The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAugust 20, 2002A N N O T A T E D _ Am AGENDA Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting August 20, 2002 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers Conference Room ROLL CALL: Council Members: Chang, Kovacic, Segal, Wuo and Marshall All present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LI_MT PER PERSON) None 1. STUDY SESSION a. Discussion and direction regarding Single - Family Development Standards Discussion 6 7:00 p.m. direction to staff Council Chambers INVOCATION Reverend Jolene Cadenbach, Arcadia Congregational Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Peter Ulrich ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Kovacic, Segal, Wuo and Marshall All present 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION: Read all ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full Adopted 5 -0 3. PRESENTATION of Citizen of the Month Award to Peter Ulrich 4. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO: Frank Hsu, Planning Commission Craig Lucas, Planning Commission S. H. Wen, Planning Commission -- City Clerk Alford Gail A. Marshall, Mayor . Dr. Sheng Chang, Major Pro tempore . Gary A. Kovacic, Mickey Segal, John Wuo, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager June 1). Alford, City Clerk 0 5. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed item i of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed Item 5(a) you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the public hearing. a. Ordinance No 2165 amending the Arcadia Municipal Code to add a pub. Hg. Closed Subsection 14 to Section 9264.2.9 and amending Section 9275.1.39.3 to Ord. 2165 allow Automobile Fueling Stations in the CBD /Central Business District Introduced 5 -0 Zone subiect to a Conditional Use Permit Recommendation: Introduce TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Ray Pevey 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/Announcements/Statements/Future Agenda Items See minutes 7. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL: Redevelopment Agency Members: Chang, Kovacic, Segal, Wuo and Marshall All present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 8. CONSENT a. Minutes of the August 6 2002 regular meeting Recommendation: Adopt None Approved 4 -0 Kovacic abstained Six month extension to Rusnak Motors for Temporary Exemption from Resolution ARA 172 at 55 West Huntington Drive Recommendation: Adopt Adopted 5 -0 ARA Resolution No 202 adopting local guidelines for implementing The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) Adopted 5 -0 Recommendation: Adopt -2- 0 0 ADJOURN the Redevelopment Agency to September 3, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 9. CONSENT a. Minutes of the Julv 22. 2002 adjourned meeting and August 6. 2002 regular meeting Adopted 4 -0 Recommendation: Adopt Kovacic abstained Proposition C 5% Transit Security Funds Recommendation: Adopt C. Resolution No. 6321 adopting Memorandum of Understanding with the Adopted 5 -0 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority accepting Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds for Prop C Interest and Bus System Improvement Plan programs Recommendation: Adopt Adopted 5 -0 d. Award of Contract - landscape improvements at Fire Station 107 Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with DMA Contracting in the amount of $87,374.60 and to appropriate an additional $11,015.00 from the Capital Outlay fund for landscape improvements to Fire Station 107 Approved 5 -0 e. Professional Services Agreement - laboratory testing services of city water Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino, Incorporated in the amount of $47,137.00 Approved 5 -0 f. Award of Contract - traffic signal maintenance services Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a one (1) year contract extension with Signal Maintenance, Incorporated in the amount of $111,456.00 Approved 5 -0 g. Award of purchase for janitorial supplies Recommendation: Approve the purchase of janitorial supplies from Delta Distribution, Incorporated in the amount of $105,477.00 Approved 5 -0 &I CONSENT (Continued) h. Resolution No. 6319 fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for Fiscal Year 2002 -2003 to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting Districts Adopted 5 -0 Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2162 amending Article IX, Chapter 8, Part 2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code concerning the City's Comprehensive Tree Management Program Recommendation: Introduce Introduced 5 -0 Ordinance No. 2164 approving Z -02 -001, a zone change from C -2 to R -3 for portions of the properties at 1510 -1516 South Baldwin Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Adopted 5 -0 k. Resolution No. 6316 adopting local ocal guidelines for implementing The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) Recommendation: Adopt Adopted 5 -0 10. CITY MANAGER a. Resolution No. 6323 establishing a reward for Information on Crimes Adopted 5 -0 Program Recommendation: Adopt Direction relative to offering a reward for information leading to the Reward offered: identification and apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the $20,000 Cole case murder of Charlotte Cole and the person responsible for the death of $ 5,000 Ji case Fuzhi Ji and Vincent Ji Approved 5 -0 Recommendation: Provide direction ADJOURN to September 3, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. 13 ADJOURNED at 8:17 p.m. TO: Mayor and City Council 0 -7 3 0 -Yo ` ✓r4niTs /-gnWScoge -Z 1"1'7/° STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: August 20, 2002 FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director' Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator FA� By: Tim O. Kelleher, Senior Engineering Assistant-77,-I.. Reviewed By: Jan Steese, Purchasing Officer SUBJECT: Award of contract - Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with DMA Contracting in the amount of $87,374.60 and additional appropriation of $11,015.00 SI IMMARY Fire Station 107 on Orange Grove Avenue was built in 1949. Since its construction there have been no major improvements done to upgrade the property other than typical maintenance. In 1998, staff weighed its options of whether to tear down and rebuild or renovate the fire station. Due to budget restraints and estimated costs, City Council opted to renovate. The renovation was divided into three phases to minimize disruption to the facilities' operations. Phase One was to renovate the interior of the structure which was complete in 2000. Phase Two was to renovate the exterior of the structure by painting and re- roofing. Phase Three is the landscape improvements. As part of the 2001 -02 CIP budget, City Council approved $114,000 of capital outlay funds to do Phase Two and Phase Three renovations to Fire Station 107. Phase Two, painting the exterior and re- roofing, was recently completed. On July 30, 2002, staff received bids to do Phase Three, landscape improvements. Staff has investigated the bid results and after considering all the facts and alternatives is recommending that City Council appropriate an additional $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund and award the landscape contract to DMA Contracting in the amount of $87,374.60. X_14� LAS ER IMAGED C�o ,v. q F "d, Staff Report Award of Contract - Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 August 20, 2002 Page Two DISCUSSION When the fire station was built in 1949, there was no irrigation for the rear and side yards nor was the property properly graded. Consequently, the existing landscaping in those areas is non - existent and all dirt. Also, the drainage for the rear and side yard has no outfall for rain water and, therefore, ponds in the side yard. The drainage issue is of major concern due to possible impacts to the firehouse structure if not addressed. LMA and Associates, Landscape Architects, developed plans and specifications addressing the drainage and landscape issues. The plan calls for extensive grading, drainage pipes, catch basins, and retaining wall to address the drainage issues. The plan also calls for a complete irrigation system and landscape plan for the rear and side yards. In addition to landscaping the rear and side yards, landscaping will be done around the perimeter of the station's front yard to enhance the firehouse's "curb appeal ", i.e., to make it residential in character. There were five qualified bidders who picked up the plans. Two of those contractors submitted bids. The low bidder was DMA Contracting from Tustin at $87,374.60. The other bid was from Mariposa at $97,020.45. Staff has investigated the low bid and concluded that the submitted bid is in line relative to current landscape construction prices. Staff also investigated the low bidder, DMA Contracting. Staff's investigation found DMA to be reputable and experienced. In conclusion, staff's investigation found DMA very capable of completing this project per plans and specifications. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 class 1(c) from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $114,000 have been appropriated in the 2001 -02 CIP budget to make the renovations at Fire Station 107, of which $28,904 has already been spent to paint and re -roof the station house. The account balance to do the landscape phase is $85,096. Staff estimates the cost to complete the projects' landscape phase is approximately $96,111. This estimate is based on the low bid of $87,374.60 for construction and another $8,737 (10 %) for contingencies. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund to complete the project. Staff Report Award of Contract - Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 August 20, 2002 Page Three RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with DMA Contracting in the amount $87,374.60 for the landscape improvements at Fire Station 107, and appropriate $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund for the project. Approved By: WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER DP:PAW:TOK :pa �) j V s '7 J4 x. ORIDORATISI9 STAFF 1ZEP0RT Public Works Services Department August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy: Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Sery s M nager Jim Brophy, Warehouse Operation SUBJECT: Purchase of janitorial supplies Recommendation: Approve the purchase of janitorial supplies for the Public Works Services Department's Warehouse in the amount of $105,477 from Delta Distributing Inc. SUMMARY: The City warehouse maintains an annual revolving inventory of janitorial supplies used by all City departments for the various City Facilities. Bids were solicited on July 31, 2002 for the purchase of janitorial supplies and other sundry items stocked by the warehouse. Based on last year's usage, it is estimated that the warehouse will process over $100,000 in orders next fiscal year. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of janitorial supplies for the Public Works Services Department's Warehouse in the amount of $105,477 to Delta Distributing Inc. DISCUSSION: The warehouse is responsible for purchasing and distributing all janitorial supplies for the City's facilities. It is critical that the warehouse maintain proper on -hand inventory levels to prevent an interruption to these vital services. Most items used in conjunction with janitorial services and facilities maintenance needs are considered a revolving inventory item, and must be replenished to continue smooth day -to -day operations of the various City facilities. LASER !NIAGED Mayor and City Council %w August 20, 2002 Page 2 Bids were solicited and bid packages distributed to interested vendors. Four (4) bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on July 31, 2002 with the following results: BIDDER LOCATION BID AMOUNT Delta Distributing Arcadia $105,477.50 Uni source Los Angles $109,315.95 Hillyard Inc. Commerce $111,808.50 Waxie Sanitary Supply El Segundo Noncompliant Staff recommends that the City Council approve the purchase of janitorial supplies for the Public Works Services Department's Warehouse in the amount of $105,477 to Delta Distributing Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funding is available in the 2002 -2003 budget to cover the cost of this acquisition. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: Approve the purchase of janitorial supplies for the Public Works Services Department's Warehouse in the amount of $105,477 from Delta Distributing Inc. Approved by: �n� William R. Kelly, City Manager PM: GFL:dw ,.�SG7• /71 STAFF REPORT oAAOasTffip� Administrative Services Department DATE: August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director Submitted By: Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6319 FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECESSARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003 TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS OF THE CITY LIGHTING DISTRICTS SUMMARY The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 [Division 14 of the California Streets and Highway Code Section 18,000 et seq.] to establish Lighting Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts consist of five (5) districts (Exhibit "A "). These districts were formed to provide a source of revenue for the cost of power, maintenance and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs collected from the property owner from funds derived from a tax applied to land values. Additionally, in June of 2001, the City issued General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a Police Facility. The debt service on the bonds is payable from a voter approved levy. DISCUSSION Each year a resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting Districts. This information is the basis for establishing tax rates, which are forwarded to Los Angeles County and applied to properties in specific districts. A separate schedule (Exhibit "B ") is attached to provide expanded detail of LASER IMAGED Cox/. 13 4. . 'rrr� assessed valuations, beginning balances, estimated expenditures and the proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2002 -2003. Attached is a report from the Public Works Services Department that identifies the annual operating costs within the lighting zones. This report and the identified costs serve as the basis for establishing the proposed rates. A special election was held on November 2, 1999, to consider a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $8,000,000 for the construction of a Police Facility. More than two- thirds of the votes cast were in favor of the agreed indebtedness with the principal and interest payable from taxes levied upon the taxable property within the City. This annual levy will provide for interest payments in the amount of $428,066 due on February 1, 2003 and August 1, 2003 and a principal payment of $130,000 due on August 1, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT The rates established for Fiscal Year 2002 -2003 will recover the debt service payment on the general obligation bonds and the costs eligible for reimbursement within the established districts. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6319 fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 2002 -2003 to pay the debt service on the general obligation bonds and authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting Districts. Attachment: Resolution No. 6319 APPROVED: William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:mac CITY OF ARCADIA STREET LIGHTING MAP 6- ij r • ZONE A EDISON ZONE B LS -1 ZONE C ® EDISON ZONED :.: { LS -2 ZONE E EXHIBIT "A" LIGHTING DISTRICTS M Exhibit "B" Balance 2002 -03 Estimated Estimated % Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates 7 -01 -02 Valuations Revenues (1) Expenditures (2) 2002-03(3) Zone A (14,501) 185,960,921 53,000 34,900 .028500 Zone B 23,635 988,666,134 73,000 87,867 .007383 Zone C 7,471 253,366,213 80,000 79,278 .031574 Zone D (4,295) 252,603,099 39,000 31,924 .015439 Zone E 9,402 228,588,397 36,000 41,450 .015749 (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help ensure districts maintain a positive balance. (2) Where major capital costs are planned or have been completed, the proposed tax capitalizes such costs over a fixed period of years. (3) For comparison, last year's rate were as follows: Zone A - .015763 B-.004933 C - .060267 D-.017778 E - .028002 ANNUAL OBLIGATION BONDS Balance 2002 -03 Estimated % Available Assessed Tax Tax Rates 7 -01 -02 Valuations Revenues Debt Service 2002 -2003 (43,000) 6,070,277,413 601,066 558,066 .0091934 n Arm; August 7, 2002 M MEMORANDUM Public Works Services Department TO: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director By: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Manager Prepared by: Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Report on 2002 -03 Estimate of Costs of Operating the Arcadia Consolidated Lighting Maintenance District This report is submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18164 of the Streets and Highways Code for the purpose of levying assessments against the various zones in the District. The estimated cost of operating each zone during the 2002 -03 fiscal year, including power and maintenance, is as follows: Zone A An Edison -owned system of 313 sodium vapor lamps in commercial areas. This street lighting was installed at no cost to the property owners, and the property owners agree to pay 60% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 40 %. Maintenance & Power Costs $58,167.81 60% Charge to Zone A $34,900.69 Zone B An Edison -owned system of 1,678 and 6 City -owned sodium vapor lamps in residential areas. The system was installed by the Edison Company, and property owners pay 50% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 50 %. City Power Cost $ 230.52 Maintenance $ 5,946.17 Maintenance & Power Costs (Edison) $169,557.47 Total Costs $175,734.16 50% of Charge to Zone B $ 87,867.08 n M Memo to: Tracey Hause August 7, 2002 Page 2 Zone C A City -owned and maintained system of 487 sodium vapor lamps in commercial areas. City installed system at no cost to the property owners, and property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of operations. Power Costs $ 49,619.54 Maintenance Costs $ 29,659.40 Total Cost $ 79,278.94 100% Charge to Zone C $ 79,278.94 Zone D A City -owned and maintained system of 353 lamps of various types in residential areas. Property owners paid basic cost of installation, and by agreement, property owners pay 50% of the cost of operation and the City pays the remaining 50 %. Power Costs $ 24,707.28 Maintenance Costs $ 39,140.04 Total Cost $ 63,847.32 50% charge to Zone D $ 31,923.66 Zone E A City -owned and maintained system of 317 sodium vapor lamps in residential areas. Property owners paid 25% of the cost of installation, with the City paying the remaining 75 %. Property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of operation. Power Costs $ 24,415.06 Maintenance Costs $ 17,035.38 Total Cost $ 41,450.44 100% Charge to Zone E $ 41,450.44 GRAND TOTAL $418,478.67 TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT $275,420.81 COST TO CITY $143,057.86 These estimates are calculated at projected rates for both power and maintenance. Should either the maintenance rates or energy costs result in expenses exceeding the above noted estimates, the shortfall will be added to next year's estimated costs. PM:GFL:dw Attachment Q w 11"10 �,•� STAFF REPORT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER DATE: August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6323 ESTABLISHING A REWARD FOR INFORMATION ON CRIMES PROGRAM DIRECTION RELATIVE TO OFFERING A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND APPREHENSION OF THE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF CHARLOTTE COLE AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF FUZHI JI AND VINCENT JI SUMMARY It has been suggested that the City of Arcadia offer a reward for information leading to the identity and apprehension of the person(s) responsible for the murder of Arcadia resident Charlotte Cole and the hit and run deaths of Fuzhi Ji and Vincent A This report seeks City Council direction on the development of a process and criteria for offering rewards and on the Cole and Ji cases specifically. BACKGROUND There is some City precedent with regard to offering rewards: In the mid 1980's, the City of Arcadia participated with other Los Angeles County cities to offer a reward in the "Nightstalker" case. On March 17, 1992, the City Council approved the offering of a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of individuals for acts of damage and vandalism to mail boxes in the City of Arcadia. At that time, the Council established a set of criteria under which the reward would be offered. These criteria, however, were relative to mailbox vandalism only. LASER IMAGED CL /O 'et .5c. M Mayor and City Council — Reward Program August 20, 2002 Page 2 DISCUSSION n Offering rewards for information leading to the arrest of a criminal is a relatively common practice among cities and counties. Many law enforcement agencies believe that offering rewards increases the likelihood that a member of the public will come forward with information that can potentially lead to the arrest and conviction of a criminal. Of interest, however, is that although the goal is to ultimately convict the person(s) responsible for the crime, State Law mandates that except in the case of a crime against a peace officer, rewards must be tied to the "identification and apprehension" rather than the "arrest and conviction" of the responsible party. At the present time, City staff brings forward for Council consideration a policy which pertains only to crimes against victims other than peace officers, since the recent crimes which generated this consideration involve victims other than peace officers. Staff recommends that the City Council review this matter on two levels: Should the City offer rewards as a means to solve crimes? Although we do not have access to statistical data on the issue, in general, law enforcement believes that rewards are a useful tool in solving some crimes. Specifically, crimes of a heinous nature that receive substantial media attention tend to generate public involvement in providing information. A social "issue /question" related to the use of rewards is whether they ultimately encourage a society that waits for a financial incentive before providing the police with information they may have about a crime. If the City Council determines that it is appropriate for the City to use rewards as a means to gain information, staff recommends that you adopt Resolution No. 6323 (attached) regarding the offering and distribution of reward money. 2. If the Council City approves the use of rewards, staff recommends that you also authorize a $20,000.00 reward for information leading to the identification and apprehension of the person(s) who murdered Charlotte Cole and a $5,000 reward for information leading to the identification and apprehension of the person responsible for the deaths of Fuzhi Ji and Vincent Ji. (Los Angeles County is offering a $5,000 reward for the Ji case and staff recommends that the City Council offer a reward of the same amount.) NkW +4% Mayor and City Council — Reward Program August 20, 2002 Page 3 On Saturday afternoon, September 1, 2001, Arcadia resident Charlotte Cole was stabbed repeatedly and brutally murdered in the rear parking lot of Coco's Restaurant at 59 Las Tunas Drive in Arcadia (Case #01- 5294). Charlotte Cole was a librarian, the mother of two children, and director of the children's choir at her church. Investigators have not been able to locate anyone who may have witnessed all or part of the incident, or anyone with additional information about the case. Despite the best efforts of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Arcadia Police Department, this case remains unsolved. The physical evidence collected at the scene has been analyzed and is still being tested. Thus far, it