,678.60 GRAND TOTAL $ 381,788.49 TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT $ 264,783.32 COST TO CITY $ 117,005.17 These estimates are calculated at projected rates for both power and maintenance. Should either the maintenance rates or energy costs result in expenses exceeding the above noted estimates, the shortfall will be added to next year's estimated costs. PM:DAL:ds c: Gary Lewis, General Services Manager M❑7 Memorandum arcadia redevelopment agency DATE: June 14, 1999 TO: Jim Dale FROM: OgDon Penman, Deputy City Manager /Development Services Director �py: Pete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION APPROVAL OF FY 1999 -00 TAX RATES FOR MAINTENANCE The Commission and City are allowed by law to set a tax rate of $.10 per $100.00 assessed value. This would raise approximately: Parking District One: $ 900.00 Parking District Two: $3500.00 Total: $4400.00 The estimated FY 1990 -00 maintenance cost for District One is $9020. The estimated FY 1998 -99 maintenance cost for District Two is $14,160. The Redevelopment Agency and Parking District reserves make up the difference between the maintenance assessment and annual costs. At their June 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the above tax rate to the City Council. Would you plese include this in your report to Council when you set the tax rate. cc: City Manager Parldng Comm - Tax.memo 6 -3-99 ' 6-00 -70 Z 9%—dae-/ ARCADIAi " `COhPORAT£O'`p STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 7, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, City Manger/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator,.�;. SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE Z-99-004 FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ON THE PROPERTY AT 615 W. DUARTE ROAD & TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 2116 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-1 TO R-3. SUMMARY Zone change Z-99-004 was initiated by Sheng-Cheng Chen to change the zoning on the property at 615 W. Duarte Road from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-Family). The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation for the site, which is Multiple- Family Residential, 24 du/ac. The Planning Commission at its April 10 meeting voted 4-0 with one member absent, to recommend approval of this zone change to the City Council. The Development Services Department recommends approval of the zone change and introduction of City Council Ordinance 2116: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 615 W. DUARTE ROAD. BACKGROUND On May 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's modification request and design concept plans for a proposed eight-unit residential condominium project on the site (Case No. MP 99-008/ADR 99-009). This approval was based on staffs recommendation and the Commission's determination that the applicant's proposal would secure an appropriate improvement. LASER IMAGED Zeta-ZC99-004PC Z-99-004—CC Report September 7, 1999 / Page 1 J�p Tr G o G( ice ems/ C%i a/ Z// R . yam. The applicant submitted his tentative map application for condominium purposes on May 19, 1999, at which time it was disclosed by staff that the City's zoning maps were in error in that the subject property was shown as a R-3 (Multiple- Family Residential) zoned lot when in actuality the property is zoned R-1 (Single- Family Residential). The R-1 zoning is inconsistent with the multiple-family General Plan designation and conflicts with the intent of the proposed tentative map, which is specifically for multiple-family development. The applicant was informed of the zoning status of the property and that the proposed condominium use for the site would be inconsistent with such zoning. In order to rectify the zoning inconsistency staff advised the applicant to request a zone change from R-1 to R-3 for the site. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a change in the site's R-1 zoning status (Single- Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). If approved the applicant would be able to proceed with his proposed condominium development of the site. Such developments would be compatible with the neighboring multiple-family developments that are currently to the north and east of the site, as shown on the attached Land Use and Zoning Map. The proposed zone change would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation for the site, which is Multiple-Family Residential, 24 du/ac. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed zone change. 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. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project 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 zone change. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the zoning designation for the subject site be changed to R-3 (Multiple-Family/24 du/ac maximum). zdfa-ZC99-004PC Z-99-004—CC Report September 7, 1999 Page 2 • . • • CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and introduce Ordinance 2116, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3 for the property located at 615 W. Duarte Road. Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map Environmental Documents Ordinance 2116. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manger Zdta-ZC99-OD4PC Z-99-004—CC Report September 7;1999 Page 3 1 i— �u I _� R 31-3 1 (610 I 133.13> •• 0 I 72.69 I J*5.16 72.59 J 72.60 r X5.19 f L,� . ARCADIA AVE -;i . . • -x2.59 I T2.bo ° •. 274:74 73.5 4s.Iv 7Z.53 I Jft..CO I ' R_3 . 42 C7 ® 4 add .. 7 A C _r i A (J 90 0 / __si 1-I1 ----E, +-2--3 j /f J !� N o .n ,0 0l N fn Cn riI �t ��� pars of to v c D I 1- I U Po u) nl , -0 z W y SENIOR i G) 70 g 1 HOUSING 3 z o 0 o i © I -10 z3l/ / ED .tg.. M t7 +� D 1 / c536) i6.36 Po r `r (.585) 216.90 ', cGt-i) / (s�,� 1 (4.o5) (1a, .3) (6/X23/ 'i' ." I , . 33 t G,z 7) B.3 B I ^13. 3U� dtO.6'r E. R® •DU PtIR1* a .6D' 66.19 1 (626) , z, 65o I ° - .1''z OFFICE i CHURCH - 2 69.5'!• SC1 rC.24) (br2) MEDJCAL OFFICE �am D� .AND USE AND ZONING MAC 615 W. Duarte Road T NORTH Z 99-004 Scale: 1 inch = 900 feet � 'oF� File No.: ZC 99-005-i r....----___ CITY OF ARCADIA •rr, .. 