Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 7, 2000t . A N N O T A T E D A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting March 7, 2000 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers ACTION INVOCATION Reverend Gene Wallace, Episcopal Church of The Transfiguration PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Kent Ross, City Librarian ROLL CALL: Council Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler All Present 1. PRESENTATION of certificate and plaque to First Avenue Middle School and Hugo Reid Elementary School for Arbor Day. 2. PRESENTATION to Home Depot, Alhambra, El Monte and Monrovia Stores. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS ew- employee, Tracey Hause, Director of Administrative services, introduced MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive Adopted 5 -0 reading in full. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Pub. Erg. Closed a. Recommendation to consider objections to the proposed abatement of Approved s -n weeds, brush, rubbish, refuse and dirt upon and in front of certain private property within the City. b. Recommendation to approve TA 2000 -001, a text amendment: Councilmember Roncelli excused (Santa Anita Race Track Board Member) Pub. Hrg. Closed 1. Amending Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other ADDroved 4 -0 events to be telecast live via satellite feed seven days a week until 1 abstention no later then 1:30 a.m. 2. Adding a new section to the Arcadia Municipal Code allowing for Approved 4 -0 year- around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand for 1 abstention non - horseracing activities. 3. To allow the use of the big screen monitor in the infield for Code Approved 4 -0 permitted uses at the track. 1 abstention 5. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS Laura Kelso THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER Vince Foley' PERSON) Roger Chandler, Mayor• Robert C. Harbicht Mayor Protempore • Gary AKovacic, Gail A. Marshall, Gino Roncelli, • Council Members Millam R. Kelly, City Manager June D. Alford, ON Clerk ACTION 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 ROLL CALL: Agency Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler All Present a. Recommendation to approve a design review for a two -unit condominium Approved ss -o project at 151 East Alta. 5:30 ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to March 21, 2000 at Stn p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 8. CONSENT a. Minutes of the February 15, 2000 special and regular meetings. Approved 5 -0 b. Recommendation to waive expenses related to traffic control services for Approved 4 the Sixth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run & Walk to be held on 1 abstention Saturday, April 8, 2000. C. Recommendation to approve Resolution No. 6165, A Resolution of the Adopted s -o City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing the City of Arcadia to release funds for the second year from the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Programs to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. d. Recommendation to accept a 5' dedication for Parcel Map 25419 Ann_ r S -0 (TPM 99 -004) for a 3 -lot subdivision at 20 -38 Grandview. e. Recommendation to grant a one -year time extension for CUP 92 -003 for e,, s_0 the Rodeffer Inert Landfill at 12321 Lower Azusa Road. Recommendation to approve the purchase of radio equipment for the Approved s -0 Police Department in the amount of $52,136.50 from Motorola and to waive the City bid process and use the existing GSA contract to purchase the equipment. g. Recommendation to accept the donation of a three -year cost free lease Approved 5 -0 for a pickup truck from Gunderson Chevrolet to be used for the G.R.E.A.T Program (Gang Resistance Education and Training). 2 0 Consent continued 0 ACTION h. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6166, A Resolution of the City Adnp ted 5 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. Recommendation to award a contract to Laird Construction Company Inc. Approved s -o in the amount of $57,535 for the construction of a drainage channel /access ramp behind 2273 Highland Vista and authorize the expenditure of an additional $5,100 for construction of 2 wood barrier structures at 2223 Canyon Road and 2273 Highland Vista Drive and appropriate $62,635 from the Emergency Reserve Fund to pay for this work. CITY MANAGER Recommendation to approve project list for submission by The Ferguson Approved 9 Group for possible Federal Funding 5:30 ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL to March 21, 2000 atSM p.m. ADJOURNED AT 9:05 p.m. o� So -jd STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: March 7, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: David H. Hinig, Chief of Police�.�G'� , By: Nancy Chik, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to Waive Expenses Related to Traffic Control Services for the Sixth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run & Walk to be Held on Saturday, April 8, 2000. SUMMARY The City was contacted by the Los Angeles Turf Club (Santa Anita) regarding the Sixth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run & Walk to be held on Saturday, April 8, 2000. Typically, when City services or personnel are required for coordination of special events, the cost of these services is borne by the event organizer. In this instance, like years past, Santa Anita is requesting that the City waive the cost of traffic control services because of the charitable nature of this event. DISCUSSION The race is one of several special events that will be held in conjunction with the Santa Anita Derby and will be coordinated by Kathy Loper Events. This year the Derby Day 5K Run & Walk is again co- sponsored by the Methodist Hospital of Southern California. Participation of contestants has increased each year, and it is anticipated that about 5,000 runners/walkers will join in this year's event. Any profits from the race will be donated to local beneficiaries including the Arcadia High School Boosters Club, the Arcadia D.A.R.E. Program, and local Explorer Scouts. If the race operates at a loss, Santa Anita will give all organizations a check for a fixed amount. For runners' safety, the course will be modified in this year's Derby Day 5K. The race will begin in the south parking lot (adjacent to gate #1) of the racetrack, and runners/walkers will proceed through the mall parking lot, exit at gate #8 and cross Baldwin Avenue. The participants will continue north on Baldwin Avenue in the southbound #2 lane, which will be barricaded, and enter the Arboretum parking lot just south of gate V. They will proceed through the course in the Arboretum and exit by the fountain, cross back over Baldwin Avenue, and enter the racetrack through gate V. Finally, the racers will proceed through the turf tunnel and infield, and wind up on the training track to the finish line. CeAl. ��. kftw' The Police Department will provide intermittent traffic control to facilitate the running of the race and to ensure the safety of the participants. The traffic control unit will be headed by Arcadia Police Chief Dave Hinig and his Command Staff, who will donate their time and efforts for this community event. The saving to Santa Anita is estimated at approximately $1,500.00. It is anticipated that traffic flow on Baldwin Avenue will be diverted between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Police personnel will use a similar type of traffic flow pattern as in previous years which has a very minimal effect on any businesses or local residents. As part of hosting an event of this type, Santa Anita is also required to provide a certificate of insurance designating the City of Arcadia as an additional insured. They have provided the required insurance certificate and it has been approved by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT None. The $1,500.00 associated with traffic control services will be absorbed by the Police Department utilizing the donation of staff time by Chief Hinig and his Command Staff. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council move to approve Santa Anita's request to waive the cost of traffic control services for the Sixth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run & Walk to be held on April 8, 2000. Approved: - W-�4 William R. Kelly, City Manager STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT Date: March 7, 2000 To: Mayor and Members of the City Co u it From: Dave Hinig, Chief of Poli Approved by: Jan Steese, Purchasing Offi " Subject: Report and Recommendation to Approve the Purchase of Radio Equipment in the Amount of $52,136.50 from Motorola and to Waive the City Bid Process and Use the Existing GSA Contract to Purchase the Equipment SUMMARY Each year the Police Department replaces a small portion of its radio equipment as items become obsolete and /or unserviceable. In this year's Capital Improvement Budget, the Department received authorization to replace five portable radios, five mobile radios, one radio repeater, and one base station. Motorola supplies radios for the Department and has an existing GSA Contract under which local agencies can purchase equipment at a significantly reduced price. City purchasing guidelines authorize us to use existing contracts to facilitate purchases that would result in cost savings to the City. The Department is therefore requesting approval to purchase the aforementioned equipment under GSA Contract #16204 in the amount of $52,136.50. DISCUSSION The 1999 -2000 Capital Improvement Budget included $60,000 for the replacement of obsolete and /or unserviceable police radio equipment. All radio equipment purchased must be compatible with and support our existing system. Motorola is the largest supplier of police communications items. Because of the volume they sell to the law enforcement community they frequently obtain pre- approved government contracts and purchase orders. We were able to locate GSA Contract #16204 for the equipment the Department requires. By purchasing under this contract, we realize a significant savings over what we would expect to pay should we solicit an individual contract. LASER IMAGED M M RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of radio equipment in the amount of $52,136.50 from Motorola and to waive the City bid process and use the existing GSA Contract to purchase the equipment. Approved: William R. Kelly, Ci anager °�..� STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: March 7, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: David H. Hinig, Chief of Poli By: Nancy Chik, Management Analystg SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to Accept the Donation of a Three -Year Cost Free Lease for a Pickup Truck from Gunderson Chevrolet to be Used for the G.R.E.A.T. Program SUMMARY Gunderson Chevrolet has generously donated a new S -10 Xtreme LS pickup truck for three years to the Arcadia Police Department's G.R.E.A.T. Program. The new truck will be outfitted with emergency equipment and painted with the G.R.E.A.T. logo and custom graphics. The new G.R.E.A.T. vehicle will be used to promote the G.R.E.A.T. Program at community events and special functions as well as being used at the middle schools as part of the G.R.E.A.T. educational format. FISCAL IMPACT Asset seizure funds in the amount of $1,250 were expended for the drive -off fee and approximately $3,600 will be spent on radios and emergency lighting to outfit the truck. Craigar Designs will donate the graphics for the vehicle. No City funds will be expended for this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the donation of a three -year cost free lease for a pickup truck from Gunderson Chevrolet to be used for the G.R.E.A.T. Program. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Ma ger LA �1 ' u r//rF cr/i,l.� �? I iy 01". STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 7, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analys SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTIO NO. 6166 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 1997, 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. 6166 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 government for used oil collection programs. Each year since 1991, the City has applied for and received grant funding for this program. In May of 1997, the City of Arcadia was awarded a three-year grant of $52,002. 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. Grant funds are also used to promote the proper collection and disposal 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 2000-2003). 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 could be returned to the Board. The City will continue to purchase used oil collection containers, and 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. Since 1996, the program has expanded to include two (2) additional collection locations. The three locations for used oil collection are: LASFR IMAGED Mayor and City Council March 7, 2000 Page 2 Kragen Auto Parts 37 Las Tunas Drive _ Firestone 1500 S. Baldwin Avenue Jiffy Lube 5 W. Huntington Drive 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 approximately $17,162 (according to population) to implement the above-mentioned programs without impacting the General Fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6166 approving the application for grant funds from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Oil Recycling Enhancement Act and authorizing the City Manager as the agent of the City Council to execute any agreement, contract or requests for payment regarding this grant consistent with the above. PM:CL:dw Attachment: Resolution No. 6166 Approved by: --- " C"1 William R. Kelly, City Manager op (4111114111■•\ d 9 z- 4' 0 .°4P0$AS80• STAFF REPORT • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPAIZTMENT March 7, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager, Development Services Director Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-003 THE RODEFFER INERT LANDFILL SUMMARY The City received the attached letter from Rodeffer Investments, requesting a time extension for Conditional Use Permit 92-003, the proposed inert landfill at 12321 Lower Azusa Road, which was approved by the City Council on April 5, 1994. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of a one-year time extension to April 5, 2001. DISCUSSION Since the original approval of Conditional Use Permit 92-003 (Resolution 5785), the City Council has granted five time extensions to allow the applicants time to secure all the required approvals from the various responsible agencies and to comply with the mitigation measures which were part of the conditions of approval. Section 9275.2.14 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states that an extension for a conditional use permit may be granted upon written request filed prior to the expiration of the C.U.P. The request should set forth reasons supported by factual data why the C.U.P. has been unused, abandoned or discontinued or compliance with the conditions has not been achieved. No extension shall be granted unless the Council finds justifiable cause for such extension. cctjmeext3_ _00 Time Extension CUP 92-003 March 7 20Q0 I AS;Fag 1 . D co ., • • Rodeffer Investments recently submitted to the City landscape and access improvement plans for the site and are working on a slope stability plan that will be submitted to the City in the near future. The time extension is necessary to allow the property owners time to finish all the required conditions of approval' that are mandatory to be completed before operation of the landfill may commence. • RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends a one-year time extension for C.U.P. 92-003 to April 5 2001. ACTION The City Council should move to approve a one-year time extension as recommended by the Development Services Department. • Attachment: Letter from Rodeffer Investments • Approved by: —Una William R. Kelly, City Manager • • • • Cctimeext3-7-00 Time Extension CUP 92-003 March 7, 2000 Page 2 • • THE RODEFFER TRUST 11770 E.Warner Avenue, Suite 129 E /7: Fountain Valley,CA 92708 (714)751-7000 FEB (714)751-7720 Fax 2DO0 • February 2, 2000 Ms. Donna L. Butler Community Development Adminstrator City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 - • Re : CUP No. 92-003 ( Rodeffer Site) - Request for Extension of CUP and Continuance of Project • Dear Ms. Butler : Pursuant to the provisions of Arcadia Municipal Code 9275. 2. 14, we are hereby applying for an additionl extension of the CUP No. 92-003 which was granted on April 5, 1994 and extended to April 5th, 2000 pursuant to Arcadia City Council Resolution No. 5785. The reason for this request is due to the complexity of the mitigation requirements. Over the past year we have redesigned the exterior front three times to try .to get the best entering and exiting of the truck traffic. We believe at this time we have a plan that meets the criteria of the City of Arcadia. This plan was submitted for approval in December, 1999, Upon approval of this plan we will start construction. -' We have also hired a geologist to re-evaluate our buttressing, plan and, make recommendations. We, therefore, request to have this item on the City Council agenda as soon as possible, and are enclosing our check in the amount of $100. 00 made payable to the City of Arcadia. Thanking you in advance for your co-operation and courtesy in this matter, we remain V? tAly yoo'u.rs, -- • •PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER PMR:wll Attachment 7 C> roc\ �oo °RP°�=&°' STAFF REPORT March 7, 2000 . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator • SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT 2000-001 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE S-1 SPECIAL USE ZONE TO EXTEND THE DAYS AND HOURS FOR HORSERACING VIA SATELLITE FEED AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS ALLOWING YEAR- AROUND USAGE OF THE RESTAURANT IN THE GRANDSTAND AREA AND THE BIG SCREEN MONITOR IN THE INFIELD SUMMARY This text amendment was filed by the Los Angeles Turf Club (LATC) and requests the following changes and additions to the S-1 (Special Use) zoning regulations: 1. Amendment of Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven (7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. 2. Amendment to allow for year-around usage of the restaurant located in. the grandstand for non-horseracing activities and to use the big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track. The Planning Commission at its January 25, 2000 meeting recommended approval of the usage of the restaurant and the big screen monitor, but further recommended that the extension of days and hours for horse racing and other events via satellite feed be allowed only with an approved conditional use permit. . DISCUSSION This text amendment was initiated by the Los Angeles Turf Club to amend Section • 9273.1.10.1 and to expand the list. of permitted uses in the S-1 zone. Currently the following activities and uses are allowed in the S-1 zone: 9273.1.2 Barbecues 9273.1.3 Conventions Textamendment-TA00-001CCrpt T.A 2000-001 • March 7, 2000 • LASER IMAGED Page 1 Pia y �. /1: 9273.1.4 Dancing . 