Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2001~ ~ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING City of Arcadia Office of the Clty COUriClI Mickcy Scgal Ar.ye. Gail A. Marahall .~r.ra, rrore~po.. Rog<r Chandler Dr. Sheng Chang c.~y n. ~~~~s~ Cor+uJ! Mcmberl As authorized by Arcadia City Charter, Section 408 and Califomia Government Code Section 54956, a Special Meeting ofthe Arcadia City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Boazd of Directors is hereby called to be held at the Arcadia Community Center, 375 Campus Drive, Arcadia, California at 4:00 p.m. on June 5, 2001. ~ The purpose of this meeting is set forth by the following items of consideration: Discussion and direction conceming the Fiscal Year 2001-2003 City and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Operating Budget and the 20Q 1- 2006 Capital and Equipment Program. (CITY COiJNCIL AND ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCI~ 2. Closed Session pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators Sonny Markus, Dan Cassidy and William R. Kelly regazding Teamsters Loca191 I, APOA, APWEA, AFFA, Management and non-represented employees. (CITY COIJNCIL) There will be time reserved for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Boazd regarding the above items. No fiu~ther business other than the above will be considered at this meeting. 240 W«~ Hunting~on Doivc Port Oflicc Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 (626) 5745403 Dated: ~~, 2001 Dated: Md~, 2001 ~ r Mayor of the ity of cadia ~/ Chairperson f the cadia Redevelopment Agency In compliance with the Americans with Disabili6es Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Manager at (626) 574-5401. Please `', contact the City Manager at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when ~ special services are needed. Tl~is notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. ~ • A N N 0 T A T E D ~ ~ _- ~ A G E N D A ~~~ Arcadia City Council ~` and ~NCO ,'o~ Redevelopment Agency RPOH~tED. Meeting June 5, 2001 4:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Arcadia Community Center 365 Campus Drive ACTION ROLL CALL: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY . COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) No one spoke 1. BUDGET STUDY SESSION a. Discussion and direction concerning the Fiscal Year 2001-2003 City Operating Budget and the 2001-2006 Capital and Equipment Program. see Minuces RECESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2. CLOSED SESSION - CITY COUNCIL To Closed Session at 6:,06 p.m. a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators Sonny Morkus, Dan Cassidy and William Kelly regarding Teamsters Local 911, APOA, APWEA, AFFA, Management and non-represented employees. RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL AD,JOURNED at 6:::40 p.m. 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers INVOCATION First Reader Tom Gordon, First Church of Christ Scientist PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Peter Ulrich ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal nii pre5ent 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS See Minutes MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full naoutea 5-0 4. PRESENTATION of the Arcadia Beautiful Awards. coromissioner Patricia Eicherly Chairperson Sanice Torrington Mickey Segal, Mayor • Gail A. Marshall, MayorProtempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Sheng Chang, Gary A. Kovacic, Council Members Wllliam R. Kelly, City Manager June D. Alfo~d, City Clerk _ ;t . ~ • • 5. PUBLIC HEARING ACTION A!! interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed item of consideration. You are hereby advised tha~ should you desire to legally challenge any ac~ion taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed Sa. and 5b. you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections whrch you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the public hearing. a. Recommendation to approve TA2001-002, a text amendment creating a new section in the S-1 (Special Use) Zone that adds design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations at the Santa Anita Race Track. Pub. Hrp,. Closed Annroved 4-1 as amended and excluding the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's guidelines and standards b. Recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 2141, an Ordinance of the ~&ea City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, extending Ordinance Ord. 21 L adopted 5-0 as amended No. 2140 to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and permits, as well as commencement of construction and development, on property generally located at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue for an additional period of ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days; from the date of expiration of Ordinance No. 2140, pending the completion of a land use study and the adoption of any and all amendments to the City's Land Use Regulations. 6. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Steve Courtney VincentHylka 7. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/Announcements/Statements/Future Agenda Items See Minutes 8. JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal ni1 nresent 9. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CITY MANAGER None a. Recommendation to adopt ARA - Resolution No. 195, a Resolution of the naoacea s-o Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia, California, certifying a Negative Declaration for the Fifth Avenue Office Project, approving a Replacement Housing Plan, and approving an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP for an approximate 90,000 sq. ft. professional office development on the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Fifth Avenue (Attachment 5). 2 . . ~ ~ Redevelopment Agency - continued ACTION Recommendation to approve the Architectural Design for the two (2) Approved 5-0 buildings of the project as stated above, and as set forth on Attachment 3 and 4, and that the Alken design be conditionally approved pending staff review of the final plans. Recommendation to appropriate $1,535,000.00 from the Unprogrammed Annroved 5-0 Reserves or Bond Funds, $1,125,000.00 for the payments to the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP, pursuant to the OPA, and $410,000.00 for the residential relocation payments as required by law. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6226, a Resolution of the Adonted s-o City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving a Relocation Plan for the Fifth Avenue Office Project (Attachment 10). RECESS CITY COUNCIL 11. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CONSENT a. Minutes of the May 15, 2001 regular meeting. aPpro~ea s-o ADJOURN the Redevelopment Agency to June 19, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 12. CONSENT Minutes of the May 15, 2001 regular meeting. nvPro~ea s-o Recommendation to authorize a change in the 2000-01 annual slurry seal anurovea 5-0 program and award a contract in the amount of $138,303.76 to Doug Martin Contracting Company Inc., for the 2000-2001 Street Resurfacing Program. c. Recommendation to adopt. Resolution No. 6225, a Resolution of the City naopced 5-0 Council oi the City of Arcadia, California, approving the application for grant funds from the Used Oil Recycling Fund under the Oil Recycling Act. Recommendation to purchase one 2001 Ford F-450.pick-up truck with lift ap~rovea s-o gate body from Worthington Ford in the amount of $37,107.72 for the Public Works Services Department. Recommendation to purchase one 2001 Vac-Con V350SHA/850 Approved 5-0 combination vacuum sewer cleaning unit from Municipal Maintenance Equipment in the amount of $160,806.16 for the Public Works Services Department. 3 , . . • ~ ~ Consent - continued 13. Recommendation to enter into a General Services Agreement with the Approved 5-0 County of Los Angeles. f. Recommendation to enter into a contact with Catering Systems, Inc. to Approved 5-0 provide luncheon meals for senior citizens at the Arcadia Community Center from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. g. Recommendation to approve the closure of 500-711 San Luis Rey Road npvrovea 5-0 on June 23, 2001 for a neighborhood block party. h. Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $18,400.00 to Auproved 5-0 Willdan and Associates for traffic signal design services and traffic signal modernization at various intersections in the Redevelopment Project Area. Recommendation to appropriate $17,538.39 from the Equipment Annroved 5-0 Replacement Fund and authorize the purchase of one (1) 2001 Chevrolet Malibu LS from Community Chevrolet for the City Manager's Office. CITY MANAGER a C. Recommendation to provide direction on a Refuse Rate Schedule. staff t Recommendation to provide direction on Recommendation to provide direction on a proposed water rate increase FY 2001-2002 Residential Prepare Resolutior 5-0 re ratea o explore options for improvement of the recycling program .5-0 PfOpOSBCI SeWEf f3Y2 ItlCfelS@. WITHDRAWN ACTION WITHDRAWN Recommendation to amend the existing Professional Services Agreement Approved 5-0 with R& D Transportation Services to increase vehicle service hours by an additional 4,000 hours annuaily and to compensate R& D for extraordinary fuel expenses resulting from the current energy crisis; to authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney; and to appropriate $123,920.00 from Proposition A funds to cover increased costs in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 14. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 2142, an Ordinance of the Adopted 5-0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, extending for one (1) year Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2119 relating to permitted uses in the S-1 Zone (Section 9273.1.10.0) b. Recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 2132, an Ordinance of the Adovted 5-0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving text amendment 2001-01 amending Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code by deleting "Crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to be conditional use permit process. , ~ ...° ~ ~ City Attorney - continued ACTION c. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6223, a Resolution of the City naovicea 5-0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, denying General Plan Amendment No. GP 01-001 to change the General Plan designation from single-family residential to multiple-family residential (12DU-AC maximum) for the property located at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. ADJOURN to June 19, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. nn,rouiuvED ac 1Ot45 p.m. in memory of: Shu-Chi Wanp and Horace "Ace' Clutterbuck 5 ,0y . 2-� TIORIIW w %Post sv STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 5, 2001 To: Mayor and City Council From: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Ana p yst • Subject: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6225 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: t In March of 2000, the City received a three-year grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board to continue the City's Used Oil Recycling Program. Next fiscal year, the City will begin its second year of the grant. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6225 approving the application for grant funds for the California Used Oil Recycling Program for the second year of the 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 March of 2000, 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. Each year the City is required to submit a new , resolution for the subsequent years program. This grant application requests grant funds for the second year of the 3-year used oil block grant cycle. Funds that are not spent during the first two years of the block grant cycle will be rolled over into the last year of the block grant cycle. After the end of the third year, any unspent block grant funds will be returned to the State. Similar to past years, the City purchased used oil collection containers, funnels, reusable oil mats, and rags to distribute to Arcadia residents free of charge. Grant funds are also being used to promote the proper collection and disposal of used oil through various public education mediums (i.e., brochures, newspaper ads, and public services announcements). LASER IMAGED 4CL 0-yYPV �.o�U. z -( . Mayor and City Council June 5, 2001 Page 2 In the previous six (6) years, the City had only one collection site for residents to recycle their used motor oil. Since 1996, the program has expanded to include (2) additional collection locations. The three locations for used oil collection are: Kragen Auto Parts Firestone Jiffy Lube • 37 Las Tunas Drive 1500 S. Baldwin Avenue 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. These funds can be used for new programs and/or be applied towards existing recycling and public education activities involving used oil collection programs that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of oil. Subsequently these funds could be used to advertise county hazardous waste roundup events, implement a library program, place . print ads in local publications, and televise public service announcements, • Fiscal Impact: If the second year of this three-year grant is approved, the City will receive- approximately $17,064 (according to population) to implement used oil recycling activities for fiscal year 2001-02 without impacting the General Fund. All Grant Funds must be spent by June 30, 2003. Unspent funds will be returned to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Staff will account for these funds through the sixth cycle used oil trust fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: J 1. Adopt Resolution No. 6225 entitled, "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." 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and file on behalf of the City of Arcadia all forms necessary regarding this Grant with the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 3. Appropriate $17,064 to implement the used oil collection programs trust fund. PM:CL:dw Attachment: Resolution No. 6225 Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager US 3 S-Zo ' :%111111■I I C---P a v-6 0 f I tio STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP, 'TMENT • • June 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: ' on Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Directo SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6223 DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 01-001 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1012-1026 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE - • 'SUMMARY An application was filed by Hank Jong for a General Plan Amendment (GP 01-001; from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DIU/AC maximum) for the properties located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. The City Council conducted a public hearing on May 1 to consider this request to change the General Plan designation on the four lots on South First Avenue. The City Couricil, at the conclusion of the public hearing, voted 5-0 to deny the request for the Gener Il Plan Amendment. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6223 denying General Plan Amendment No. GP 01-001 to change the General Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential (12. DU/AC maximum) for the pr•perty located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager C ./V -c . es- ,=.2U a • ‘ORAT£�• STAFF PORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPA1[TENT June 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: iDon Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2141 TO EXTEND URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 S. FIRST AVENUE SUMMARY On May 1, 2001 the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider an application filed by Hank Jong for a General Plan amendment (GP 01-001) from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC maximum) on properties located at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council denied by a 5-0 vote the General Plan amendment. The City Cou cil subsequently adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2140 to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and permits, as well as commencement of construction and development, for this property at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. This urgency ordinance would remain in effect for a maximum forty-five (45) day period unless extended by ordinance. The attached Ordinance No. 2141 would extend Ordinance No. 2140 for a maximum period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days to allow the Development Services Department adequate time to further study the issue. BACKGROUND At the conclusion of the public hearing on General Plan amendment GP 01-001, the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the request to change the General Plan designation on properties at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC maximum). The City Council then by a 5-0 vote, added to the agenda, consideration of an urgency ordinance to prohibit any entitlements and permits, as well as construction and development on the property in question. The City Council then subsequently voted 5-0 to adopt this Urgency Ordinance No. 2140. LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council June 5, 2001. Page 2 • The purpose of the urgency ordinance was to provide staff with the time to conduct a comprehensive land use study to evaluate the appropriate density, suitability of development, development standards and needed infrastructure for the properties at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue (study area). Currently these properties have a General Plan designation of Single Family Residential, but are zoned R-2. Therefore, this inconsistency will have a detrimental effect on the City's ability to implement its General Plan goals and policies. Per Section 65858 of the Government Code, the Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council extend the interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. 2140) for ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days to allow the Department adequate time to further study the issue and process any possible changes. Therefore, the Development Services Department recommends that the City Council.adopt Ordinance No. 2141. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2141 requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2141, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. '2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS, AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 S. FIRST AVENUE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN (10) MONTHS, FIFTEEN (15) DAYS, FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2140, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A LAND USE STUDY AND THE ADOPTION OF ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE REGULATIONS. . Approved by: VM-"\di William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Ordinance 2141 . . • -. .. L•. .max ORDINANCE NO. 2141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF ARCADIA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS, AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED - AT 1012-1026 FIRST AVENUE .FOR AN .ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TEN (10) MONTHS, FIFTEEN (15) DAYS, FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2140, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A LAND USE STUDY AND THE ADOPTION OF ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY S LAND USE REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,DOES HEREBY FIND, DE'1'ER1VIlNE AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. On May 1, 2001,the City Council adopted a forty-five(45) day interim urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. 2140) prohibiting the approval of all land use entitlements and permits, as well as commencement of construction and development, on property located at 1012, 1016, 1020 and 1026 First Avenue (also known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 5781-6-5, 5781-6-6, 5781-6-7 and 5781-7-16) (hereinafter referred to as the "Study Area"). By its terms, Ordinance No. 2140 expires on June 15, 2001. SECTION 2. . This interim urgency ordinance is adopted pursuant to Section 65858 of the California Government Code to extend the previous forty-five • (45) day moratorium prohibiting the approval of all land use entitlements and permits, 1 as well as commencement of construction and development, adopted by Ordinance No. 2140 for an additional period of ten (10)months and fifteen(15) days. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65858, the City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this interim urgency ordinance is necessary for the current and immediate protection of the public health, safety and welfare of theresidents of the City of Arcadia for the following reasons: A. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City are currently inconsistent regarding the density of'residential development allowed in the Study Area. The City is in the process of conducting a comprehensive land use study of the " Study Area. The study will evaluate the appropriate density, suitability of development, development standards and needed infrastructure for the Study Area in order to meet the goals of the City's General Plan. Thus, continued development of potentially inconsistent and incompatible uses under the existing zoning regulations will have a detrimental effect on the City's ability to implement its General Plan goals and policies. B. Moreover, continued development under existing development standards will also have a detrimental effect upon the City's ability to implement comprehensive community design plans and public improvement programs since it is possible that revised development standards will also be generated that pre different and incompatible with existing development standards. 