1 ln—xc in 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ,.y\ ,a ARCADIA, CA 91007 C%...,,T££� CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Zone change to rezone the subject property from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-Family). The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan B. Location of Project: 615 West Duarte Road C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Sanyao International, Inc. 141 E. Duarte Road 4201 Arcadia, CA 91006 • 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: No impact Date Prepared: July 7, 1999 % •'I'i✓/ ���__ = Date Posted: July 7, 1999 AonnaButler, Common ty Development Administrator File No. Z-99-0054 U�( L ` t. CITY OF ARCADIA Irk ARC DIA ;• 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ORpcATFD,QO ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Zone Change 99-005, a proposal to change the zoning from R-1 (Single-Family) to R-3 (Multiple Family) 2. Project Address: 615 West Duarte Road Arcadia, CA 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number: Sanyao International, Inc. 141 E. Duarte Road #201 Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 446-8048 4. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: Multiiple-Family Residential 7. Zone Classification: R-1 Single-Family Residential 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.) Proposal to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-3 to be consistent with the General Plan 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None 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 ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Signficance _E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 -2- DETERMINATION (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. x 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 beaddressed. ❑ 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. ❑ July 7, 1999 ignature Date Donna L. Butler _ _ _ City of Arcadia Printed Name For • E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 -3.. • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the informationsources 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 appropiriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entires 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 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. E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 -4- • File No.: Z-99-05 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS—Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no scenic vistas in proximity to this site. b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ [� rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no scenic resources in this area. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ [� the site and its surroundings? The site is bordered by multiple-family uses to the north, south and east and a commercial office building to the west. There will be no negative impact to the character of this neighborhood. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ [rte adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The only light and glare resulting from any future project would be that associated with a multiple-family development which is consistent with the surrounding properties. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation. and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts - on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q' Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) There are no farmlands in Arcadia b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Act contract? There is no agricultural land within the city. -CEQA Checklist 4 • 4/1/99 __�� File No.: Z-99-0014 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ 13' their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? There are no farmlands or agricultural uses within the City. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: • a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air ❑ ❑ ❑ Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? • The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan and will not affect any air quality plans. b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ❑ ❑ ❑ El- an existing or projected air quality violation? The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan and adjacent zoning of the area. There will not be any violations of air standards as a result of future development. c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan and adjacent zoning of the area. There will not be any violations of air standards as a result of future development. d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ❑ ❑ ❑ Et" (primarily carbon monoxide)? There are no"hot spots"within proximity to this site:_ e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? There are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ I . people? The zone change has no affect on odors, etc. Any use must comply with regulations set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Adversely.impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, ❑ ❑ ❑ [[� any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 -CEQA Checklist 5 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-99-00% Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? There are no endangered species located on this site. b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? This is a completely urbanized area and the site is currently developed with housing. c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ • Er other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? - There is no riparian or sensitive natural community in this area. d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or • in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no wetlands in this area. e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? The site is not in proximity to a wildlife or river area. f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ [� resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? A tree preservation plan is required as part of a multiple-family development g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ [.� Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The site is urban in characteristics and is not part of any conservation plan. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Er historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on CEQA Checklist 6 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-99-00 p Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? The homes are not unique historic buildings and would not qualify as historically significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ [� unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically . • recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? • The site is developed with two dwellings and it is doubtful that there are any unique archaeological resources within this entire area. c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q' The site is developed and there are no known historic or cultural resources in this area. d) Disturb•any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ [-� formal cemeteries? The site is developed and there are no known historic or cultural resources in this area 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ [� effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ g- most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? There are no identified earthquake faults in this area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q' There are no known earthquake faults identified in this area. Ground shaking would result from a major quake along the Raymond Hill or other fault. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ g This area is not identified as an area subject to liquefaction. iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� There are no water bodies in this area and the site is not _CEQA Checklist 7 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-00f4 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation near any hillsides which could cause mudflows, v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ The site is on a flat parcel of land approximately 3-4 miles south of the foothills. vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ [.�' urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? This is an urbanized area and there are no wildlands in the vicinity. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ . ❑- topsoil? There would not be any soil erosion problems as a result of the zone change. c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ p-- There are no geologic features in this area. d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ ❑ ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? As noted, the site is already developed and there are no unstable soils within the area. e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ❑ ❑ ❑ to life or property? As noted, the site is already developed and there are no identified soil problems in the area. f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is ❑ ❑ ❑ the soil capable of supporting the• use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? The site is already connected to the existing sewer system:. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ [�- through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 8 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-004 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ [� handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ • hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety • hazard for people residing or working in the project area? This is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? This site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ [IL— emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? This zone change will not have any affect on the City's emergency response plan. h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ involving wildtand fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? There are no wildiands within the vicinity. The site is in an urbanized area. • 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ El-- standards or waste discharge requirements? The zone change will not affect water quality standards. Future CEQA Checklist 9 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-99-00f i- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation uses will have to comply with all water quality and waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ [� substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The zone change will not affect the groundwater. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ .❑ ❑ _ El- including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, • in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? There are no streams or rivers in the vicinity. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ LI- including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The site is already developed and the proposed zone change will have no impact on existing drainage patterns or result in any significant alterations to the existing drainage pattern. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ LE- capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? Future uses will be required comply with all grading and drainage requirements set forth in the City codes. f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑ El-- federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The site is not located within a 100-year floodplain and the zone change does not involve housing. g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑J- or redirect flood flows? The site is not located within a 100 year floodplain 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ EP" The zone change is consistent with the General Plan and adjacent property to the east. CEQA Checklist 10 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-0O%4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed zoning is consistent with the general plan for the property. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ communities conservation plan? No. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: - a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The site is already developed and this area is not within a MRZ-2 mineral resource zone. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ [� resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No, the site is in an urbanized area and not within a MRZ-2 zone. 11. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The zone change will not create any noise issues. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� vibration or groundborne noise levels? The zone change will not result in any existing changes-to the site. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ H-- project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The zone change will not increase noise levels. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ III-- levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The,zone change will not increase noise levels. -CEQA Checklist 11 4/1/99 • • File No.: Z-99-OOp'4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ [� such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no airports within two miles of the subject property. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips within the vicinity. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ • a- (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? There will be no population growth as a result of the zone change. However there will be an increase of six housing units if future development takes place on this site. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The two existing dwellings will be replaced with eight dwellings unit for a net gain of six units. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ Li-- construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The two existing dwellings will be replaced with eight dwellings unit for a net gain of six units. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ [�- associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ [�" Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ [r Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 12 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-99-0014 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ [L 14. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑- regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The zone change will not create any need for recreational facilities and there are adequate recreational facilities to accommodate future multiple-family development on the site. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ ffr- construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? There are no recreational facilities proposed as part of this zone change. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: • a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 111— existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? The zone change will not increase traffic to or from the site, the resulting multiple-family development will create an insignificant increase in traffic. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ Q` standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The zone change and future development will not affect congestion management c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ �� increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? There will be no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ [- curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The zone change will not affect traffic. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 13 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-00%4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact • Incorporation The zone change will not affect emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Any proposed project on the site will be required to comply with the City's parking standards. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ [ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? There are no conflicts with any city policies related to alternative transportation modes. 16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ • E- Regional Water Quality Control Board? No. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • No c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ [�- facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ [� existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Future development of the site will have to provide adequate water service. e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may ❑ ❑ ❑ Er serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Yes. f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ [�- to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Yes. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑/ CEQA Checklist 14 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-99-00,4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 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? There will be no change to the land use that would affect any existing fish or wildlife habitat b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ ❑ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? The short-term affects would be a result of construction of any new project. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ Er 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 projects)? No d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? None • CEQA Checklist 15 • 4/1/99 �/ � File No. . — C\ — 0 6`-1-. Ui I t. ARC D A CITY OF ARCADIA . 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE '4„,----,.�R ARCADIA, CA 91007 pORAT 0 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1. Applicant's Name: 5/1 y4 f —CI 2,en J Address: ,416% _ • ii ,. ., ,e. /I, S al-if/a 0 ' 2. Property Address (Location): ti 1 - /C,a i / 7//000 Assessor's Number: 3. Name, address and -lephone num.er of person to be conta'ted concerning this project: A' — i O ' .. -gs� / .4 4 . ti-GC_ . . 1,• 0 4. List and describe. any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, icacluding thos equiry-d by c'ty, l�te and federal agencies: c.. 1-7 v ' 5. Zone Classification: X 6. General Plan Designation: 21 /.1.t1 Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): ?-6 /,?- 8. Site size: 3- 3 30 3 5-'1 - 9. Square footage per building: - , 10. Number of floors of construction: c7— 5 re Vey 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: Al is'C/tit --7 ' .1 -- 0 6 12. Proposed scheduling of project: G' C 5")/_) 0n7 f - 13. Anticipated incremental development: A)/4 . • 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: err — (1 a• //\-i/c(M ,5PAL F - /Ly yc D ivt 5 • E 11-113 35�6W/ 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square /J footage of sales area, and loading facilities,hours of operation: AYk 16. If industrial,indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: Al/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: , 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit r zoning application;�state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: /2 Ec/---S'_ 3/ 71/ pRz2P27-y °Am�70� C lc—fq AA) E---5/ /vx -7-/V A" 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 ❑ contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public ❑ L. 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. ❑ - - E.I.R. 3/95 • YES NO 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing ❑ ❑ drainage patterns. 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ❑ La 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. ❑ 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, LI flammable or explosives. 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,fire,water, ❑ sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, ❑ 12. etc.). 