9273.1.5 Daytime baseball and football games and track meets 9273.1.6 Dog shows 9273.1.8 Horsebreeding, raising, training and sale 9273.1.9 Horse shows 9273.1.10 Daytime horse racing with or without pari-mutuel wagering 9273.1.10.1 Horse racing via satellite feed An Friday and Saturday nights only until no later than 1:30 a.m. with or without pari-mutuel wagering 9273.1.11 Motion picture production 9273.1.12 Picnics 9273.1.13 Turf clubs, including retail on sale of liquor 9273.1.14 Any use by an organization, association or corporation which is organized and carried on wholly for the benefit of religious, charitable, education, recreational or scientific purposes and from which no individual person other than bona fide employees and assistants necessarily employed receives any gain, remuneration or profit, including veterans' associations and corporation and including any City, County, State, Federal, Governmental, Political, public or quasi public unit, body, agency and entity for periods not to exceed five (5) consecutive days or a total of ten (10) days in any one calendar year. 9273.1.15 Accessory buildings and uses customarily incident to any of the permitted uses in this zone. 9273.1.16 Any similar enterprise or business not here enumerated when so determined as provided in Division 1 of Part 9 of this Chapter. Extended Hours/Uses for Satellite Feed Section 9273.1.10.1 currently allows horse racing via satellite feed on Friday and Saturday nights only until no later than 1:30 a.m. The LATC is requesting that this section be amended to allow"horseracing and other events via satellite feed seven (7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. • LATC has indicated that the following may be some of the other events that they may wish to utilize the big screen and satellite telecasting for: Monday night football The bowl games, i.e., Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Super Bowl International Soccer Formula 1 Racing Major sports events including boxing, golfing, tennis, etc. News events that are televised all over the world Currently, satellite wagering takes place on Friday nights from Hong Kong. The general attendance ranges from 200 to 500 patrons. Telecasts terminate at 1:30 a.m. Textamendment-TA00-001 CCrpt T.A 2000-001 March 7, 2000 . Page 2 • The other nighttime satellite wagering is Hollywood Park's twilight racing from May through July. Generally twilight racing is over at 8:00 p.m. Attendance ranges from 500 to 4,000 patrons. • According to the applicant only portions of the grandstand are open to the public for nighttime satellite feeds and all broadcasting for satellite horse racing is transmitted inside the building only where the monitors are Ideated. The outdoor loudspeakers are not used. Currently, the big screen monitor is not used during the evening hours. Year-Around Usage of Restaurant/Big Screen Uses LATC's second request is to allow year-around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand area for non-horse racing activities and to use the big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses. . i According to current code, both the restaurant and big screen monitor- may be used during horse racing activities and for non-profit type of activities and events. The applicant is requesting that operation of the restaurant and use of the infield big screen monitor be.allowed throughout the year and not restricted to activities either relating to horse racing or non-profit events. No sound is amplified from the big screen in the infield. As noted all broadcasting, for satellite telecasting is within the building(s). During the evenings there will be no charge for parking.,This will encourage all patrons attending nighttime activities at the racetrack to park in the parking lot. It was staffs opinion that the extension of the days and hours for nighttime satellite \ ?_ telecasting would not have an adverse impact on any of the adjoining properties as long as the broadcasting is done within the building(s). If the big screen monitor is used in the infield during evening hours, there should be no outdoor sound transmission. The windows in the restaurant are operable. In order to insure that sound is not transmitted outdoors during evening hours when the restaurant may be open and special events are being telecast on the big screen monitor, the windows to the restaurant should remain closed to avoid sound transmission outside the structure. Based on current and projected nighttime usage of the facility, the amount of traffic generated by nighttime satellite telecasting will be negligible. Staff does not foresee any problems with allowing the year-around operation of the restaurant above the grandstand area for non-horse racing activities. Adding.a section to the code permitting year around usage of the restaurant would allow the racetrack to operate the restaurant similar to other restaurants within the City and to allow "for-profit". organizations to use the restaurant for special functions. The total maximum code permitted occupancy of the restaurant is 1,100 persons. The amount of traffic and Textamendment-TA00-001 CCrpt T.A 2000-001 March 7, 2000 Page 3 noise generated by the restaurant is insignificant in comparison to the overall activity of the racetrack. In regards to r allowing "other events" to be telecast via satellite feed, staff would . recommend that "other events" be limited to sporting events and special events of a national and/or international scale or significance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission at its January 25 meeting received testimony from several residents in the college and gardens area expressing concern about extending the hours and evenings for satellite wagering and events to take place at-the track. The Planning Commission in its consideration did not have problems with the expanded use of the restaurant or the big screen monitor as long as there was no outside amplification of noise. The Commission did have concern, however, regarding the extension of hours for nighttime activity at the racetrack as it, related to satellite wagering, sports and other special events. The Commission expressed concern with: • patrons not parking at the racetrack and utilizing the streets in the neighborhoods north of the racetrack to park; • patrons exiting at Gate 5 and traveling northbound through the "Garden" area as a shortcut to the freeway; • increased traffic during the evening hours • concerned with neighborhood safety It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that allowing the extended hours by right did not provide the City with the ability 'to monitor the potential impact these activities might have on the neighborhood. The Commission thought that the conditional use permit process was the best method in addressing future requests by the LATC to expand their hours of operation for satellite wagering. The CUP process would allow the Planning Commission and/or the City Council an opportunity to review a specific request and to include appropriate conditions of approval on an activity. The CUP process provides the City with'a means of monitoring a project in accordance with the conditions of approval to help mitigate . any impacts on adjoining properties. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of text amendment 2000- 01 as follows: A new Section 9273.1.17 be added to read: • Textamendment-TAOO-0O1 CCrpt T.A 2000-001 March 7, 2000 Page 4 1 "Year-around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand area for non- horse racing activities." A new Section 9273.1.18 be added to read: "Use of the big screen monitor in the infield shall be allowed for all S-1 code permitted uses. There shall be no outdoor:sound amplification or use of outdoor loudspeakers in conjunction with the use'of the big screen monitor other than during live horse racing." The Planning Commission further recommended that no changes be made to Section 9273.10.1 and that a new section be added to the S-1 regulations that would allow the following subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit: "Horse racing with or without pari-mutuel wagering on the results thereof, sporting events and special events of a national and/or international scale or significance, via satellite feed, other than those permitted per Section 9273.10.1." Alternatives to the Conditional Use Permit Process The Conditional Use Permit process provides entitlement for "Uses" such . as restaurants, service stations, etc. that are generally identified with long-term use on a piece of property: It typically takes about two months to process a CUP application. As noted above"in the staff report, it is the.Development Services Department's opinion that traffic generated by expansion of nighttime satellite telecasting will be negligible. This is based on the race track's current operation. As an alternative to the Planning Commission's recommendation to require a conditional use permit, the City Council may wish to consider amending Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horse racing via satellite feed seven days a week as follows "Horse racing with or without pari-mutuel wagering on the results thereof, via satellite feed shall be allowed seven (7) days a week except between the hours of 1:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. -Such events may be broadcast on the big screen monitor located in the infield, however, there shall not be any outdoor sound amplification or use of outdoor loudspeakers." Amendment to the above section would not allow sporting or other events to take place via satellite feed. Periodically the City receives requests for special events/activities, such as the Pasadena Showcase House, and the City has no specific procedures whereby to process such requests. The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council direct staff to analyze alternative methods to allow sporting and special events at the race track and other locations throughout the City. Such a process could • Textamendment-TA00-001 CCrpt T.A 2000-001 March 7, 2000 • Page 5 be similar•to the "Outdoor Entertainment Permit" process that was established in 1994 for the race track and was repealed in 1995. Establishing a procedure, other than the Conditional Use Permit process would allow the City an opportunity to impose any special conditions That might be necessary as a result of anticipated increased traffic, noise or =other impacts related to conducting special events. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION The City has received several letters (attached) primarily in opposition to the extension of the days and hours for nighttime satellite feed. The letters express concern regarding noise, traffic and potential crime. CEQA • Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed text amendment. 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 text amendment. CITY COUNCIL ACTION • If the City Council determines that this text amendment is appropriate, the Council should move to approve this text amendment as set forth above or as amended by the City Council, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption at a later meeting. If the City Council decides not to proceed with this text amendment, no further action is necessary. ' S Approved by: . 