2 C. Pursuant to the recital of facts contained in subsections A an B, above, approval of additional land use entitlements, and construction and development on property, inconsistent with the General Plan would result in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 3. The City of Arcadia shall not issue or approve any buil ing permit, conditional use permit,variance, subdivision map or other land use entitle ent for any development.or land use on any properties described in the .4..-e-,attached Exhibit.� `_ ' " ' ,L7--/-,:e..2A-- Y--/--a-x.--yin- ,4274-e-->gt-e-ri-e-/r---"A" ("Study Area"),�andn owner of roe or other person or entity shall ( property P ty commence construction or development on property within the Study Area, uring the time that this interim urgency ordinance is in effect. - ' J i SECTION 4. This interim ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council and upon the expiration of Ordinance No. 2140. This interim urgency ordinance shall continue in effect for ten(10)months, fifteen (15) days from the date of expiration of Ordinance No. 2140 on June 15, 2001 • until ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days thereafter, on April 30, 2002; and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect unless, after notice pursuant to Calif rnia Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing, the City Council extends this interim urgency ordinance pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said 3 • r. • Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney • • 4 . S• O A • > 1 -�,ti a t,.- . r Taco=Litz hopping Cente �,� 4 o ��' 76 Gas Station OFFICE 1 1c a A��'Pr 1 { ` Er c -ica { ' \ P■ t— ' >s• — rr%••■,.3 tril 1 _ A i \ -o.s Il SO I �0 1 �.0.. a ^te• TC\ t_ f� J Pz,-k.\ \ . 2 1J. 211 4\`r \.\ ,\• N. +4\ �., �``z`. Ae,...it ���::.� \\ ` I ` v'D..\.,\.\A S•,o\:,.,4\ !�L.a < \1 C- (. \ I/� , E }7. �T�.•f cam,. r�+ ' tip,\.\\ "Q ;., . .- ‘N\\\,,t. - , • ut ±1;• —''''. ._. 1117 J• .Gr` 11 -\..`.:-••►_._-•.. •r•T \ � . tom? . _,:: : r • ..^---7:-.'72...-".`.,"-..1.- . ,.f i sm \ . r [t". ms=s' 7 d y }"1. a \ _____,_.� \�1, PC . Jt •-_-, • jj{J I J •fir\.I.1' 11 �/ Y. • 1 �1 $cr-ry1 , ;'/ �I^ 1 . ( 1i,,1 y lr f�; ;,1 • EXHIBIT.A • • "STUDY AREA" 1 NORTH • NV. 1012-1026'South First Avenue 'i inch = 240 flee# • • of . w) McORPORATS9'BO STAFF !L ORY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP I TMENT June 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penr pn, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator . f SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT'S REPORT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2141 TO EXTEND URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE. SUMMARY Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d), the City is taking the following steps to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of the moratorium to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and permits for the property located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. City staff is presenting to the Planning Commission at its next meeting of June 12, 2001, consideration of a proposed zone change to rezone the properties located at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above, the Development Services Department is: 1. Recommending that the moratorium be extended for 10 months and 15 days prohibiting the approval of all land use entitlements and permits with the exception of permits for a single-family dwelling on a lot. 2. Expediting the processing of the appropriate zone changes before the Planning Commission and City Council. LASER IMAGED Afor Gr3 1F` �.►t;11 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council . FROM: Don Penrr�an, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Directorgif By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT'S REPORT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2141 TO EXTEND URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2140 TO PROHIBIT THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND-USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS AS WELL AS COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012-1026 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE. SUMMARY Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d), the City is taking the following steps to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of the moratorium to prohibit the approval of all land use entitlements and permits for the property located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. City staff is presenting to the Planning Commission at its next meeting of June 12, 2001, consideration of a proposed zone change to rezone the properties located at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue from R-2 (Medium Density Residential)to R-1 (Single-Family Residential). • RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above, the Development Services Department is: 1. Recommending that the moratorium be extended for 10 months and 15 days prohibiting the approval of all land use entitlements and permits with the exception of permits for a single-family dwelling on a lot. 2. Expediting the processing of the appropriate zone changes before the Planning Commission and City Council. e 0 S8G- L..5 - /,.,�n�. •� .5--/ Z4' .kli 4 . .nab b!9 ilio r,\ %, °°RpoRATo STAFF REPORT June 5, 2001 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor and City Council • FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director 4,14" Donna L. utter, Community Development Administrator i „,./5 SUBJECT: T.A. 2001-002 — Proposed Text Amendment adding a new section to the Arcadia Municipal Code establishing design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations in the S-1 (Special Use) Zone. SUMMARY This Text Amendment was initiated at the direction of the City Council to create design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations in the S-1 (Special Use) Zone, specifically pertaining to Santa Anita Racetrack. The Planning Commission at its May 8, 2001 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend approval of this text amendment to the City Council. As part of the Commission's motion, staff was directed to investigate the United States Department of Interior Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation. The attached standards are included for the City Council's information. . Staff recommends that the City Council approve the implementation of design review standards for the S-1 zone and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption. BACKGROUND Currently the City's Architectural Design Review guidelines include design approval for development in all multiple-family, commercial and industrial zones by staff, with appeal to the Planning Commission then to City Council. Additionally, all significant redevelopment projects-require design review by he Agency Board. The guidelines do not include design review for any additions, alterations or new projects in the S-1 zone.. Based upon the existing criteria in the S-1 zone, if a project complies with the underlying regulations and is in conformance with the General Plan, it is permitted without any review by the City. Sart2001\TA001-002 LASER ..C T.A. 001-002. June 5, 2001 Page 1 .�, p (5.---(--,(5.---(--,� • Until recently the major building activity in the S-1 zone was related primarily to the stable area and accessory uses relating to the day-to-day operation of the track. In 1999, elevator towers were proposed and approved at the racetrack and a new restaurant was constructed above the grandstand and the track apron was rebuilt. On September 20, 2000, the Los Angeles Turf Club (LATC) submitted a specific plan for Santa Anita Park. The Specific Plan included Development Regulations and Design Guidelines that would govern the future development of the area and provide guidance in the review of subsequent construction development plans. In October, the Development Services Department sent a letter to the LATC indicating that their application was incomplete and that additional information was necessary to proceed with processing the application. Since October, none of the necessary revisions to the LATC Specific Plan have been made and submitted to the City. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Santa Anita Race Track is a key community feature and an important component of Arcadia's character especially as noted in the G eneral Plan. As such, on April 2, 2001 the City Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment setting forth regulations in the S-1 (Special Use) zone that would add design review procedures for the Santa Anita Race Track. Because of its importance to the community, the Development Services Department is recommending that the design review.procedures outlined in this report be added to the S-1 zoning regulations. The proposed procedures require review by the Planning Commission and the City Council of all preliminary site plans, floor plans, exterior architectural improvements (e.g. alterations, additions) and new construction for development,on the property: This procedure is similar , to the procedure now being utilized for design review at Westfield Shoppingtown (floor plans are reviewed only in conjunction with exterior work). Staff is further proposing that the regulations include an administrative review procedure to be completed by the Development Services Director, for minor exterior alterations, minor alterations to existing housing for racetrack employees, improvements directed towards stabling and care of thoroughbreds, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs. However, this review would not include relocation of stables, employee housing and other significant improvements. The proposed regulations are set forth below: 9273.2.11. DESIGN REVIEW OBJECTIVES. Sart2001\TAOO1-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002. June 5, 2001 Page 2 • The following design review procedures are intended to implement the goals of the City's General Plan and the following purposes: A. Ensure that the architectural design of any additions, exterior alterations and new structures and their materials and colors are visually harmonious and compatible with the existing race track architectural design and functionally build upon the race track's attributes. B. Ensure that the location and configuration of structures are visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures and do not dominate their surroundings to an extent inappropriate to their use. C. Ensure that new commercial buildings and structures respect the architectural and cultural heritage represented by the existing racetrack buildings. D. Ensure that the grandstands remain recognizable from key locations along the perimeter of the racetrack. E. Ensure that the design and location of signs and their materials and colors are consistent with the character and scale of the buildings to which they are attached or which are located on the same site and ensure that signs are visually harmonious with surrounding development. 