has failed to identify the person(s) responsible. Investigators have interviewed a large number of witnesses and persons associated with the victim. None of these interviews has provided information that would help lead to the arrest of the perpetrator. Despite the fact that the crime occurred in daylight, we have not been able to find anyone who witnessed the incident or who possibly saw the victim at the location prior to the attack. Investigators believe that there is a strong likelihood that there were witnesses to all or part of the incident and for whatever reason they have not contacted the police. In an effort to motivate potential witnesses to come forward, staff recommends that the City Council offer a reward for information that ultimately leads to the identify and apprehension of the person or persons responsible for the murder of Charlotte Cole. Investigators believe that a combination of media attention and reward money will act as sufficient motivation for any reluctant witnesses to contact the police. On June 14, 2002 at approximately 9:OOp.m. a 65 year old male, carrying his 2 year old grandson, was struck by a vehicle traveling southbound on Santa Anita Avenue at Bonita Street. The man and his grandson were walking eastbound across Santa Anita when they were hit. The driver of the vehicle failed to stop at the scene and fled southbound on Santa Anita. Both victims were transported to Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena where the adult male died from his injuries. The infant was later transported to Children's Hospital in Los Angeles where he passed away on June 15. The hit and run vehicle in this collision is described as small, dark color, possibly a hatchback — late 80's or early 90's model. M Mayor and City Council — Reward Program August 20, 2002 Page 4 M As in the Charlotte Cole case, Investigators believe that there may be witnesses to this accident that have yet to come forward. There were several other vehicles in the area at the time of the incident and it is hoped that the promise of reward money will increase the chances of someone coming forward with relevant and useful information. FISCAL IMPACT Consistent with State law, the Reward Program is structured such that the money is not actually dispensed until after the person or persons responsible for the crime are apprehended and a criminal complaint has been filed. As a result, although the reward may be offered now, it may be a long time before it is actually paid. If no one is arrested and charged with the offense for which the reward offer is made, the reward offer will be automatically rescinded upon expiration of the applicable statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. In some instances, reward monies may be paid from the Federal Narcotics Seizure Fund. In others, it will be necessary to appropriate money from the General Fund. Staff will request an appropriation of funds at the time the reward is ready to be given. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City Council either adopt or receive and file, without approval, Resolution No. 6323 establishing a Reward for Information On Crimes Program. 2. If the Council approves a Reward Program, staff recommends that you also authorize a $20,000.00 reward fund for information on the Charlotte Cole murder and a $6,000.00 reward fund for information about the deaths of Fuzhi Ji and Vincent Ji. Attachments: Resolution No. 6323 Statement of Policy — Reward for Information on Crimes 0 CITY OF ARCADIA STATEMENT OF POLICY REWARD FOR INFORMATION ON CRIMES Adopted via Resolution No. 6323 1. REWARD 0 A. The City Council may offer a reward and establish a reward fund for information leading to the identity and apprehension of any person or persons whose willful misconduct results in injury or death to any person, or whose willful misconduct results in damage or destruction of property'. The reward shall specify the person injured or killed or the property damaged or destroyed, the date (if available) the misconduct occurred, and the amount of the reward fund; B. Filing of a criminal complaint against the person or persons responsible for the crime shall be required for payment of a reward unless the City Council makes a finding of impossibility due to the death or incapacity of such person or persons. C. Information provided to law enforcement must have been voluntarily provided and not given under threat of prosecution or other legal sanctions. D. If no one is arrested and charged with the offense for which the reward offer is made, and subject to Section 3 hereof, the reward offer will be automatically rescinded upon the expiration of the applicable statue of limitations for criminal prosecution, unless sooner terminated by action of the City Council. E. Administration of the reward program shall be by the Police Department, under the direction of the City Manager. 2. AMOUNT OF REWARD A. A reward fund of up to a maximum of $20,000.00 per incident may be established and a reward may be offered to the person or persons who provide information leading to the apprehension of the person(s) committing the crime and the filing of a criminal complaint against said person(s). In particularly heinous crimes, or where it appears the community is at great risk, the City Council may increase the reward fund and offer. Private donations may be added to City funds to increase the size of the reward fund and offer. It is intended that this Policy apply to crimes against victim's other than peace officers, and that the City Council may establish a separate policy concerning crimes against peace officers. M Statement of Policy Reward for Information on Crimes Page 2 In situations where more than one person provides relevant information, proportionate shares of the reward will be allocated for distribution to eligible persons in relationship to the degree that their actions proved to be an element leading to the identity and apprehension of the person committing the crime. 3. PERIOD TO PROVIDE INFORMATION A. For a reward to be considered, the information must be received by the appropriate law enforcement agency or City department within six (6) months of the reward offer, unless otherwise extended by the City Council. 4. CLAIMS A. Claims for reward offers must be submitted in writing to -the Police Chief within 60 days after the expiration of the period to provide information as described in Section 3 hereof. The City Council may extend the claim period by motion in its sole and absolute discretion. B. All claims shall be in writing and provide, at a minimum, the name, address and telephone number of the claimant and the involved police agency. The claim shall also contain any other information deemed necessary by the City Manager or Police Chief. C. Claims shall be reviewed by the City Manager. In his /her discretion, the City Manager may establish an ad hoc advisory committee to provide advice concerning a claim. Any such committee may include, but is not limited to, the Police Chief, City Attorney, a representative of the District Attorney's Office and /or the Fire Chief. Either or both the City Manager and this ad hoc advisory committee established by the City Manager shall determine the merit and validity of a claim and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding reward amounts and distribution. 5. PUBLICATION A. Reward offers and notices of the claim period shall be published by the Police Department, in conjunction with the City Clerk's Office, and in accordance with Section 6062 and 6062a of the Government Code. i F 0 F 7a_F-5r , +" t,/a *-e r T," ""I Svcs STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct r Prepared by: Thomas Tait, Field Services Manager SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES OF CITY WATER SAMPLES Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino, Inc. in the amount of $47,137 for laboratory testing services of City water samples SUMMARY: All water providers are required by the State of California — Department of Health Services (DOHS) to perform periodic quality testing of their local water supply. These samples must be tested by a DOHS certified laboratory. A Request for Proposal was sent to five (5) local laboratories. Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino and two (2) other laboratories submitted proposals to perform water quality testing of the City's water supply. Two laboratories declined to submit a proposal. A staff committee selected Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino as the most qualified to perform the scope of work. The proposal submitted by Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino is in the amount of $47,137. Based on this review, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year Professional Services Agreement with annual extensions subject to approval of the City Council to Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino in the amount of $47,137 for laboratory testing services of City water samples. DISCUSSION: The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department collects water samples from the City's wells and pipelines to ensure the effective delivery of high quality potable water to the residents of Arcadia. The State of California Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring regulations require that samples be collected and tested weekly, monthly, quarterly and annually by a DOHS certified laboratory (Chapter 15, Title 22, California Code of Regulations). The scope of services for this Professional Services Agreement includes furnishing all labor, services, equipment, supplies and all other items and facilities necessary to appropriately analyze domestic water samples as required by the State of California, and special samples for discharge of water into the storm drainage system and special samples as required by C DOHS. SE �,,� ►i ED C' 0 /./ . rj ...2_ . Mayor and City Council August 20, 2002 Page 2 Staff requested proposals from (5) five local DOHS certified laboratories. Three (3) of these proposals were completed and returned to the Public Works Services Department. Two (2) laboratories, E.S. Babcock & Sons, Inc., and Montgomery Watson, declined to submit a proposal. The proposals were evaluated by a selection committee in accordance with Chapter 10 of the California Government Code, Sections 4525 -4529 (Qualifications -based Selection Process) and were ranked in the following order: RANK LABORATORY LOCATION (FEE TOTAL 1 Clinical Grand Terrace :$ 47,137.00 2 Truesdail Tustin $ 56,170.00 3 Weck Industry $ 80,755.00 4 E.S. Babcock Riverside (Declined 5 Montgomery Watson Pasadena (Declined Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino is the current contractor with the City for this work and has provided excellent and affordable service during the past year. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds for this service are provided in the 2002/03 Water Operating Budget. Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino, Inc. submitted a proposal to provide water quality testing services in the amount of $47,137. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to award a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $47,137 to Clinical Laboratory of Sari Bernardino, Inc. for water testing services for Fiscal Year 2002/03. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by: PM:TWT:dw T 11 1 William R. Kelly, City Manager TO: Mayor and City Council 073o-P"O ✓�'ry1Ts STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: August 20, 2002 FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director' Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator By: Tim O. Kelleher, Senior Engineering Assistant-77,4. Reviewed By: Jan Steese, Purchasing Officer SUBJECT: Award of contract — Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with DMA Contracting in the amount of $87,374.60 and additional appropriation of $11,015.00 SUMMARY Fire Station 107 on Orange Grove Avenue was built in 1949. Since its construction there have been no major improvements done to upgrade the property other than typical maintenance. In 1998, staff weighed its options of whether to tear down and rebuild or renovate the fire station. Due to budget restraints and estimated costs, City Council opted to renovate. The renovation was divided into three phases to minimize disruption to the facilities' operations. Phase One was to renovate the interior of the structure which was complete in 2000. Phase Two was to renovate the exterior of the structure by painting and re- roofing. Phase Three is the landscape improvements. As part of the 2001 -02 CIP budget, City Council approved $114,000 of capital outlay funds to do Phase Two and Phase Three renovations to Fire Station 107. Phase Two, painting the exterior and re- roofing, was recently completed. On July 30, 2002, staff received bids to do Phase Three, landscape improvements. Staff has investigated the bid results and after considering all the facts and alternatives is recommending that City Council appropriate an additional $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund and award the landscape contract to DMA Contracting in the amount of $87,374.60. `c_� LASER IMAGED C-0. q Tom, Staff Report _ f Award of Contract - Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 August 20, 2002 Page Two DISCUSSION When the fire station was built in 1949, there was no irrigation for the rear and side yards nor was the property properly graded. Consequently, the existing landscaping in those areas is non - existent and all dirt. Also, the drainage for the rear and side yard has no outfall for rain water and, therefore, ponds in the side yard. The drainage issue is of major concern due to possible impacts to the firehouse structure if not addressed. LMA and Associates, Landscape Architects, developed plans and specifications addressing the drainage and landscape issues. The plan calls for extensive grading, drainage pipes, catch basins, and retaining wall to address the drainage issues. The plan also calls for a complete irrigation system and landscape plan for the rear and side yards. In addition to landscaping the rear and side yards, landscaping will be done around the perimeter of the station's front yard to enhance the firehouse's "curb appeal ", i.e., to make it residential in character. There were five qualified bidders who picked up the plans. Two of those contractors submitted bids. The low bidder was DMA Contracting from Tustin at $87,374.60. The other bid was from Mariposa at $97,020.45. Staff has investigated the low bid and concluded that the submitted bid is in line relative to current landscape construction prices. Staff also investigated the low bidder, DMA Contracting. Staff's investigation found DMA to be reputable and experienced. In conclusion, staff's investigation found DMA very capable of completing this project per plans and specifications. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 class 1(c) from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $114,000 have been appropriated in the 2001 -02 CIP budget to make the renovations at Fire Station 107, of which $28,904 has already been spent to paint and re -roof the station house. The account balance to do the landscape phase is $85,096. Staff estimates the cost to complete the projects' landscape phase is approximately $96,111. This estimate is based on the low bid of $87,374.60 for construction and another $8,737 (10 %) for contingencies. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund to complete the project. Staff Report Award of Contract - Landscape Improvements at Fire Station 107 August 20, 2002 Page Three RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with DMA Contracting in the amount $87,374.60 for the landscape improvements at Fire Station 107, and appropriate $11,015 from the Capital Outlay Fund for the project. Approved By: _ WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER DP :PAW:TOK:pa 0 8� C °ra \4. _ •'°WAT, STAFF REPORT Development ServicesS Department DATE: August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Councils FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager / Development Services Director " Martha Eros, Transportation Services Officer SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6320 adopting Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority accepting Proposition C 5% Transit Security Funds. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY: Attached for City Council review and consideration is Resolution No. 6320 authorizing the Arcadia City Council to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to accept terms and conditions specific to Proposition C 5% Transit Security funds. The MOU will be valid for one (1) fiscal year (July 1 2002 -June 30, 2002), with the City receiving $7,452 in Transit Security funds in FY02 -03. Resolution No. 6320 authorizes the City Manager to submit a financial claim and a Transit Security Plan stating that the Arcadia Police Department will respond to security and safety issues affecting Arcadia Transit and all transportation systems operating in its jurisdiction. DISCUSSION: The 1990 Proposition C ordinance is a countywide half -cent sales tax dedicated to transportation services. Five percent of the Proposition C revenues are set aside by the MTA for transit security purposes, including use of local police to ensure the safety and protection of people and property onboard all transit systems in its jurisdiction. On June 20, 2002, the MTA approved its FY02 -03 budget and appropriated approximately $25 million in Transit Security Funds to improve security on regional and municipal operated transit systems. Prop C 5% Transit Security funds are distributed using a countywide formula allocation based on system ridership, with Arcadia Transit receiving one - hundredth of one percent of the formula, or $7,452. The City of Arcadia LASER I;�,AGED has received an annual allocation of security funds since the program's inception in FY98 -99. FISCAL IMPACT: In FY02 -03, the City of Arcadia will receive $7,452 in Proposition C 5% Transit Security funds for local police support on Arcadia Transit and all transit systems serving the City. These funds are in lieu of using General Fund monies for Arcadia police service to regional transportation. RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6320 ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROPOSITION C 5% TRANSIT SECURITY FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT ANNUAL CLAIMS AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO RECEIVE OPERATING OR CAPITAL SECURITY FUNDS FOR ARCADIA TRANSIT. Approved By: _ nq William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: 1. Arcadia Police Department Arcadia Transit Security Plan, FY02 -03 2. Resolution No. 6320, Prop C 5% Transit Security Funds 3. Memorandum of Understanding #MOU.PC03ARC1 Wage 2 C `.Fyn VkS s RE=D PROP C �,% SFC:URI Y 8 20 -i!2 ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT ARCADIA TRANSIT SECURITY PLAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003 This policy delineates the security plan of the Arcadia Police Department for interacting with Arcadia Transit (and included operator) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in a policing partnership for transit activities occurring within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Arcadia. Intent: It is the intent of the Arcadia Police Department to promote a safe environment for persons using transit systems operated by the City, Foothill Transit and the MTA within the City of Arcadia. In furtherance of transit safety, the Police Department commits to responding to calls for service, investigation of criminal conduct occurring on transit systems or property, and interacting with other police agencies having jurisdiction for transit operations. Police Operations Notification: Whenever Arcadia Transit, Foothill Transit or the MTA determine assistance is needed within Arcadia, transit agency dispatchers should contract the Arcadia Communications Center at (626) 574 -5123. Arcadia Dispatchers will transmit the request for service to field units. Response: Arcadia Police Units will respond to any requests for assistance, traffic related activity, or criminal violations occurring within the city limits. The priority of response will be directly related to the nature of the reported problem. Reports of emergencies or crimes in progress will be deemed high priority and will receive immediate attention based upon available manpower. Field units will coordinate their response to intercept buses or other vehicles in transit, or respond to a designated location if the problem is stationary. Officers observing activity suggesting a need for assistance; i.e., emergency lights activated on transit vehicles, disabled equipment, "call police" headsigns or verbal requests for help from an equipment operator will initiate an investigation to determine if police intervention is necessary. Investigation: Arcadia Police officers will conduct preliminary investigations of incidents and/or crimes, and prepare reports covering those investigations. Where necessary, they will forward the reports to Arcadia Police detectives for follow -up in those cases where additional investigation, the filing of criminal complaints or additional police action is required. Transit Security Plan Fiscal Year 2002 -2003 Page 2 Arcadia Police may request assistance from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Metro Unit for investigation of incidents where protracted investigation is necessary or where the scope of the incident exceeds the resources of the Arcadia Police Department. Report Availability: The Arcadia Police Department will make available to local transit or MTA Law Enforcement representatives copies of all reports pertaining to actions taken by Arcadia Police, pursuant to applicable laws and policy dictating disclosure of police documents and/or investigations. Training: The Arcadia Police Department will provide training to its officers in the identification of transit routes within the City of Arcadia. Arcadia officers currently receive ongoing training on the proper techniques for stopping and approaching transit vehicles. However, Arcadia Police may request updated training from MTA Law Enforcement authorities as needed to maintain proficiency or to incorporate new techniques or concepts that arise in the law enforcement realm. Coordination: The Uniform Division Commander of the Arcadia Police Department will be the agency coordinator for policing issues concerning Arcadia Transit, Foothill Transit, and the MTA, as well as other Department functions. C: \FY03 \Transit Security P[an_8 -20 -02 ... MOUTC03ARC1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROPOSITION C 5% TRANSIT SECURITY FUNDS This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is entered into as of June 30, 2002 by, and between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and City of Arcadia ( "GRANTEE "). RECITALS: A. On November 6, 1990, the voters of the County of Los Angeles approved by majority vote Proposition C, an ordinance establishing a one -half percent sales tax for public transit purposes; and B. The Proposition C ordinance states that 5% of the Proposition C Funds are to be used to improve and expand rail and bus security (the "Prop C 5% Security Funds "); and C. California Public Utilities Code Section 99285 0) (SB -1755 Calderon) directs a formula allocation of Prop C 5% Security Funds based on transit ridership to all Eligible /Included Operators; and D. MTA, as the agency responsible for administering the tax, has designated this formula allocation of Prop C 5% Security Funds as the funding source for the Transit Security Funds ( "TSF ") described and programmed by this MOU; and E. MTA has entered into a contract with the City of Los Angeles for the provision of transit security services to MTA, the other Eligible/Included Operators and their respective patrons by the Los Angeles Police Department ( "LAPD "); and F. MTA has entered into a contract with the County of Los Angeles for the provision of transit security services to MTA, the