1 , ,,, 44" i k William R. Kelly, City NMnager Enclosures: January 25 PC Minutes . Zoning Map of the Race Track site Letters from citizens regarding the T.A. - Environmental Documents S Textamendment-TA00-001 CCrpt T.A 2000-001 • March 7, 2000 Page 6 • • 1/25/00 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2. PUBLIC HEARING'1'A 12000-001 Consideration of a text amendment amending Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven (7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. In addition,they are requesting that a new section be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year-around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand for non- horse racing activities and to use the big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track. • The staff report was presented. Commissioner Sleeter remarked that he owns two properties within the 1000' radius of the property. Ms. Butler responded to a question by Commissioner Sleeter, by saying that the code was amended in 1992 to allow for live horseracing on Friday and Saturday evenings until 1:30 a.m. She explained • the recent code changes that were requested by the applicant. She remarked that Chief Hinig, form the Police Dept. reviewed this request and commented that Santa Anita has provided good security in the past. The public hearing was opened. Bob Kimball, 140 Santa Cruz, was concerned about patrons of the racetrack who leave the track and utilize his neighborhood. They drive very fast and it is dangerous for his children and the others in the neighborhood. They drive through their neighborhood to get to the freeway rather than using the main thoroughfare. He asked what type of people would be going to a racetrack at 1:30 a.m. This is not a normal way of life and he characterized them as persons with no scruples. Most crimes occur at night. Tom Kocayh, 137 Santa Cruz, commented that this area has seen an increase in traffic since 1992 when nighttime racing was allowed. Allowing this to happen seven nights will undoubtedly increase crime levels. He was concerned about their safety. He did not object to utilization of the screen and the restaurant but he did not want people driving up and down his street at 1:30 in the morning. John Kivases, 400 Oxford, said they are used to the noise from the racetrack and at times it is nice to hear the voice of the announcer. But he did not want to hear races at 1:30 in the morning. In affect, their neighborhood has lost the use of their back yards because of all the noise that is created by the racetrack. He wanted to have the same peace and quite that the Planning Commissioners enjoy in their backyard. Dirk Hudons, 428 Stanford, was concerned about people drinking that late at night. He thought some restriction should be placed on the bar. Tom Austin, 285 W. Huntington Dr., representing the racetrack explained the different sound systems that they have in place. One system is a very powerful system that is utilized for live races. This system is never used in the evenings. However, they have another system that is used in the infield that is not as strong. The latter is used during the different festivals that are held in the infield. The system that will be utilized for this request is an indoor system. Outdoor speakers would not be used. With the exception of the Greek festival which ends approximately at 10:00 p.m., all Arcadia City Planning Commission 3 1/25/00 other similar events end usually by 8:00 p.m. He stated that since 1992 when the code was amended,they have had a few evening events—about three Fridays in a year. With regard to excessive drinking, he indicated that the rules would be the same as any other restaurant in the community. Generally,there are two persons in each car, so there would not be 400 cars in the parking lot. That number would more likely be about 160 cars. Depending on the number of people that they are expecting, they will utilize different parking lots. They close off portions of the building that would not be needed. Gates 5 and 6 would be utilized for these events. The sound system from the large monitor will only be'on inside of the building. The screen is visible from the restaurant. The grandstand area will not be open during these vents. Patrons will be inside the building and they will be monitoring that so they are not outside. He did not object to closing off Gate 6 during these events. Commissioner Sleeter was concerned with patrons exiting north on Gate 5, traveling northbound on Colorado,making a right turn on San Juan and then traveling at high speeds on Santa Cruz. He had a problem with this. He realized that the racetrack has a good security and monitoring of their parking but he was concerned after patrons leave their facility. Many of their patrons do not want to pay for parking. They park in his neighborhood and after the conclusion of the events they will walk over to get their cars. He knew of several.vehicles that park there all day and the cars are gone by 10:00 p.m. His guests cannot park more than an hour, on race days in front of his house due to the parking restrictions. Closing gate 6 and using gate 5 only shifts the problem. It does not solve it. Commissioner Murphy said that the racetrack has served alcoholic beverages before; therefore, nothing has changed. Mr. Austin remarked that they do not have live racing at 1:30.a.m.but they are covering signals from other world events. The clock determines the need to be open until 1:30 a.m. Commissioner Sleeter returned back to the gate issue and said for a time the Police used to put out barricade but they are not doing that now. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said that is a different issue. They need to concentrate on the issue before them. Commissioner Sleeter was upset with the racetrack patrons utilizing their streets as a short cut to get to the freeway. Commissioner Murphy wondered how would they determine what gate to utilize? Under what circumstance would they use one vs.the other? Mr. Austin replied the crowd expectancy would determine which gate is utilized. When they are expecting a larger crowd they would use Gate 5. If they expect a larger crowd they may utilize the Civic Center exit. Chairman Bruckner said that this just pushes the traffic from one neighborhood to another. Commissioner Murphy remarked that if Gates 5 and 8 are utilized, it would not be as imposing because they are at opposite sides. Ateadia City Plaxmitig Camrtiiss'iati 4 1/25/Q0 Commissioner Huang though, «gat was rather late to have the restaurant a..d parking lot utilized. Mr. Austin replied that the 1:30 a.m. is the same as what has been in place for Friday and Saturday nights since 1992. The noise would not be broadcast in the grand stands — only inside of the building. • No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. • Chairman Bruckner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sleeter was concerned with their patrons not parking on the lot and utilizing their neighborhood to park. He was concerned with the increased traffic created as a result and the speeds that they will be traveling through his neighborhood in the early morning hours. He had concerns with people now being able to stay until 1:30 a.m. every night of the week. He did not want people . wandering that late at night through his neighborhood. He knows they are walking in the neighborhood because he has seen the torn tickets and programs on the street. He remarked that robbery is a crime of opportunity and he was concerned with the neighborhood's safety. All of his attempts in putting up barricades, similar to the ones in the Lower Rancho area, have been unsuccessful. He thought that they had a valid concern and if they can mitigate it,they should. Chairman Bruckner asked if they could require a CUP? Ms. Butler replied that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that this be permitted subject to an approved CUP. A CUP would allow them to place specific conditions of approval. If they fail to comply then the CUP can be revoked. The City has.successfully done this and they have revoked a CUP when there were problems associated with it. It would be easier to place conditions if a CUP is required instead of putting conditions in the code. The CUP is easier to enforce. Chairman Bruckner remarked that if they did require a CUP, in affect, they are adding another step to the process. This would allow them additional opportunity to review activities. Commissioner Kalemkiarian wondered if parking limit was to be in place that would help mitigate Commissioner Sleeter's concerns. If someone repeatedly parked there, the Police would then ticket them. That would certainly stop someone from using their neighborhood to park, especially if the parking at the track is free. They have addressed the noise concern, since all activity will be indoors. Ms. Butler felt that it would be a better if each request was considered separately. She remarked that unfortunately, the City cannot address all issues and keep everyone happy. If the City Council approves this text amendment with the Planning Commission's recommendation of requiring a CUP, if problems arise, they can always bring the application back to the Planning Commission for review. At that time, they can either revoke or impose additional conditions. She reminded the Planning Commission that the applicant can have control over what their patrons do on site but cannot dictate what they do after they leave their site. MOTION It was moved by Chairman Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to recommend to the City Council approval of adding of a new section 9273.1.17 to the S-1 zone. ArdatU City PIaiiiiirig Ctiiririiissidri 5 I/25100 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian,Murphy, Sleeter,Bruckner NOES: None MOTION It was moved by Chairman Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend to the City Council approval of adding of a new section 9273.1.18 to the S-1 zone. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter,Bruckner NOES: None MOTION It was moved by Chairman Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend approval to the City Council by adding a new section to allow extended hours of satellite wagering subject to an approved CUP. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian,Murphy,,Sleeter,Bruckner NOES: None • • • • Arcadia City Planning Ctittunissinn 6 1/2S/QQ -' _. 0 , 1 •. . .• . *F-•0 aD ... i•" 1+-` \! J RD. - „~ aD a p li '�` • . • • • • •• •lc• R-0aD R_I .0" R I / ' :_n_oic •fV fa , •R.090 . ••••\ V/• (R•3 ..7.. 