9273.2.11.1. APPLICABILITY. Design approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit, sign permit or certificate of occupancy; or approval of a conditional use permit, variance or modification with respect to any and all exterior alterations, additions and new construction; exterior lighting for the infield and parking areas; and landscape and signing improvements for development in . the S-1 Special Use Zone. The review and approval or disapproval shall be by the Planning Commission and the City council, except as noted in Section 9273.2.11.2. EXCEPTION: The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to building permits for work which is located entirely within a building and which does not alter the external appearance of said building. 9273.2.11.2. ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW A. The Development Services Director or designee (hereinafter referred as Director) shall have the authority . to review and approve or conditionally approve: • minor exterior alterations not affecting the architectural integrity of the existing grandstand façade; • minor modifications to existing housing for racetrack employees; Sart2001\TAOO9-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002 June 5, 2001 Page 3 • minor improvements directed towards stabling and care of thoroughbreds; • minor exterior lighting plans within the infield and parking areas; • • landscaping improvements; and • minor signing improvements. B. The Director shall have the discretion to refer said plans to the Planning Commission for review and approval or disapproval when it is determined that said plans are beyond the scope of the intent of the administrative review process. C. The Director shall review development plans submitted for design concept approval within thirty (30) working days of receipt and may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the plans or refer the plans to the Planning Commission for review and approval or disapproval. Within five (5) working days after a decision, notice shall be mailed to the applicant. D. Appeals of the Director's decision shall be made to the Planning Commission within five (5) working days of the Director's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee as set forth by Resolution of the City Council. If the Director refers a project:to the Planning Commission then the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within five (5) working days of the decision of the Planning Commission accompanied by an appeal fee as set forth by Resolution of the City Council. 9273.2.11.3. INITIATION OF DESIGN REVIEW—ADMINISTRATIVE OR PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL. Design review shall be initiated by an application submitted to the Director. The application shall be in a form prescribed by the Director and shall include such plans and materials required for adequate review, including but not limited to: A. Site Plan B. Floor plan drawn to scale including square footage C. Building elevations including all building facades - D. Building perspectives E. Colored rendering of building elevations and site plan F. Materials sample board including a description of the types of materials, colors, treatment, etc. Some of the above information may be waived if it is determined by the Director that said information is not necessary. More information may be required if it is deemed necessary by the Director to adequately evaluate the application. Sart2001\TA001-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002 • June 5, 2001 Page 4 9273.2.11.4. ,DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSING AND PUBLIC HEARING. A. An application for Administrative Review shall be submitted to the Director for review, as set forth is Section 9273.2.11.2 B. An application for design review before the Planning Commission and City Council shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for scheduling of a public hearing before the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. C. The City Council following its receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation shall conduct a public hearing and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny said plans based upon consistency with the City's zoning regulations and the General Plan. D. Notices of public hearings concerning design review shall be given by mailing to the owners of properties within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of the exterior boundaries of the entire racetrack property. 9273.2.11.5. FEE. Before accepting for filing an application for design review, the applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount established by Resolution of.the City Council. 9273.2.11.6. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. Design review shall expire one (1) year following its effective date unless final plans have been submitted for plan check in the Development Services Department. 9273.2.10.7. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. The Director or the body that granted final approval of the application may extend the design review approval time not to exceed one (1) year beyond the initial expiration date. An application for an extension shall be made a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the initial expiration date. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission at their meeting of May 8, 2001, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment No. 2001-002 to the City Council. It was also the consensus of the Commission that although some of the language in the proposed text amendment sets forth objectives to maintain architectural compatibility with the existing grandstand architecture of the Santa Anita Racetrack, it does not incorporate federal or state historic preservation standards Sart20011TA001-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002 June 5, 2001 Page 5 . that may be more appropriate for historic preservation purposes. Therefore, the Commission recommends including the acknowledgement of the number of potential historic resources on the racetrack site, and require that staff investigate the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs to further address the preservation of such • historic resources. At this time staff has not had the opportunity to study in any detail the Federal standards and guidelines for historic/preservation, and therefore more time would be needed if the City Council wishes to incorporate these standards into the review process. Attachment A is a C to Santa Anita to Ra etrack Whether the (10) standards would be problematic whatever plans they may have for the historic portion of the grandstand and related structures. Currently, the City does not have a historic preservation ordinance, and relies on the CEQA guidelines, which have been adopted by the City, to determine what level of environmental review is necessary in reference to any discretionary decision that is made upon a project. Such review requires the City to consider findings on any historical•resource that may necessitate conditions or mitigation measures for preservation purposes. For any design review that would require Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval, a CEQA. analysis including historic resources would be conducted. 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. , RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the S-1 zoning regulations be amended as set forth in this staff report. • Sart2001\TAOO1-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002 June 5, 2001 Page 6 CITY COUNCIL ACTION If the City Council intends to take action to approve this text amendment, the Council should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption at a later meeting. Attachments: Exhibit A— Historic Preservation Standards Copy of the May 8th Planning Commission minutes Environmental Documents • Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager • • • • • sart2001\TA001-002 CC Report T.A. 001-002 June 5, 2001 Page 7 EXHIBIT A ' The Secretary of the Interior's Sti: rds for Rehabilitation &Illustrated Gr.' ;lines for Re.. Page 1 of 3 National Park`, gr}vice ,, t F4 i a L n 1 - x � b , r .;; s,• s ..^ l v-'" .-7:#a` t. "_Y ,Z-- -. _tir.-: ' i" q li A i : �� Y {a"- The Secretary of the interior's Standards for - ysta•daEdsE �'.ja,1j :,' ,'. Rehabilitation - fu)det1t1e ;y ` 4'' introduction to the,, }N,, Standards Wood 1 f ,1 rk `'' ' The Secretary of the Interior is � � ` ; ° N "-'...c!,'; . , , P t t. responsible for establishing standards ' -, ,"` . `,�rfi� s Roofs e F' '�, t for all programs under Departmental �� -,,�_ 6 -,1 indoYrs s t 1 P authority and for advising Federal . %1�s r3" ; tt:.t anew/Pat'ct�es r`''; agencies on the preservation of historic !'a4,� -Y ,s 4 'T i�F711-4.1,1''.,i11.1,5 Storefronts i k!m properties listed in or eligible for listing 7 s r��4 ' ur . }4°, ,F > <. r fir ;,1: , in the National Register of Historic g M ``�x T }�•�' :� Stcrc#ural:Systems f Places. �' a ; t I$ cssl�saR.eikreln1 64 t .y x Mechanical`9 terns t� .l a I tt,t ,r �( t 4�;t r, .1. := The Standards for Rehabilitation ' 0.4",,.•.:,tom , L ry z'J-' •Site f2 (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the z � `• ' ° .- '" ;Sel#In4, 4 w`�,'{,ri r'° Federal Historic Preservation Tax �i e ` 4 4. ,r � > •Y�j u f:er �, 4 0 Incentives program) address the most r 5- r 7N '..4,:i7„ ��� •---•.a-a_ 'fir� '' �� n'ka `r{,°,.,� .� prevalent treatment. "Rehabilitation" is i 0YffA t.a*IS 4F' 3°`mo t o t `I u t 111 `, f) x �r� Iti a� x'� .,, r )} t.. ` Access6fllty 1{u defined as 'the process of returning a ./E 4 , .�•,� y = i a, property to a state of Utility, through ''� �' '1 '�' ''' ' ' Hea ltllSafety ,� {� yr l tY, 9 1� AI 1,4-11101141616,4 r�► i �: ,�i.�vi • ti;,, s1 repair or alteration, which makes r yr �i ,,rr ,, , IT. ,� , r r tea" �1 ,edjUYr�;Hr, v k ;ti ; , possible an efficient contemporary use , j + kvi ��� i ' while preserving those portions and rhti.2 7� �+,1, P! {0z � -' • features of the property which are • .; 11.4.420-4. 1." r� „0.,,,A4 • ..