other Eligible /Included Operators and their respective patrons by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department ( "LASD "); and G. At this time, the other Eligible /Included Operators can elect to continue to pay and receive services from the LAPD and/or LASD under the MTA contract or provide for their own transit security. Therefore, the Eligible /Included Operators can elect to direct their TSF in one of the following ways: (1) allocate 100% of their share of TSF to the MTA for LAPD /LASD transit security services as specified in the Service LOA, as defined in Recital H below; (2) allocate a portion of their share of TSF to the MTA for LAPD /LASD transit security services as specified in the Service LOA and retain the remaining portion of the TSF to provide for their own transit security as specified in the Service Plan, as defined in Section 4.2 below; or (3) receive 100 % of their share of the TSF to provide for their own transit security as specified in the Service Plan; and H. Commencing with FY 2000, to the extent LAPD and LASD will provide transit security service to any Eligible /Included Operator, such service will not begin and no payments COF)lf Vhk A MOU. PCO ARC 1 will be made until the Eligible /Included Operator, the LASD /LAPD and the MTA enter into a letter of agreement (the "Service LOA "). The Service LOA shall specify the level of LAPD /LASD service to be provided to those Eligible /Included Operators electing to allocate either 100% or a portion of their TSF to the MTA for LAPD /LASD transit security services; and I. GRANTEE is an Eligible /Included Operator and desires to allocate its share of TSF as provided in this MOU; and J. MTA and GRANTEE desire to enter into this MOU to allocate GRANTEE's share of TSF and to agree to the terms and conditions of the TSF. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, MTA and GRANTEE hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 — TERM I.I. MOU will be in effect from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 unless terminated earlier as provided herein. 1.2. The MTA reserves the right to terminate this MOU and withhold TSF if it is determined that the GRANTEE has not used best efforts to adhere to all the terms and conditions contained herein. 1.3. Any withholding of TSF or termination of this MOU by MTA, - is subject to (9) affirmative votes of the MTA governing board. ARTICLE 2- ALLOCATION OF TSF FUNDS AND INVOICE PROCEDURE 2.1. Each fiscal year, to the extent TSF is available, MTA staff, in coordination with the Eligible /Included Operators, will develop the Annual Proposition C 5% Transit Security Funding Allocation (the "Annual Security Allocation ") which will describe (1) Grantee's share of the TSF pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 99285 0); and (2) the distribution of Grantee's share of the TSF. Grantee shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the Annual Security Allocation prior to MTA staff submitting the Annual Security Allocation to the MTA Board for approval. 2.2. For each fiscal year covered by this MOU, GRANTEE hereby directs MTA to allocate Grantee's share of TSF pursuant to the applicable Annual Security Allocation for that fiscal year as approved by the MTA board. Attached, as Exhibit A is the Annual Security Allocation for FY 2003. If MTA staff, in coordination with the Eligible /Included Operators, develops a mid -year reallocation of the Annual Security Allocation, which is approved by the MTA board, Grantee hereby directs MTA to make such mid -year adjustments to its Annual Security Allocation as approved by the MTA board. MOUTC03ARC 1 2.3. To the extent GRANTEE directs that the MTA retain any TSF to pay for LAPD /LASD transit security services for GRANTEE in Section 2.1 above, GRANTEE hereby authorizes MT A to take such funds and apply such funds to MTA's contracts with the LAPD and LASD. GRANTEE and MTA understand that commencing with FY 2000 and for each subsequent fiscal year thereafter, MTA will not be authorized to take Grantee's TSF and apply such funds to MTA's contracts with LAPD and LASD and Grantee shall not receive any transit security services from the LAPD /LASD until such time the parties enter into a Service LOA specifying the level of service to be provided to GRANTEE. GRANTEE will not need to submit an invoice for any amounts retained by MTA to pay LAPD /LASD. 2.4. To the extent GRANTEE directs that it receive any TSF, each fiscal year, GRANTEE shall send MTA one invoice for such appropriate amount consistent with the amount shown on the applicable Annual Security Allocation. MTA shall not be obligated to forward any TSF to GRANTEE until it receives an invoice and the Security Plan, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. MTA shall make payments to Grantee on a quarterly basis, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. ARTICLE 3 - USE OF FUNDS 3.1. GRANTEE shall use any TSF provided herein to provide transit security as provided in its Security Plan. 3.2. MTA shall use any TSF received hereunder to pay LAPD /LASD to provide transit security services to GRANTEE as specified in the Service LOA. 3.3. GRANTEE understands if it decides to allocate either 100% or a portion of its TSF to the MTA for LAPD /LASD transit security services, it will need to enter into a Service LOA. 3.4. To the extent Grantee receives any TSF, GRANTEE shall not use the TSF to supplement or pay for general police or other security services not related to transit. 3.5. To the extent Grantee receives any TSF, GRANTEE shall use TSF for operating or capital security assistance and shall not use TSF to substitute for any other funds, service, or project not specified in this MOU or the Service LOA. ARTICLE 4 - AUDIT AND REPORTING REQUIRMENTS 4.1. Each fiscal year, MTA or its designee shall have the right to conduct a financial and compliance audit(s) of the program. To the extent Grantee receives the TSF, GRANTEE agrees to establish and maintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents in accordance with conditions defined by this MOU. GRANTEE shall maintain financial records for three (3) years after the end of the fiscal year within which the TSF was dispersed. MTA may audit as provided herein up to three years after the end of the fiscal year within which the TSF was dispersed. ..r. ..o#& MOUTC03ARC 1 4.2. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 99285 0), GRANTEE shall file a cost effective security program to provide transit security (the "Security Plan") with the MTA prior to receiving all or a portion of TSF. 4.3. For those Eligible /Included Municipal Operators who directly receive their TSF, the Security Plan shall be submitted annually with the annual invoice. For those Eligible /Included Municipal Operators who direct all TSF to the MTA for the LAPD /LASD, the Security Plan stating such may be filed once with the MTA for the duration of the MOU unless there are any changes to the Security Plan in which event, the Eligible /Included Municipal Operator shall once again be required to submit its Security Plan annually with the annual invoice. ARTICLE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS 5.1. This MOU along with the Annual Security Allocation, the Service LOA, if any, and the Security Plan, if any, constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter described herein. No amendments or modifications to this MOU shall be binding upon either party unless such amendment or modification is in writing and duly executed by both parties. This MOU shall not be amended or modified by any acts or conduct of the parties. 5.2. GRANTEE agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations in the provision of public transit services. 5.3. GRANTEE is not a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA. GRANTEE shall not represent itself as a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA and shall have no power to bind the MTA in contract or otherwise. 