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ❑ 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 • owledge and belief. Date Signature U - E.I.R. 3/95 -3- • pi Fp! II Memorandum arcad..aa redevelopment agency DATE: September 7, 1999 TO:_ Arcadia Redevelopment Agency FROM: 4on Penman, Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director ByfPete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator v RE: Report and Recommendation to approve the Design Review for two 19,600 square foot office buildings at the northeast corner of east Santa Clara and north Second Summary The applicant, Mr. Gary Morris, Esq., proposes to acquire the 1.7-acre property at the northeast corner of east Santa Clara and north Second from Western Security Bank (WSB). (See Site Map, Attachment 1) This property is subject to the original 1987 Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) requiring the construction of at least 36,000 square feet of professional office. An Amendment and Assignment Agreement transferring the development rights and obligations from WSB to Gary Morris is currently in negotiation and will be presented to the Agency for approval at a future meeting. Mr. Morris proposes to construct two three-story 19,600 square foot office buildings over one subterranean parking deck on the site. (See Attachment 2) Staff recommends approval of Design Review. Background Work Proposed: • Design and construction of two three-story 19,800 square foot office buildings over one subterranean parking deck (See plans, Attachment 2) • Applicant: Mr. Jack Corey, architect (on behalf of Mr. Morris) 606 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 226, Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 449-9380 LASER IMAGED r pip rodP /pep .7.6_ Location: Northeast corner of Second Avenue and Santa Clara Street (301 E. Santa Clara and 351 E. Santa Clara) Existing Land Use: Vacant 1.7-acre rectangular site General Plan Designation: Mixed use commercial and multiple-family Existing Zoning: CPD-1 - Commercial Planned Development Redevelopment Land Use: PD - Planned Development Surrounding Land Uses: North - City St. Joseph water facility South - Residence Inn East - Santa Anita Wash, Extended Stay America hotel West - Light manufacturing Site Area:. 1.7 acres (74,052 square feet) Frontage: 660±feet on east Santa Clara 70± feet on north Second Parking Provided: 158 spaces (6 handicapped; 32 compact) Parking Required: 158 spaces (6 handicapped) PURPOSE OF LAND USE AND DESIGN REVIEW The purpose of the Agency's Design Review is to ensure that proposed projects meet adopted City and Agency standards and design guidelines based upon the following criteria: 1. The general use and design considerations, including the character, scale, and quality of design are consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and adopted use and design guidelines; 2. The use and architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are visually compatible with surrounding development and improvements on the site, and design elements (i.e., screening of equipment, exterior lighting, signs, awnings, the character and uses of adjacent development; 3. The location and configuration of structures are compatible with their site and with surrounding sites and structures, and do not dominate their surroundings to an extent inappropriate to their use; and 4. The use, design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not result in vehicular and/or pedestrian hazards. Analysis - Design Features The two buildings are almost identical in exterior characteristics (See elevations and plot plan, Attachment 3. The colored elevations and color board are available in the Development Services Department - Community Development Division and will be on display at the Agency meeting). The applicant proposes to construct two buildings facing Santa Clara, with a two- tone gray-brown plaster finish and with a 2-story light gray limestone panel surrounding the entry, powder-coated petina enamel turquoise green metal roof coping, olive green aluminum window frames and burgundy aluminum door frames. Windows will be glazed "solar gray." Tiles will be pink-orange terra cotta with rounded black decorative pole lighting. Staff Conditions of Approval Building elevations, site and parking plans, colors,and materials shall conform to the exhibits, receipt dated August 11 and August 30, 1999 and as presented to the Agency Board on September 7th. Environmental Findings The Emkay project including this site was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Atlantis Scientific dated September 1987. The EIR was certified by the Agency on November 17, 1987. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Design Review for the project as set forth above and as provided on Attachment 2. ,1111114 . Approved • ■ . ' ME=1■111 .......,i(Marmilalift4,,,,, 'IL ! . • .•.. . . \ Johnson LOCATION MAP .;-, x - • ..- - :a..• . I'I: • . -- ..•- .i ••"■_. X . • - - \ . 1: : i • , .a,,, ',2 8 ;I. , i .... . : IL 471rT•ri"—..----0 il. • .. \ ' .7?• 1• . • es , •.. ' 4 - MI 784.4: . .. ,......, • 1./. - . . , - - . A-- 2 il MO . •i, . A _ 4 ,03 . ....I .... - .. ••,L ...7.tv . — - ,... . . ''' • •. • St. Joseph .t . .• Water Facility % \ - . Parcel E • 14% '. N, -- . / . .\9 .••4•• \kli d ,.,, .. r 7 .a a 11T1111111 Mira11 M 1 EfliTiIll ,.. .• s (ESA) 7 •kya. : . ... .1•N / • rawc . . .. • Parcel D ... 43 % / '(ICD)34 11.4./If,..L 11/480 e (WSB Property) 0 aa'‘a kr 2 way i \es asitaar :am=1 foil emu■ . • : '... ••. • 'a SANTA CLARA STREET _ \ , di arm lie mletirsm.... a'''. 0.-. .. • . • • .. M3 Residence w C . • , , . . 1 ; Int •,, • rt.al irl" . • 11.3111191AMJUISTIMIll 4 . . -•.: "o 1..., ‘. • CI f! ampt ol I 2 2 1.: 2 • ,v. .,, . Z " ■ %.---- -•-• / ''.• til ...• • '.; so -a 21 :5 0 ; •s. 511\ • • C.) , i" Jo si 61111111111111 1\.• • . \ . . • Ca al • A M f Inn ' al • . 10, A....- IN .: •':, ! .' :I . '114\‘sb•, -',cll., \ '''', .. e "t ,ei, ., (PT; 2..s.,,0 t, .1 •11111113B111111461 2:4 1.7 4 ? : \ . . • 4. 13 : 7141s sa% z. . 1;•,t '.7'.-C1 2 ii_mi 03 0 ,..%4 . ,. "••••or---- -ta-— --- .I%... \ 2 Pailin 1 smair °Sumb il .3 :0 . • T.. 1 111 •••• • '.4 .,, ; , 'k ;ISOUR0 • ..i.,, . 4••••,., .I.I•1...:> •... ••1 ;.] T . ateway '4104nro- am •••z . . o : Derby p Pig4ntlfio -- o., ... . ..., Drive. .1.-.•LI I \ • ••••. I •• '• •• ."11.:1.1.•••• ••• 11 71 Ada '':5 71 75 IS Art • 1.• •,s5. )i5 ••• • .! .1 e G . 'I. ' ...I. : : •!. .:. ..#3.. •i... I I 4:". •. •••••1.3 - ... .1, siW5 -7.1. •\ :■,_ i . '01: . 1. 1. I I :.,„ • a M--:S 1.1: I • %N. On ...mu NW ..i.rm ' •e•N " .i.1,7")'771•■ .. •■1PZ Pt' ■ n :1 ‘Z311.Thil. . 7 . •• 1,4•T,.... 41 74 l .1.• • • Nk. ..2 s FIUNTINGTON DRIVE . -.. si■ ... - . .1 ...) SI 3 .1 4 1: • IS:4' : ' z_ •••••V :" An: .4.1.•. I 7...•.• ..411%...L.• •I .Jr..1 ..sai :6144; I I ...j ri-.,.• .1 ssk" s•• 4.1 .• ' I -• .,_•-•;•••••silull.s 6,1 Ms rse■m A . ) .. . .: 5, : g 2 742 it. • %. >.Z. ... ,. IC:o z 2 - A 4 • i 'n 1 1 C. • 4 r .... . • BOUNDRY SURVEY MAP SCALE 1 : 200 ' - . Emkay Development Co./Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ..../"...."■- ‘ Disposition & Development AgreamiAattaChMent * lb a ' '--- NORTH November 17, 1987 e • • Attachment 1 - .