--c-""'"'''''''''',',._._.2s° s' ' 41:64 significant to its historic, architectural, • and cultural values.” Credits Initially developed by the Secretary of the Interior to determine the • appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties within the • Historic Preservation Fund grant-in-aid program, the Standards for Rehabilitation have been widely used over the years--particularly to determine if a rehabilitation qualifies as a Certified Rehabilitation for Federal tax purposes. In addition, the Standards have guided Federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities for properties in Federal ownership or "Rehabilitation" is .control; and State and local officials in reviewing both Federal and nonfederal defined as "the rehabilitation proposals. They have also been adopted by historic district and • • process of planning commissions across the country. . returning a property • . to a state of utility, The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a through repair or - property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and alteration, which features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, makes possible an construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and efficient interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and contemporary use the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent,.or related while preserving new construction. To be certified for Federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation those portions and project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic — features of the character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is _ property which are located. . • significant to its historic, As stated in the definition, the treatment"rehabilitation"assumes that at least http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm 5/29/2001 The Secretary of the Interior's S. ':ards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated G' A'lines for Re.. Page 2 of 3_ . • architectural, and some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to cultural values." provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must-not damage or destroy materials,features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. For example, certain treatments--if improperly applied--may cause or accelerate physical • deterioration of the historic building.This can include using improper repointing or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards. Similarly, exterior additions that.duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the Standards. • The Secretary of the interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new r 4:. .„-., , construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as,a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive The Standards are feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and to be applied to • other visual qualities and,where possible, materials. Replacement of specific missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or rehabilitation pictorial evidence. projects in a reasonable 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause manner, taking damage to historic materials shall not be used.The surface cleaning of into consideration structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means annnnmin and http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm 5/29/2001 • 'The-Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated C=»;d.elines for Re.. Page 3 of 3 • technical w possible. feasibility. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 121 ILA Home I Next I Previous I Search I Links I E-mail Last Modified:Mon,May 21 2001 12:41:04 pm EDT KDW • Nati.4na l $ervlGe • http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm 5/29/2001 MAY 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 9. TEXT AMENDMENT 2001-002 Consideration of a text amendment creating a new section in the S-1 (Special Use) Zone adding design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations at the Santa Anita Race Track. Mr. Penman presented the staff report. Commissioner Bruckner asked if any portions of the building, particularly the grandstands are eligible for National Registrar as far as historic issues. Would it be appropriate add a condition that any building eligible for listing and any alterations to the site be compatible with nationally recognized standards for dealing with historic structures. Mr. Penman said this issue has been discussed with Santa Anita. They have expressed concern with doing that because this would bring in a different level of review. He suggested that if the Planning Commission believes that is an appropriate condition then they should recommend it to City Council. From a CEQA standpoint, whether it is on the register or not,they would look at it, regardless. That is mandated under CEQA. Anything that is reviewed by Planning Commission or City Council and is considered a discretionary action would require CEQA review and they would have to look at historic preservation and architecture. Commissioner Bruckner said that he is talking about standards that are nationally recognized that provide and also recognize the need for flexibility and modernization of spaces but also set the ground work for how the process would be done on a going forward basis and acknowledge that there are buildings there of significant historic quality and therefore, standards that are used throughout the country and have a great track record of working well might be added. The public hearing was opened. Pete Siberell, Santa Anita, 285 W. Huntington Dr., said that they are in agreement with this recommendation. Mr. Penman said that they have discussed this with their corporate representatives. When the City Council discussed this at a Study Session, they had a couple of their representatives present. He did not know how they would feel with regard to issues raised by Commissioner Bruckner. They are well aware of this and have not raised any objections to the process. Vince Foley, 320 Cambridge, said that his previous remarks hold true here also. He strongly recommended the ADR procedure. Scott Sayer, 444 W. Huntington, was in favor of placing future alterations to the grandstand under the purview of the city. He was surprised, and rather disturbed, to learn that this was not already the case. At least,the city is belatedly correcting this very large oversight. He went on to say that there is no mention of the Interior Department's guidelines for remodeling historic structures. Unquestionably, the grandstands have historic content. He has had some tangential experience with the federal guidelines. They are very explicit, and quite different from the directives listed in item 9273.2.11 A, B, C, D, and E. He suggest that, before this is approved, staff should review Arcadia City Planning Commission 13 5/8/01 • it against the federal standards. At least, add some direction to staff in the text regarding when to invoke those guidelines. There is no mention of the state mandated CEQA process. It is his understanding that the CEQA statutes contain their own requirements for triggering an EIR. However, if so, somehow this was overlooked when the grandstands were altered, or rather adulterated, by the current track ownership. Perhaps, this is covered in other parts of the city code. But, if it is, there isn't any linking language in this text. This should be checked by.staff. Though the applicant has been asked to prepare a specific plan for the property, there is no mention in the text regarding exactly what circumstances require a specific plan, or a modification to one. Perhaps, this is also covered in other parts of the city code. Staff should check before approving this. There's time to address these issues. Santa Anita Racetrack is currently number nine on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of most endangered historic places in the country. He was pleased that the city is finally taking some steps to protect this resource in our town. It's too late for Anoakia. Maybe, they can do the right thing this time. No one else spoke in favor or opposition to this item. Chairman Murphy closed the public hearing. Mr. Penman said that he is not very familiar with federal guidelines. If that is the recommendation, staff will research and try to present to the City Council with more information. This item is scheduled before the City Council on June 5th. The zoning ordinance does not need to mention CEQA because CEQA is present. It is a requirement of law. CEQA guidelines have been adopted by the City and any time there is a discretionary decision made, CEQA review is done. It begins with initial study and then a determination is made on what level of environmental review is required. That is automatically present and does not need to be in the zoning ordinance. The General Plan(GP)requires a specific plan or a master plan when the south parking lot is developed for the entire site. If they were to proceed with only a portion of development, specifically related to the race track, according to the GP they would not need a specific plan for the whole site but other issues would be triggered. It would still require an EIR because of potential impacts. There is a trigger in the GP for when a specific plan is required. If it is just directly related to the race track itself, it would still have to go through full CEQA review and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He felt that there is no need to specifically reference the GP or specific plan in the design review objectives. The GP already requires a specific plan if they would be developing any commercial or non-horse racing related. He went onto say that the City does not have a historic preservation ordinance but there is a state model that can be utilized if a local agency would like to implement it. CEQA review would require the City • to consider those and findings could be made on a project based on the CEQA review in terms of establishing conditions or mitigation measures for preservation. Some of the language in the proposal discusses some of the objectives of maintaining the architectural compatibility with the existing grandstand architecture but it does not go as far as Commissioner Bruckner suggested of actually having utilizing federal or state standards. The fact that it is eligible would force staff to look at it in the environmental impact report. If the Planning Commission would like them to consider it, they could recommend to the City Council that staff research this and in the report to the City Council what that would translate into in terms of review process and what would have to be adopted and implemented. Arcadia City Planning Commission 14 5/8/01 • Commissioner Bruckner said that it would be a shame if at the minimum they did not acknowledge that there are historic resources on the site and compatibility with historic resources. He suggested that the Planning Commission ask that staff research this and volunteered his staff from the Historic Preservation Department from the City of Pasadena. He thought that it is very important to at the least provide some boundaries when the review is on-going. These have been adopted by many communities and have worked very well. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded. by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to recommend approval of TA 2001-002 to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommends including the acknowledgement of the number of potential historic resources on this site and require that staff investigate Federal Secretary of the Interior standards. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson, Murphy NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 15 5/8/01 CEQA DOCUMENTS fs.TY OF AIM& File No.: T.A. 001-002 c'4 lirra`:2 'AREADIA CITY OF ARCADIA \ 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE RATS ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: T.A. 2001-002 — proposed text amendment adding a new section to the Arcadia Municipal Code establishing design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations in the S-1 (Special Use) Zone B. Location of Project: N/A C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project: City of Arcadia The City Council ❑ Planning Commission 0, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project. and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the City Council, including the recommendaiton of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a siginificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the City Council's findings are as follows: The City Council ❑ Planning Commission 0, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgement. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declartion are as follows: Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5423 Date: 4,1/8 ! t Date Posted: S ff • 4/01 • • File No. 001-002 " w• asot! CITY OF ARCADIA -.e At4 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CORPORA 0. ,. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • 1. Project Title: Text Amendment 2001-002 2. Project Address: • N/A 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Development Services Department - City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5442 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 91066-602.1 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: " Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator(626),574-5423 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning.Classification: S-1 • • 8. Description of Project: , Proposed text amendment to add design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations in the S-1 zone -1- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • ' " File No. 001-002 • 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: N/A 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 Unless Mitigated," an -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • File N . 001-002 • . 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. Date: April 10, 2001 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 -3- CEQA checklist 7195 • File No. 001-002 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 BR 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. • • • -4- ' CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: T.A. 001-002 " • • • • 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? ❑ , ❑ ❑ Ear- b) Damage scenic.resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? • c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ []� the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would ❑ ❑ ❑ LJ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add.design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on scenic vistas, but allow the City to review any additions, • exterior alterations, etc.at the Santa Anita Race Track. 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.) • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ •their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? • There are no areas designated as agricultural resources in the City of Arcadia 0 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air CEQA Checklist 4 04/10/01 • • File No.: T.A. 001-002 Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air ❑ ❑ ❑ Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ❑ ❑ ❑ ©/ an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ❑ ❑ ❑ g' (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ ©- concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ • ❑ �-- people? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on air quality, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, ❑ ❑ ❑ any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 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)? b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish • and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • 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? CEQA Checklist • 5 • • 04/10/01 File No.: T.A. 001-002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation d) Adversely P ersel impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ L 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? 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? . f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑. ❑ Er resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ R Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on biological resources, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the.Santa Anita Race Track. • 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ lie 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? • b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ g-': 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)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ❑ ❑ ❑ remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ ri d) Disturb any human rema g formal cemeteries? CEQA Checklist 6 04/10/01 ' i File No.: T.A. 001-002 • Less Than - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will enable the City to review the design of any future additions, alterations to ensure that said changes do not affect the historical integrity - of the Santa Anita Race Track. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse . ❑ ❑ ❑ Q' 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12' ill) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ E iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0.- urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? , b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? • c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ey 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? • •e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ❑ Q ❑ to life or property? j f f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the soil capable of 'supporting the use of septic tanks or - alternative wastewater disposal systems? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the -. CEQA Checklist 7 04/10/01 1 File No.: T.A. 001-002 . • Less Than , Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No • Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on . geology and soils, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 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? 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? �/ c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ L� handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ 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? 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ D project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? . g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ , ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 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 wild lands? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on CEQA Checklist 8 04/10/01 FilelNo.: T.A. 001-002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation hazards and/or hazardous materials, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: • a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ �' standards or waste discharge requirements? • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ d 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)? 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? 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?. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the •❑ ❑ ❑ 0/ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? • f) Place housing within a 1 00-year floodplain, as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑/ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ 1!(1' or redirect flood flows? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on • hydrology and water quality, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. • CEQA Checklist 9 04/10/01 File No.: T.A. 001-002 . . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact •Mitigation Impact Impact • Incorporation 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Elv communities conservation plan? • The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on land use and zoning, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track to ensure compliance and consistency with the . General Plan 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: • a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to . • the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ u resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? • The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on . mineral resources, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 11. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ Er standards established in the local general plan or noise • ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? • CEQA Checklist 10 04/10/01 File No.: T.A. 001-002 • • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No • impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ 0 0 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ 0/ 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, .would the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑/ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in • the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on mineral resources, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ •• ❑/ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ LV construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on the population and housing of the City, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES • a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ associated with the provision of new or physically altered CEQA Checklist 11 04/10/01 .- File No. T.A. 001=002 • . Less Than Potentially. Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No . Impact Mitigation • Impact Impact Incorporation 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? ❑ El El Ee Police protection? ❑ CI ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Er Parks? ❑ El ❑ Other public facilities? • ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add.design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on City Services, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 14. RECREATION . a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and El ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? • b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might • have an adverse physical.effect on the environment? • • • The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on • Recreation Services, but will. allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race . Track. 15. ,TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the CI ' E ❑ E 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 12 04/10/01 • File No.: T.A. 001-002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • 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? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ [� curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ r g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?. The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in • the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on • Recreation Services, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ [�' Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ DIZ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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 . . CEQA Checklist 13 04/10/01 File No.: T.A. 001-002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation 'Impact Impact Incorporation existing commitments? f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ L� to accommodate the,project's solid waste disposal needs? • The proposed application is for a text amendment to'the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on Recreation Services, but will allow the City to ;review any • additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. 