1 R . • � /• •�-`••? R-0 . ill-D •R•O �/ . . . •� - GOIORA D,- . %• . .a <` ID 4 , a ,/ �p� R-oBD R-o _ ■• ... 2.0,...... .4. ... ..killi •11:O.&.2,...: R-Cr. 111.• 1*7 ., .. o . .1 R•I E:::fis:;::::.'...:::,:'',..: • R-o i• :..- ' f \ GATE 6 aD J J4 = • e°`� GATE .. - t _0�0 1 P� • 5 z R °y R-I GATE • s•I a, a,: arc:,-offeq RI I .s, � �OhD: - • •T 5.1 C' Ot •Fi t�D.� 7,, _ R-IB. 1 I S-I fr R-160 C-I B D • . 5.2 • R-Ia0 —.7 / �� ya� E R-I R-I - R-1 41 r aD ^' a 50 a r ' . . i . ' i • . „.- 7.„4"......c- 2 a o HS o+/ / /` •e D R•I --- j,V U•.:O+c D R-IBD • . ��`o*,• / R-I R-I J`�, r� i 80 R-1 GATE R-IBD t• �• : _� _ c- z a • Q. ,_ L oR, e e d; -3 '" -3 s • �� u.ro+ro G -R-3 �y'�-�p` -- R I I J/ PQ • •CoaD _i oR 5-2 \` o j R-3 I° jGZ p� R'D ` .., A "v�—r < R-I ---1-----------, — • 3�- ,1 - PR 3 R•3 rrr•� f R-3 R-3 i - . I. c R•O -' .•. 1 �1. .:7!;.-.:°e Av !- �� A R-0 •1 LI3;. Ir._____ ________________________----.---71-\-11-.--1ri R-3 R 650 = • Av .--• A•3 A-3 1 S R•1 c•2 c'•2H [ . .. P Y R•I =1 S L C-= v 6 .9' - I R 1 I J • •D • JI r'C-2. - rte,,,F:r..� •'•� ^C-0 R^3 r rr. C9D' e . �_i . sc.uct R•1 1 ..rte ^ tc.1 ,.,, c•z 4 RID. II.M.A.am �� � Ir� �����II∎Nr■ `1 -g--\ C•IBO 1` C_Z •.\ V e-2 c-o4r0' C o{D III 4� •. ....�..5..•. it 1.416,4„ 41/kS 44P- 40. 1r v.40. IV-- —414.1144; .10.71.11:110 • J I. li■: �:• . \\........• IR3 v * I f •t .2 -►t I t l l , R-I 1 •♦�•�_•�•�e� 11■ i i• ii • . ... • .`51 .7 --.,./'• e '\‘.\ . i ''..-1,.. - 1.'„:.:e. . -,-. - .;dirliged ifW-GATE 6 - -1---Ve' --, -----.--,_•,,, -)---;--, ..-.---, 4,,, IRSA gii.ni.• . . . .,---;_dr ,, - ,....- -- ., r ,--.:•-, _j•-,••.___. .„-_,.-.....:,.:--_,-„-_.,,-. - .......--.:-...• -fflieNRi .-•• ,,4 , ,,,i,k,.\..,. • oft„,-4&:.-\ . -..•:, :=•:-_- ----...-.••••;414, - .;-:-'''-L--;-- .----:--- '`"f'•,•,,,Piftrg '''' 1464/ ..••;:, ..*49/arri4b,.. \. - 11/. / \ . . A- -.4r,„,,,74,44%-4,4",,,../*:` ---,-,,-„,--,..-.- --- •-------„=,-. ...• afteibi :141v4;''''"• !!"40,5% !..-i"*% . 44%..„ -■:.---.. zz •••••••••-• -4E..44fts, gft.a ..'6 ...ft'' 4, ....•.17 /4(4% -, • 9- . ,, .3- i. ;--- . --<_ • ' ','-',4704, 4874Ziki *49ft . '.. 0 GATE 7 -,-'/J:. t3siizN fr, „.. ------ ------.„... 0.%,4'1144ity, 290,4,4,0 i„.•:•ft.az•!/47,sieL4ftLc.y,,,-..). (2., tr, / „, , -__...----:-__. ----_,-. , IS ,7,414*,44.-, r: c") • 5•-•' ...,-/-"'-----, •••-"■.--"....--.. .----------,....." -7.& .Ty SirM74*41, ..Atelkg lii"'"*Rats?„_;••• 60%....„„, -•••mftTis,,,„„,;17k‘ ', iiIL*??7.--':''''i`...::S:"...7% 1•1 . !Ii; /I/ /- /2,-.-----'-'s\-.:- ..------■-__`-.-- '-'-'"---...17471141461.'-'.... --- -".'4"1 .... 414497147.14147444M'""."'W -:•L'Cr.('‘ /e/1 •:;<:A -,/:-.I 2 • i _ill / ..'-• ' • '.-- _,.... ---"Z------,„ ----••- •,_744714ISCI .ii.41,,I.#044144,41614540-Sr4$44,04 • „ I. 1 f/2 7:/;.• ; A .,,---,,,,,-•/- /.....//,' ---,„ ,_ ------„ .,..-..-... --- , 0,84,„„..--q • • . 1.11( 6? -------,__... • is ;.0.4. :-,.. , s• 1 1 A (....„,-------__17 :" ---------- ---...- _I-- —_. '',. In ..,.,.- .,..,,,,. ..., . .. /44,i• \ . A . -i 61" ."-:;- --1-;,-V \ ,. - -'''3- ---r477? ' ll_ ----::"----`•N-.\\. --\ ,,,, --74%---- :—!:,..•....:1/4\111116--,,,. ; ■_.,.....____-. . 1 - -t's6 '"'--,-------•,-;- 77,""? :. 1 I -vayirvi a, .rj\,;11,1!r,--------- ----- A.- ' If .... :fief .-.1 f f t 0-N.g r-.' ,,,,.., • -...;„--,-,------ _________, c.) ,i , ( 1•,---1„._---,-----.--.....-.•..... '.. -_,.. -_-.- -1,,,'' GATE 5 ,,,. ,4,,,goriir ., .-,---, ,,,_..,,,, ,A__,,i,_:.„ .. .r-1-._ •.. 7------:°-4,--C-2.....--jv . ,'.',...7 /,--,.:::;',;:,,,:"...:'''',' ',.:•.,, ::'I., .'..,-"'- 1 • i, GATE CO tip . fiannN .. ,. _ . .. .„ ., _........,„-_ ,. .. ..1. il i\I -."-"-7-• - .. „ _. . . .. . ,, , . . _ , • . _ '•'.:.;;,. s'., :1),:l gli r. b 1 :. ;,., -, "------ Oz7-i-..- l:-T--_---:-- c7--. ,,-_•=- 69 • •,, ., , - .- , . , _ . . . - s.-s•-N-L-s..:*.'6N,--------i 1 t. rill - :.-F----_-- ----!---.7'77-----.-..,• ) -",,..g,;(-,---._.- -4.,.i '-'-'' 41)*. . 7:>::::::'. . .---1 a...._.:‘ .,".._• 1,..,u6'uIj! , : 4- I MUM=, ?-1;----r.,- ''---:-.4,-- •.1-,-.,:=T--.7 *- . ' ' '''''----"'"..--- '''----- --Lir _I] 11 • r] ,..., , •'--1 i P ORIMMIIMULTEM , ----,..r.:,.._--cn..z...„:.:,,■), ;. . ,---- --2,:,..:'..,' ,.',.'' ., ,.••.' .-.-' ' •''-',' 1 . • . ' • r F.' I commanumaun 8• . I'9---,:,----•:-, N.. n ii i.;tordenummal . .,,,,..,:t.......e. Nt-z.--...„',..," ..•;43, '..:1/2c,...,:`,..-, ,.'"-,:,'.i,,,,'„:..' .../ . . 4? f . •' il■ 'aummetammunni 1.- s---------... - ------_.-•'' ,"//4„4,40 '.,N,..,' '' '• ..:-.7 --3..: "• I ;II, • fl fl?13 i,4! • ., .......--,-...-- -...----.. •,,.,•••• >, -...f...,..„-•-.'-• ,p• . . _ • ,.. ..-... ..T r, -,...„......____„.„1, ,,,,,,,,....,,,,orimuumuumantuatin;'. -., • -,.-. t ,t. -.`-•'. 1 '• ,„,. -.mousigeourgiuggpagatoranutunnymarona,, •,, ...2-:,-:' dorigumilmnonlapunmpardistrammungurdnimanammil&N • "-• • sr'... •• '<4' . • r ..w.•. ::\..„ irnipm,_:,1.9,i.:,.., . .. %)_ \ t ' ■Ot, i• ..I.,,. ''--',...., '...,,,- mg ninannwanninMETEIME11111111111M' • \‘ .1(4*, '1.1 ,-----..--.1eM,, ‘,.PlInlill liamounitiatiquimaimmememumummemninguamns„ ,, „„ , ,, ,4. • . •. . • 1 ' e 1,--__-----_-_,,:„/ ..:11 1 .i..sxmizAll Ticonillimmiu q•••.kutoun4aurimasummuttumutramingtlinumagemmilnumumannouro 1„: , .., , .,.. umummuu",....inunaternmumumnumeannuatomatanN 1 4%9 I II ir_ff, 4 ‘-`'''''... 11 'A.....„,„.%\‘%•eininusuutaimmumuuh..,mmumumiszemauatato- i -,, . .. • • 1 i 1 2 / A.-. ..71htEgIMINEMERMIMMI ...Y.IIZEITMOMMINSISMIDEMn- ..' .. :-.11\VI,t•.1fineltenEtAIMIIMEMMIMEMINIMM,..401114111MISIBMIllfial,.'...■ ,/ I IL "f1304:tasi.lanmennaMIIIIIIIMINI=1111011111MVIMIEffirrawnillIMUNERMIR;4 ': '2--'Alto- VianonnesungnargennantEMEMEIMMICIVIEIllit=MIIIMEI'•1 :!.. ,.;_y , -11- r•-•-) ------1; g :VIM fiEVREMIIIIHMERIIMIORMIFORMIMIMIIIIMI111113 iiiimmEthi. t ' / : is ''''47Fif i unimmitruommummumpummunomponmomaimmusion•„ , . --i-- /El ssolig immigmanatommummaliuntwavraPPmmumamPRO !. i.:*1• , • • II I nammaniummistom, •.0. ,- 01711}1111121:11191111111H145613ifillifill11111MH OMMIIIM1111:111M1101711:711111r1.11117111E-IM,.,4=657219■11'.. . • . . : • 4 I 1 :-... 1 1 ' --"-= :ikae,1 illiIIMMIGIIMEMIIICEMEIMIIIMMIMMLEIIIEM111111%immiEmam.-_,.. GATE 4 „„ Ip__ - ,-f i ' i441-pli I IIIIIMMEINEIMIIIIMINIMIIIMEIMIMINDEEIRIUMMIMffloommusror 1 . ,---------,.. ] . c : vlifp4,;..#mousuommumummionsamitummunium nummisig • / • • B ft.,..- HrinEnAntIBMIIIMIIMPAIIIIII.MMIMIIMIIMMIEMNITIINI,,, ansise . e ..". 4 f.C.M.V 611M1M4B1P11400,1011ifinhaMiliMMIIIMMT.untm I ci .t,. ttifinitaiMEMUMMEnlidomitutorio vil Imultuumimannumery / . - LI -----L- -----"Age'''S HVIMParinlinaaniElliMAIBIAtItIleala 11,ommevannamutnee _00 , • ---3 i 2...4- 7:07,1 ---:r unimmunnumethomminumunum. morfammiarmar / _NY --- - ----,--- -, 3 a, i...:••-•,''me g munlellMLIMEMEIMIEWIIIIIIIIIMMIO inn IMMIMMIEHINIIIP,7 . A ,----.- , ' . .../. 1-" R sirmommiamaammennommarmoo•Tg;amentimatio, , A".;- 1• :----------...,...._ :----•A falAWll ommumnimmumagionommusen irjj imairamigr47 ••■''' T • • •.__,, ....... ,, . . .k fferig I IMIIIIMIIIIIIIMINEHIMIEUIIIIIIIIMIIIIMMI ill NIMMIIIIIIMMI;...` ..s. .7.7-_—. , ' • 157''''''...., ounmiummumnowinmaanimmulunin tkiy i----..,, '' •2- - -- -.-" - Eja'''—'-''-' 111AMMIIIIIIIMMIR111111111,11111HIMIIIIIIIIHMIMIIIIM iiy ' ."':.:-.1-: 4... 1, —." " '.. " ‘: "NEM IiiiiiiningnainUMRIMEHAMMIUMIP■ill,. „0".. 4 • 5,•-_-„. .-. --____-= . _...._...:„i.,_-__-.-. _____ =_-__—.. ••-.. ------- --'-riOLLY ANCE GATE 3 MALL AVENUE -,- ENTR . . . ,& -17 •-- 1:7 -j - • Qarl // e A 41/0:-V- tVir • Sfri Pti 31-1 O'e)^ j 14e'j -74 .'"? I Orf. r-57 20-es 0•,.s..444r -74 ,ved -?.,2 p /7,? e' -dP/2"Al / 04 e 0,4 y 17, 7 z-- safvemi 1:414F-0,4 j )Y '"7/ : rcv- • s '1 7 0/k • vt) I 'fri-r-v-4 V / 49- I -1.,9 717 z. ea A a ' (IA.-, -. maaau • • • ' 14 February 2000 FEB REIDE • 7 70 Ms Donna L. Butler . Community Development Division r, �9a r.�; 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 • Dear Ms Butler: . • . We have lived on Santa Rosa Road since 1960 . The area was • quiet, almost rural, except for racetrack traffic during late December. .through sometime..in March. Then came the freeway noise, Oak Tree racing, Sunday racing, racing through the month of April, and lately what passes as "entertainment" in the infield, which is nearly unbearable on some Saturday and Sunday after- noons. i'M sure that if we were to turn our music to the volume which comes from the racetrack, we would be cited for disturbing the peace. • Therefore, we want to go on record as being unalterably OPPOSED to any further use of the "big screen" or any other type Of outdoor entertainment Santa Anita may try to foist on the citizens of. Arcadia, most especially those of us within "hearing" distance. What they do indoors, such as the restaurant, is fine with us. Just, please, don ' t ask us to endure any more Mariachi and rock music when we are in the privacy of our own homes and are .unable to`:turn down the volume, or- better yet, turn it OFF! • Finally, Mr. Harbicht should refrain from voting on Santa Anita issues since he obviously is beholden to them. Sincerely, • (5CtritAAL'. . Guy H. Richards Patricia A. Richa ds 601 Santa Rosa Road Arcadia, CA 91007 • • • • • • w , • ( 0- /72: /,7 -v44-7 77pf 11 7eT7 • 17 - - • ---Pv 1? 