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? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on the environment, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ ❑ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on the environment, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. ' c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means • that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future • projects)? _ The proposed application is for a text amendment to the CEQA Checklist 14 04/10/01 • File No.: T.A. 001-002 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than • Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact • Incorporation Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on the environment, but will allow the City to review any additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita Race Track. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed application is for a text amendment to the Arcadia Municipal Code to add design review regulations in the S-1 zone. The Text Amendment will have no impact on the environment, but will allow the City to review any . additions, exterior alterations, etc. at the Santa Anita• Race Track. • CEQA Checklist 15 04/10/01 • File No. T.A. 001-b02 - , %!• CITY OF ARCADIA . 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ji CIA ARCADIA, CA 91007 °RpoRATE9� ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: April 10, 2001 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 2. Address of project (Location): N/A 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: . Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5423 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: • None 5. Existing.Zoning: S-1 • 6. General Plan Designation: Horse Racing Project Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Proposed Text amendment to adding a new section to the S-1 Zone that establishes design review procedures for new structures, additions and exterior alterations at the Santa Anita Race Track. • 8. Site Size: N/A _ 1 ' - ' • Site size: N/A 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. Associated projects: None . 14. Anticipated incremental development: N/A 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: N/A 16.. 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 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 18. 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 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A 20. . Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO U 2/;1. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours ® E;21 Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. ® 2K2- K 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project . U LI" 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. U or . Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity 0 • 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage- patterns. E.I.R. 4/01 -2- YES NO • • ❑: U247. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ❑ ►mod°28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. ❑ 11/29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives • . 30.° Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) • • ❑ a 3.1. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ❑ 21'32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects ❑ Li 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? • 1;.;K4. If you answered yes to question 33, may this project cause significant effects on • the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmental Setting 35. 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. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) The proposal is to change the text of the Arcadia Municipal Code and, therefore, this is not applicable. . 36. 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. N/A E.I.R. 4/01 -3- 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. April 10, 2001 Date. �� _ � - '--- . — . Signature) For Donna L. Butler • • • • E.I.R. 4/01 -4- - • OGF'G- ay » 0, /s.- obors 0-11 f*� � STAFF REPORT �RpORASS� . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 5, 2001 • TO: Arcadia City Council Arcadia Redevelopment Agency FROM: • O Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director On Pete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT AGENCY RESOLUTION ARA NO. 195 CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FIFTH AVENUE OFFICE PROJECT, APPROVING A REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN, APPROVING AN OWNER PATICIPATION AGREEMENT. (OPA) WITH THE FIFTH AVENUE GROUP LLP, AND FURTHER THAT THE AGENCY APPROVE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE OFFICE PROJECT, AND APPROPRIATE $1,535,000 FOR COSTS RELATED THERETO, AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6226 APPROVING A RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE FIFTH AVENUE OFFICE PROJECT SUMMARY The Fifth Avenue Group, LLP (Messrs. Dick Hale and Matt Waken) have purchased or are in escrow to purchase the majority of the triangular shaped properties on the southwest corner of Fifth and Santa Clara (see Attachments 1, 2, and 3). They will develop two 3-story office buildings totaling. almost 90,000 square feet on the 4-acre site. The architectural design is shown on Attachment 4. Pursuant to a draft Owner Participation Agreement (Attachment 5) the Agency would financially assist the Fifth Avenue Group in the amount of $1,125,000. This would be paid in progress payments during and after construction. The developer would be responsible to pay for the relocation of the commercial or industrial businesses on the site, and all on and off site clearance and development costs. There are also 23 residential units on the Richter property. Because of the Agency's potential involvement in this development, these 23 displacees are eligible for relocation benefits. The Agency would pay the estimated $410,000 for the cost of their relocation. As required by the California Redevelopment Law and the Agency's Guidelines, the Agency through its consultant, Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC), has prepared a Relocation Plan (Attachment 6). The draft Relocation Plan was provided to all of the tenants on March 17, 2001. A noticed meeting was held with the potential displacees LASER IMAGED /pa Arcadia City Council Arcadia Redevelopment Agency June 5, 2001 Page 2 on March 26, 2001. The Project Area Committee (PAC) reviewed and approved the Relocation Plan on May 2, 2001. Because the Agency will be removing 23 lower income housing units from the market, the Agency must by law replace them within four (4) years. The Agency through PRC has also prepared a Replacement Housing Plan. (Attachment 7)which discusses this requirement and how the Agency proposes to meet it. The PAC reviewed and approved the Replacement Housing Plan on May 2, 2001. Staff has prepared the required environmental documents on the project and is recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration (Attachment 8). Staff is recommending that the Agency adopt Resolution ARA No. 195 (Attachment 9) certifying the Negative Declaration, approving the• Replacement Housing Plan, and approving the Fifth Avenue Office Project Owner Participation Agreement; and that the Agency approve the architectural design of the project and appropriate $1,535,000 from Unprogrammed Reserves to pay for costs related to the implementation of the project, and that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6226 (Attachment 10) approving the Relocation Plan. DISCUSSION Messrs. Hale and Waken are proposing to develop two new 3-story office buildings (30,000 and 57,000 sq. ft.) and to rehabilitate the existing 1,800 sq. ft. Aiken building at 5 N. Fifth Avenue (see site plan map, Attachment 2). They already own the 48,000 sq. ft. former Teledyne property on 131 N. Fifth Avenue, and are in escrow to acquire the 90,000 sq. ft. Richter property and the northerly part of the narrow 50,000 sq. ft. Aiken strip paralleling the Santa,Anita Wash. Mr. Hale has also informed staff he was able to negotiate a 15-year lease with Los Angeles County Public Works Department (Flood Control District-FCD) for use of the FCD property on the east side of the Wash for additional parking. The current parking available on-site, even without consideration of the leased FCD property, meets City Code. On-street parking is also available on both Santa Clara and Fifth Avenue. Architectural Design The architectural design for the office buildings are shown on Attachment 2. The 30,000 sq. ft. building will be constructed of gray/beige stucco with blue tinted windows and yellow/gold accents above the windows and on a prominent cornice running around the building. The corners and building entrance will be blue glass through all 3 stories and the front of the building will protrude forward in two places providing articulation and , a breakup of the length of the building. The larger 57,000 sq. ft. building will be similar in design with additional blue window glass on all 3 stories creating relief on the front of the building. Large `renderings of these buildings are available in the Development • Services Department/Economic Development Division and will be on display in the City Council Chambers at the meeting. Arcadia City Council • • Arcadia Redevelopment Agency • June 5, 2001 Page 3 • The small Alken building at 5 N. Fifth Avenue will be remodeled to blend in with the overall design. However, since plans have not yet been completed for this building, staff requests conditional approval of the Alken building architectural design, subject to staff review of the final plans for conformity with the overall design of the Fifth Avenue project. Landscaping will be provided adjacent to the buildings and throughout the parking area. While two (2) oak trees will be removed, the developer will retain the large oak tree near the corner of Fifth and Santa Clara. As a condition of approval of the parcel map, the developer has been required to replace the two (2) oak trees with four (4) 36-inch box oak trees. Owner. Participation Agreement(OPA) This 4-acre site has been difficult to redevelop because of its triangular shape and the costs of relocating the commercial/industrial businesses and the residential tenants. Over the last 15 years there have been three significant efforts to redevelop the property. In the late 1980's the Agency worked with a local broker and a hotel company on a possible hotel development on the majority of the site. Escalating land prices stopped this proposal. In the mid 1990's, following a joint Monrovia/Arcadia marketing effort, Agency staff worked with a development company who proposed an. intense mixed use commercial project straddling the border. This developer was unable to demonstrate significant tenant interest to either Monrovia or Arcadia and the relationship was terminated. Subsequently, the Agency and Monrovia staff worked with another developer who proposed separates but architecturally related developments on each side of Fifth Avenue. The developer was able to proceed on the Monrovia side because the properties were vacant and for sale. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, after two and one-half years of discussion, terminated the Exclusive Agreement with this developer due to the high relocation costs and the lack of firm commercial tenant interest in the property: Mr. Hale and Mr. Waken have also requested Agency financial assistance because of the high price of the land due to its proximity to Huntington Drive and the freeway on/off ramp and due to the significant additional cost of relocating the businesses. After previous discussion with the Agency Board, and review of the developer's proforma and costs, staff and the developer have tentatively agreed, subject to Agency approval, to reimburse $1,125,000 of the acquisition and commercial/industrial relocation costs to the developer. This will be paid in installments: 1) $300,000 on beginning of building pads; 2) $300,000 at completion of building walls; 3) $300,000 at completion of the buildings and roof (weathertight); 4) $200,000 at issuance of City Certificate of Occupancy; and 5) $25,000 at Agency approval of Certificate of Completion. The developer will provide a Second Trust Deed on the property on Parcel 3, the northernmost and largest of the three parcels, as security for the Agency's contribution Arcadia City Council Arcadia Redevelopment Agency June 5, 2001 Page 4 . and will hold the Agency harmless against claims by the property owners. The Agency has also received signed Releases_from the property owners stating they will indemnify and hold the Agency harmless against any claims for relocation benefits for themselves or their commercial/industrial tenants. In return the developer will.acquire the property, relocate the two businesses, clear the site, and construct the two 3-story office buildings, remodel the façade of the Aiken building, and construct and pay for all off-site improvements. This is to be done within ten (10) months (April 2002). These conditions • are contained in the Owner Participation Agreement (Attachment 5). Residential Relocation This project will require the displacement of 22 lower income households (one unit is vacant) and the removal of 23 lower income housing units from the market. Because of the Agency's financial involvement, the Agency is by law required to provide relocation assistance to the displacees. The Agency therefore retained the firm Pacific Relocation Consultants to prepare the Relocation Plan and the Replacement Housing Plan. The Relocation Plan (Attachment 6) is a statement of the requirements of the Redevelopment Law, Relocation Law, and the Agency's Relocation Guidelines as these relate to the specifics of the 22 lower income displacees at this location on Fifth Avenue and in the Arcadia area housing market. As part of the Plan preparation process PRC interviewed the displacees and surveyed the local rental housing market. No children will be displaced. The Relocation Plan 'summarizes PRC's findings that there will be sufficient decent, safe and sanitary housing in the market area during the projected time of displacement this summer. However, because of the very low incomes of the displacees, the legal requirement that a displacee can spend only 30% of their income on housing, the age and physical condition of some of the displacees, and the high cost of rentals in the Arcadia area, the total projected cost of relocation per PRC is $410,000, significantly higher than .initially estimated. The Relocation Plan provides an illustration of how relocation benefits are calculated and sets forth the Grievance Procedure. Staff delivered a copy of the Relocation Plan to all of the displacees on April 19. and held a meeting, for them in the 'City Council Chambers on April 26. Six displacees attended. Representatives from PRC and staff summarized the relocation process and responded to questions. The Replacement Housing Plan (Attachment 5) addresses the Agency's requirements to replace the 23 units of housing within 4 years. Agency staff identified four possible sites for the replacement housing: 119-121 Alta Street (Agency owned parking lot), the Westerner Hotel site, the Santa Anita Inn site, and the shopping center on the north side of Duarte, east of Baldwin (former 99 Cent Store location). It is possible other sites could become available in the future and this plan does not commit the Agency to these sites. Based upon PRC's interviews with the displacees, 18 of the displacees are very low income, and 5 are low income. Redevelopment Law requires that 75% of the replacement units must be at the same income level as the displacees' income. As a Arcadia City Council - • Arcadia Redevelopment Agency • June 5, 2001 Page 5 result, the Agency must build at least 13 very low income units, 4 low income units, and 6 moderate income or below units. Because 22 of the 23 apartments on Fifth Avenue are studios (one is a one bedroom), the Agency can replace these with 23 one bedroom units of the required income, or, alternatively, twelve two bedroom units of the required income. The Agency has adopted as part of its Implementation Plan the objective of developing at least 55 units of senior housing. The Agency can meet both the Implementation Plan and the Replacement Housing Plan objective by ensuring that a senior housing project developed with Agency assistance has at least 23 bedrooms meeting the required income. limits set forth above. For example, three of the four sites listed above are zoned C-2 and could permit a residential development (e.g., senior housing) with a C.U.P. By law, the Project Area Committee (PAC) must review and approve both the Relocation Plan and the Replacement Housing Plan. The PAC met on May 2, 2001 and approved both documents. Some of the displacees were present and spoke at the PAC meeting. Benefits of the Project The Agency will receive approximately $110,000 - $120,000 in.annual tax increment from the project, as well as other indirect revenues to the City, i.e. sales taxes, Transit Occupancy Tax revenue. It is also anticipated that over 300 employees will occupy these buildings. A large blighted part of the downtown project area, visible from the 210 Freeway and from Huntington Drive at Fifth Avenue, will be replaced with an attractive office project. Finally, had the Agency done this project alone, without the cooperation of Mr. Hale and Mr. Waken, it is probable that expenditures for the commercial/industrial relocation would have added significant additional cost beyond the Agency's proposed financial assistance to the developer. Staff and Agency Counsel have also prepared Agency Resolution ARA-195, approving a Replacement Housing Plan, certifying a Negative Declaration, and approving an Owner Participation Agreement for the Fifth Avenue Project (Attachment 9). Staff and Agency Counsel have also prepared City Council Resolution 6226 approving the Relocation Plan (Attachment 10). The legislative body (City Council) must by law approve this document. Related Plannin_q/Zonin_q Issues The developer has submitted a Parcel Map Application which has been approved by the Planning Commission and is currently being processed by staff. Since the size of Parcel 1, the parcel on which the small -Aiken building at 5 N. Fifth Avenue will remain, will only be 8,270 sq. ft., staff is also processing the developer's request for a Modification of the 22,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size in the CPD 1 zone. In accordance Arcadia City Council Arcadia Redevelopment Agency June 5, 2001 Page 6 • with the City Code, this request will be submitted to the Council for approval at a future meeting (tentatively June 19). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT An environmental assessment of the project has been made. Pursuant to staff request, a focused Traffic Study was prepared by Lindscott Law and Greenspan, the developer's consultant, and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. Based upon the assessment and the Traffic Study, a Negative Declaration has been prepared (Attachment 8). Notice of the Agency's consideration of the Negative Declaration at this Council/Agency meeting was published in the Arcadia Weekly on May 10 and May 17, 2001 and sent to the L. A. County Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure -The Agency will provide $1,125,000 (Paid in progress $1,125,000 to the developer payments) for partial reimbursement of his land acquisition and relocation costs The Agency will pay for the $ 410,000 (Paid as required estimated $410,000 residential by law to the relocation cost displacees) Total $1,535,000 These funds are to be taken from the Agency Unprogramed Fund Balance or bond proceeds. - Note: The cost of consultant (PRC) administrative services to process the relocation claims, estimated to be $37,000, has already been approved by the Agency. Revenues. The Agency will receive estimated annual tax increment revenues of $110,000 - $120,000. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: 1. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution ARA No. 195 (Attachment 9), certifying a Negative Declaration for the Fifth Avenue Office Project, approving a Replacement Housing Plan, and approving an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP for an approximate 90,000 sq. ft. professional office development on the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Fifth Avenue (Attachment 5). • Arcadia City Council �. Arcadia Redevelopment Agency June 5, 2001 Page 7 ' 2. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency approve the Architectural Design for the two (2) buildings of the project as stated above, and as set forth on Attachments 3 and 4, and that the Aiken design be conditionally approved pending staff review of the final plans. 3. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency appropriate $1,535,000 from the Unprogrammed Reserves or bond funds, $1,125,000 for the payments to the Fifth Avenue Group, LLP, pursuant to the OPA, and $410,000 for the residential relocation payments as required by law. 4. City Council adopt City Council Resolution 6226, a Resolution of the City. Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving a Relocation Plan for the Fifth Avenue Office Project (Attachment 10). Approved: City Manager/Executive Director Attachment 1 —Aerial Photo of the Site Attachment 2 — Property Ownership Map Attachment 3 — Site Plan Attachment 4 —Architectural Design Attachment 5— Draft Owner Participation Agreement dated June 5, 2001 Attachment 6 — Relocation Plan Attachment 7 — Replacement Housing Plan Attachment 8 — Negative Declaration, Fifth.Avenue Office Project Attachment 9 —Agency Resolution ARA-195 Attachment 10 — City Council Resolution 6226