72i-ee. , -r. _/ r11---/e-o-‘0--,Y7; -q? &,79 4w?.t . „_07.7_777 (rW" 1 • wr,- • 000? NVT I . ' CEI JAN 1 8 2000 Joseph & Susan Ruvolo 339 Oxford Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 • • January 11, 2000 Arcadia City Planning Commission 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA Re: Proposal to amend Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven days a week . • until no later than 1:30 am. Dear Planning Commission: I wish to express our strong opposition to the above proposed amendment. As residents of Arcadia for 20 years, we are concerned about the noise, the traffic • and the crime associated with late night events being held at the race track seven days a week. We have four members in our household, all registered voters and all concerned about the proposed amendment. Sincerely, kj6talK- 11114A-°.10. Susan Ruvolo on behalf of our entire family: Joseph Ruvolo Michelle Ruvolo Julie Ruvolo . JAN 1 1 2000 • imat 112 Santa Cruz Road Ci�r,S:itE3&diy:6D"u O.'vyi:'de` uiv Arcadia, CA 91006 January 10, 2000 Arcadia City Planning Commission 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia,CA 91007 Dear Ms. Butler and Whom It May Concern: I am writing to oppose the proposal to amend Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven days a week. I also oppose the request that a new section be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year- around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand for non-horse racing activities. As a resident who lives within walking distance to the racetrack,I have experienced countless traffic delays when there is activity in the racetrack. I have witnessed strange faces walking down my street. As a parent, I fear for the safety of my children. The 101 Bar on-Huntington Dr. is frequented by a lot of people coming from the racetrack. These people are within walking distance to my home. Who knows what kind of action these people will take when they have lost money, in the racetrack or is intoxicated? I don't agree that the racetrack or the restaurant located in the grandstand be opened to any other kind of activitiy. We have enough trouble dealing with the horseracing crowd. Enough is enough. . Arcadia is known for its community of homes and a safe neighborhood. Please do not add anymore activity to the racetrack. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. A Concerned Arcadia Citizen, . Yee W. Eng • 112 Santa Cruz Road Arcadia, CA 91006 January 10,2000 Arcadia City Planning Commission 240 West Huntington Drive . Arcadia, CA 91007 Dear Ms. Butler and Whom It May Concern: I am writing to oppose the proposal to amend Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven days a week. I also oppose the request that a new section be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year- around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand for non-horse racing activities. As a resident who lives within walking distance to the racetrack,I have experienced countless traffic delays when there is activity in the racetrack. I have witnessed strange faces walking down my street. As a parent, I fear for the safety of my children. The 101 Bar on Huntington Dr. is frequented by a lot of people coming from the racetrack. These people are within walking distance to my home. Who knows what kind of action these people will take when they have lost money in the racetrack or is intoxicated? I don't agree that the racetrack or the restaurant located in the grandstand be opened to any other kind of activitiy. We have enough trouble dealing with the horseracing crowd. Enough is enough. Arcadia is known for its community of homes and a safe neighborhood. Please do not add anymore activity to the racetrack. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. . A Cou erned Arcadia Citizen, `Rayrii nd En 0 • REED & BROWN LLP STEPHEN W REED LAWYERS TELEPHONE MARK C.BROWN 35 NORTH LAKE AVENUE, SUITE 960 (626)449-4521 ROBERT L.TOMS. JR. PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 9110 I-1856 FAX NUMBER MICHAEL J. COPPESS (626)449-7453 E.J. CALDECOTF OF COUNSEL reedbrown @reedbrownlaw.com January 11, 2000 RECESVED JAN 1 3 2000 Arcadia City Planning Commission :; o@Fl8t9tdidg c�:e ilL :i.uttf d"e#,�dSS't;3 Attention: Community Development Division 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 RE: Application of Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc./Hearing January 25, 2000 Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to the formal notice which I and others living within 1,000 feet of the Santa Anita Race Track have received regarding the application of the Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. for two (2) revisions to the Arcadia Municipal Code. The notice is unclear as to how the use of the "big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track" will relate to the proposal to permit the telecast of horse "and other events" seven (7) days a week until 1:30 A.M. My specific concern relates to the transmission of sound from the racetrack into my neighborhood. At the present time, due to the arrangement of the loudspeaker system at the track, we are able to hear virtually all events at the track, including those that extend into the night. At 6:30 AM, we can clearly hear the barns calling for veterinarians. In the evenings, when the track permits events in the infield, we are obliged to participate as well since we cannot escape the noise. With the doors and windows of my home closed, I can still hear all the music whether I want it or not. I have written to the Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., asking that they do something about the noise. Thus far my letters have been to no avail. I believe that we have a legitimate concern that if "horse racing and other events" are permitted to be displayed on the big screen in the infield, we will also be treated to the accompanying sound - again, whether we want it or not! I found nothing in the negative declaration which addressed that issue. I found no mitigating requirements which appeared , designed to protect the neighbors of the track from the intrusion into their homes of the noise from the track - especially after 6PM when all racing has ended. In actual fact, the negative declaration, under the heading "Environmental Factors", failed even to consider noise factors. The sound intrusion from the track constitutes a nuisance to those of us who live within • earshot of its speaker system. There is absolutely no legitimate reason that the speakers are Arcadia City Planning Coma, January 11, 2000 Page 2 aimed outward toward the surrounding neighborhoods rather than inward toward the infield. There is similarly no reason for the sound to be turned up as loud as it always is. But the track can do it, so it does! Those of us living near the track moved into oiir neighborhoods with the full understanding that horse racing was conducted there in the afternoons during certain specific racing meetings. Over the years, perhaps as a result of a decline in interest in horse racing, the track has expanded its activities into the evenings and well beyond the scheduled race meetings to sponsor other events—all of which have adversely affected the tracks neighbors. I respectfully request that you impose stringent noise controls on the Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., both in respect to the Code changes which it is requesting and with respect to its • other operations. Basic courtesy dictates that neighbors act politely toward each other so as not to impose upon them. That is a principle which seems to have escaped the Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. Perhaps you would be kind enough to remind them of it. Very truly yours,. :ROWN LLP // �` ► eJ..,enW. SWR:sr SWR c:lswr9 ld:isweeksworkLstufftosendlcity of arcadia.doc . • • • • • • w File No.: TA!00-001 CITY OF ARCADIA .0 .p_ee»�ti o i .., oA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA,CA 91007 \TE/ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Text Amendment 00-001 a proposal to amend Sectin 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecase via satellite feed seven.(7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. In addition requesting that a new section be added to the S-1 zone in the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year-around usage of the restaurant in the race track grandstand for non- horseracing activities and to use the big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track B. Location of Project: S-1 zoned properties C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. 285 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca 91007 • 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: December 16, 1999 : • �i�/1 ��.�/»! Date Posted: December 16, 1999 Donna :ut er, Community Development Administrator A• File No.: TA 00-001 ti 84 WOW M CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE O?OVATE " ARCADIA,CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: TA 2000-001. 2. Project Address: NA 3. Project Sponsor's Name,Address & Telephone Number: Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. 285 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-6660 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia--Development Services Department Community Development Division --Planning Services • 240 W. Huntington Drive • • Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning 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.) Proposal to amend Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven (7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. In addition requesting that a new section be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year- -1- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: TA 00-001 around usage of the restaurant for non-horse racing activities and to use the big scren monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: 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 [ ] Hazards [ ] Population&Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] 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 on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • File No.: TA 00-001 Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been 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 have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant;to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia--Development Services Department l_1 �_� i Date: December 16, 1999 Signature �/ 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 such as the one involved(e.g., the project is not within 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 related 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 Environmental Impact Report 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 17"Earlier Analyses"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, 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 17 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). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: Z-00-001 • 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. The proposed text amendment has no relationship to scenic vistas b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The text amendment has no affect on scenic resources c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? The text amendment has no affect on the quality of the site or surrounding properties. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The text amendment will not create new light or glare on the race track property 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 El ❑ ❑ Act contract? There is no agricultural land within the city. CEQA Checklist 4 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 • 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 ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ 0 Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? The proposed text amendment will not be in conflict with air quality standards. Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not affect air quality. b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ❑ ❑ ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not affect air quality. 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)? Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not affect air quality. d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ❑ ❑ ❑ [� (primarily carbon monoxide)? Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not affect air quality or contribute to non-stationary source "hot spot" because it is just expanding the nights that telecasting may be conducted at the racetrack. e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑, �� concentrations? Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not affect air quality standards f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of I=1 ❑ ❑j L2 people? Allowing satellite telecasting 7-days a week will not create objectionable odors 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: CEQA Checklist 5 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation impact Impact Incorporation a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, ❑ ❑ ❑ any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 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)? This text amendment relates to the S-1 zoning which is entirely built-out. • a substantial adverse impact, either directly El ❑ ❑ L� b) Have P Y 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? There will be no impact directly or indirectly on sensitive species as a result of this text amendment c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? Any site within the S-1 zone is fully developed and there will be no impact on the environment. d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ Lg 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 text amendment does not affect any property that is within a wildlife corridor. f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The text amendment does not affect biological resources. 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 text amendment has no impact on any conservation plans as it relates only to extending the hours of satellite broadcasting. • CEQA Checklist 6 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-00-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation • 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? There will be no impact on cultural or historic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime • satellite broadcasting. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ 0 ❑ Er 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)? There will be no impact on cultural or historic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ❑ ❑ ❑ RI There will be no impact on cultural or historic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. !i d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ ['� formal cemeteries? There will be no impact on cultural or historic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ 0 [� effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ■ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� CEQA Checklist 7 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation There will be no impact on geologic resources.I:The text amendment addresses extending the days alrowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ [2 There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ L2 urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ : ❑ [� topsoil? There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ C • There •will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. 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? . There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime - satellite broadcasting. . e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ❑ ❑ ❑ [� to life or property? CEQA Checklist 8 4/1/99 � 1 File No.: Z-00-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Les Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. 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? There will be no impact on geologic resources. The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting. 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 text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting and has no relationship to hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting and has no relationship to hazardous materials. 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 text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting and has no relationship to hazardous materials. d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ p [�,� 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. CEQA Checklist 9 • 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact 'Impact Incorporation 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? This text amendment 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 wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? There are no wildlands 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [k" standards or waste discharge requirements? The text amendment will not affect water quality standards. Future 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 text amendment will not affect the groundwater. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ �� 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting and has no relationship to "CEQA Checklist 10 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation development of the property. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0� capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? The text amendment addresses extending the days allowed for nighttime satellite broadcasting and has no relationship to on-site construction. f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a ❑ ❑ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The S-1 zoning 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ LE or redirect flood flows? The S-1 zoning is not located within a 100 year floodplain 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� The text amendment has no impact on an established community. 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 text amendment does not conflict with the City's General Plan and is proposed to amend the existing zoning ordinance c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ 0 communities conservation plan? No. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: 1. 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 S-1 zoned site is already developed and this area is not within an MRZ-2 mineral resource zone. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 11/ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? CEQA Checklist 11 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation No, the site is in an urbanized area and not within a MRZ==2 zone. rr 11. NOISE-Would the project result in: • a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ '1 ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The text amendment will not create any noise issues. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ L vibration or groundborne noise levels? The text amendment will not result in any existing changes to the site. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The text amendment will not increase noise levels. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ �� levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The text amendment will not increase noise levels. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ L? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ g (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 text amendment. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The text amendment does not affect housing. CEQA Checklist 12 4/1/99 File No.: Z-00-001. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? '; This text amendment addresses extending the hours of satellite wagering and does affect housing. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ❑ ❑ to 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q� Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ [.� Schools? • ❑ ❑ ❑ FZV Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� There will be no necessity for additional fire, police or other City services. • 14. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ i regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 The text amendment will not create any need for recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ A 1 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 text amendment 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ 0 El/ 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)? CEQA Checklist 13 4/1/99 • File No.: Z-00-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The text amendment would allow the race track to operate more frequently during the week night time hours, but satellite:wagering has not been a problem during the weekends and the traffic is insignificant that passes through the City to the race track. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ []� standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The text amendment allowing additional hours will not increase the level of service on the streets or affect the congestion management plan. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [r.Y curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The text amendment will not affect traffic. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� The text amendment will not affect emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ = ❑ Currently there is adequate on-site parking at the racetrack and extension of the satellite wagering hours will not increase the demand for parking spaces. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [� Regional Water Quality Control Board? No. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ FEIV treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No CEQA Checklist 14 4/1/99 File No.:. Z-00-001 • • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than • Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact • Incorporation c) . Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage . ❑ ❑ Y [� 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ [T' existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The text amendment has no impact on water supplies or increasing the demand for water. e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓ serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in•addition to the provider's existing commitments? No, because the text amendment does not require approval from . the wastewater provider. f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity El ❑ ❑ [;/ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The extended hours has no impact on waste disposal needs. 17. 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? • b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ El [21' disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but El ❑ 0 [vr" 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)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause El ❑ El substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CEQA Checklist 15 4/1/99 • File No. • �'�''�� • !� CITY OF ARCADIA - f - 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE "4.00$}GRATS' ° ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: • General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. Address: 285 W. Huntington Drive,Arcadia, California.91007 2. Property Address (Location): 285 W. Huntington Drive,Arcadia, California 91007 Assessor's Number: 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Torn D. Austin; Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.; 285 W. Huntington Drive,Arcadia, California 91007; (626) 574-6660 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: Text Amendment of current Zoning Regulations. 5. Zone Classification: S-1 6. General Plan Designation: Horse Racing Project Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Horse racing with restaurant,assembly/picnic area, pari-mutuel wagerin_?. 8. Site size: Approximately 312 acres 9. Square footage per building: N/A 10. Number of floors of construction: N/A 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A • 12. Proposed scheduling of project: N/A 13. Anticipated incremental development: N/A • E.I.R. -1- 3/95 ' • 14. If residential, include tilt' 'tuber of units, schedule of unit sizes,]. e of sale prices or rent's, and type of householld sizes i;n i cted: N/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: N/A 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: Text Amendment required to permit supplemental use of facility. 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 alteration of ground ❑ ©, contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public ❑ 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. -2- 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. ❑ 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. ❑ 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such toxic substances, ❑ 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, ❑ etc.) 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ❑ Environmental Setting 21. 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. 22. 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. Date Signature E.I.R. -3- 3/95 • V Y n NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING � y BEFORE THE a�s 1 k �- ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION f'l'ea\ TST TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 1,000 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK APPLICATION: Text Amendment 2000-001 APPLICANT: Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. • REQUEST: Proposal to amend •Section 9273.1.10.1 to allow horseracing and other events to be telecast via satellite feed seven (7) days a week until no later than 1:30 a.m. The current code restricts horseracing via satellite feed on Friday and Saturday nights only until 1:30 a.m. • In addition, they are requesting that a new section be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow for year-around usage of the restaurant located in the grandstand for non-horse `racing activities and to use the big screen monitor in the infield for code permitted uses at the track. ENVIRONMENTAL Negative Declaration -the review period for the Negative DOCUMENT: Declaration is December 27, 1999 through January 25, 2000 DATE AND HOUR . OF HEARING: Tuesday, January 25, 2000, at 7:15 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: Arcadia City Hall Council Chambers 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California Persons wishing to comment on the proposed text amendment or Negative Declaration may do so at the public hearing or in writing to the Community Development Division prior to the January 25. meeting. For further information regarding this text amendment, please contact Donna L. Butler in the Community Development Division at (626) 574-5442, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Monday through Thursday, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. City Hall is closed on alternate Fridays. i DONNA L. BUTLER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR Date Mailed: December 29, 1998 • �S/�Cr 41/7'9 mi Memorandum arcadia redevelopment agency DATE: March 7, 2000 TO: Chairperson and Agency Board FROM: r Don Penman, Deputy Executive Director ,-1By: Peter P. Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator .f.-5 Prepared by: Brian Saeki, Redevelopment Project Analyst RE: Report and recommendation to approve Design Review for the property at 151 East Alta Street (two-unit residential condominium project). SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing privately owned, vacant lot to construct a two-unit condominium complex at 151 East Alta Street. (The proposed development is almost identical to the one the Agency approved on February 1, 2000 at 37 East Alta.) Staff recommends approval of this Design Review with conditions. BACKGROUND • WORK PROPOSED: Construction of a two-unit condominium project at 151 East Alta Street. APPLICANT: Mr. Hank Jong 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 LOCATION: 151 East Alta Street (Location Map, Attachment No. 1) EXISTING LAND USE: The site is currently a privately owned, vacant lot. EXISTING ZONING: R-3 — Multiple Family GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Family Residential (24-du/ac maximum). LAND USE: RHD (Residential High Density) LASER IMAGED Design Review Page 2 03/07/2000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: General Commercial; zoned CBD (restaurant) South: Multiple-family; zoned R-3 East: Multiple-family; zoned R-3 West: Multiple-family; zoned R-3 SITE AREA: 8,006 Sq. Ft. FRONTAGE: South: 50.04 Feet PARKING PROVIDED: 5 spaces PARKING REQUIRED: 5 spaces PURPOSE OF 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, etc.) have been incorporated to further ensure the compatibility of the structures with 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 • A. DESIGN FEATURES The Applicant, Hank Jong (on behalf of the property owner, Hsientein Project Investment LLC), has prepared and provided a color board and colored elevations of the buildings for staffs review. They are available for review in the Economic Development Office and will be on display at the Agency meeting of March 7, 2000. • Design Review Page 3 03/07/2000 The Applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing privately owned, vacant lot to construct a two-unit condominium complex at 151 East Alta Street. The proposed project incorporates natural earth tone exterior colors and roof materials compatible to similar residential uses in the area (see plans, Attachment 2). The architecture and scale of the proposed development are compatible to their site and with surrounding sites and structures. The proposal will appear before the Arcadia Planning Commission at its March 28, 2000 meeting. B. STAFF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • The building colors and materials shall conform to the exhibits as presented to the Agency Board, and as shown on Attachment 2. • The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency approval is valid for a period of one (1) year as per ARA 126 adopted by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency on December 2, 1986. • The Applicant shall comply with all other conditions of approval required by the Development Services Department, Public Works Services, and the Arcadia Fire Department. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS The application is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning, and Redevelopment Plan. The project is ministerial in nature and not subject to CEQA review. RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR 151 EAST ALTA STREET SUBJECT TO THE DEPARTMENTAL CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE. Approved: William R. Kelly, Executive Director Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plans for 151 East Alta Street i i . ATTACHMENT Location Map .33-/35 (/*/) . KAr3J ArsJ 201 50 125125 I. 50 50 2 0��92 . r•••...vGi a4. Nrc....- HUNTINGTON DRIVE, 25 125 4.5 50 50 50 40 35 ' ON Vi<2J !04 4) l J f/51) (rco) :i I fniP 70 21 0 I 03;9— 110 . 15C 217 — 1 2G in 25 24 23 22 `�3s I !L 20_ �n 145 .n Cip 1 -r? I /) 19 -,,., n .11& : 5' I q 25125 45 50 50 50 50 _ 14.5 O 0' ff31)(31 -a / 5aoi1 100.00 •1 50 50 145 0 z3- 4o Ls ^ .O �∎ �1 0 'n in Sh ° ° < O a� 14 15 ks 0 17 N0% IN (/33) (/1..V (ids) /� 053) (/57) 0 1 rD �`� M . 50.01 _ /00,0o AN \ 50 50 145 ` ' SITE . ALTA STREET - moo. t 50 50 50 50 50 11903 0.0; I rag) 042) (/d1) (iso> (/52) ass) - (/Q2) , (icQ) A. I 1�1 0 2� 25 24 23 3 22 , S U ° Nb�T1 -O I- l.) (1 0 2 g Ili al I °‹ /` `J Q N.T.S.