5.4. To the extent GRANTEE receives the TSF, GRANTEE understands and agrees that in programming the TSF, MTA is acting pursuant to its statutory authority and MTA shall have no liability in connection with the use of such TSF. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify MTA for all liability arising out of GRANTEE'S performance in the provision of public transit security services paid for by TSF. .ao, MOUTC03ARC 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be duly executed as of the dates below with all the formalities required by law. City of Arcadia GRANTEE Date : ATTEST: Date: 5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BY: Roger Snoble Chief Executive Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: LLOYD W. PELLMAN County ounsel By: Date: U 14�-/Da' COPY G P-3v -35 y \. Air'/'o 0- yO q0 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development ment Services Directoev! Martha Eros, Transportation Services Officer SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6321 adopting Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority accepting Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds for the Proposition C Interest and Bus System Improvement Plan programs. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY: Attached for City Council review and consideration is Resolution No. 6321 authorizing the Arcadia City Council to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to accept terms and conditions for Proposition C Discretionary funds specific to two (2) programs, Proposition C Interest (PCI) and Bus System Improvement Plan (BSIP). The MOU will be valid for ten �10) years (July 1 2002 -June 30, 2012), unless terminated earlier per MOU provisions . Resolution No. 6320 authorizes the City Manager to submit a financial claim and any necessary documents supporting the use of operating funds. DISCUSSION: The 1990 Proposition C ordinance is a countywide half -cent sales tax dedicated to transportation services. Forty percent of Proposition C revenues are reserved by MTA for discretionary uses intended to increase mobility of the transit dependent public, including improvements and expansion of bus and rail services. On June 20, 2002, the MTA Board of Directors approved its FY2 -03 budget and appropriated approximately $30 million in Proposition C discretionary funds for disbursement among five programs: Prop C Interest ( "PCI "), Bus Systems ' MOU #MOU.PC03ARC2, Article 5.4 -6. CAD ..,.sFYJ3';T,^ F' ,F_Pr r C;: vn, a °loai t' AS CO3/,/, q iG . Improvement Plan ( "BSIP "), Transit Service Expansion ( "TSE "), Foothill Mitigation ( "FMIT "), and Base Restructuring ("BASE")'. The City of Arcadia will receive $26,321 in PCI funds and $15,705 in BSIP funds in FY02 -03 based on the formula allocation, whereby the City receives one -tenth of one percent of the formula distribution. FISCAL IMPACT: In FY02 -03, the City of Arcadia will receive a combined total of $42,026 in Proposition C 40% Discretionary funds to operate Arcadia Transit. This amount represents 3% of the Arcadia Transit operating budget and is supplemental to the Proposition C Local Return funds the City currently receives. RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6321 ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROPOSITION C 40% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR THE PROP C INTEREST AND BUS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAMS, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT ANNUAL CLAIMS AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR OPERATION OF THE ARCADIA TRANSIT SYSTEM. Approved By:'0 1 William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: 1. Resolution No. 6321, Prop C 40% Discretionary- PCI and BSIP 2. Memorandum of Understanding #MOU.PC03ARC2 2 MOU #MOU.PC03ARC2. Article 3.1 -5. Pacer= 2 ° iA€ f- Proo C; 4,0%, interest- Sli g,.2t7 0 tr- YCjT S 2 MOU# MOU.PC03ARC2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ALLOCATE PROPOSITION C 40% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is entered into as of June 30, 2002 by and between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( "MTA ") and City of Arcadia ( "GRANTEE "). WHEREAS, on November 6, 1990, the voters of the County of Los Angeles approved by majority Proposition C, an ordinance establishing a one -half percent sales tax for public transit purposes; and WHEREAS, the MTA, is the agency responsible for administering the tax; and WHEREAS, from time to time, the MTA Board has identified, Proposition C 40% Discretionary Funds (the "FUNDS ") as the funding source for the following programs: Proposition C Interest Funds ( "PCI "), Transit Service Expansion ( "TSE "), Foothill Mitigation ( "FMIT "), Recession Mitigation (" RM "), Fair Share Allocation ( "SHARE "), Bus System Improvement Plan ( "BSIP ") and Base Restructuring ( "BASE ") WHEREAS, the GRANTEE is an eligible operator and desires to receive the FUNDS from MTA for the programs indicated below (referred to, individually as a "Program" and collectively, as "Programs "): • Prop C. Interest Funds Foothill Mitigation Transit Service Expansion Base Restructuring • Bus System Improvement Plan WHEREAS, MTA and GRANTEE desire to agree to the terms and conditions of the grant of FUNDS for the GRANTEE's Programs ( "MOU "). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual term and conditions contained herein, MTA and GRANTEE hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 - TERM 1.1. This MOU will be in effect from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2012 unless terminated earlier as provided herein. ARTICLE 2 — ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND INVOICE PROCEDURE 2.1. Each fiscal year, to the extent the FUNDS are available, MTA staff, in co ' a CFY ... Aw. Eligible /Included Operators, will develop funding marks for those Programs to be funded that fiscal year (the" Annual Funding Marks "). The Annual Funding Marks will describe GRANTEE's share of the FUNDS for GRANTEE's Programs to the extent such Programs are funded that fiscal year. GRANTEE shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the applicable Annual Funding Marks prior to MTA staff submitting the Annual Funding Marks to the MTA Board for approval. 2.2. For each fiscal year covered by this MOU, GRANTEE hereby directs MTA to allocate GRANTEE's share of the FUNDS pursuant to the applicable Annual Funding Marks for that fiscal year as approved by the MT A Board. Attached as Exhibit A are the applicable Annual Funding Marks for GRANTEE's Projects in FY 2003. If MTA staff, in coordination with the Eligible/Included Operators, develops a mid -year reallocation of any Annual Funding Marks that is approved by the MTA Board, GRANTEE hereby directs and authorizes MTA to make such mid -year adjustments to its Annual Funding Marks, as approved by the MT A Board, if applicable. 2.3. Each fiscal year, GRANTEE shall send MTA one invoice for each GRANTEE Program in an amount consistent with the amount shown on the applicable Annual Funding Marks. MTA shall not be obligated to forward the FUNDS for a particular Program to GRANTEE until it receives an invoice. For each Program, MTA shall make payments to GRANTEE on a quarterly basis, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. ARTICLE 3 - USE OF FUNDS 3.1. GRANTEE shall utilize the FUNDS (i) in accordance with the MTA Proposition C 40% Discretionary Guidelines (the "GUIDELINES ") (as adopted by MTA in May 1992, (ii) only for operating assistance of the applicable Program transit services in the year of allocation for which GRANTEE has received FUNDS, and cannot be carried over to the next fiscal year and (iii) in accordance with MTA Board action in approving the FUNDS to GRANTEE. 3.2. GRANTEE shall not use any FUNDS received for a particular Program to substitute for any other funds, service, or project except as otherwise specifically provided for in this MOU. 3.3. GRANTEE shall utilize the BSIP FUNDS for services that will relieve overcrowding for the most transit dependent customers and results in improving service quality for the transit dependent. 3.4. GRANTEE shall not use any FUNDS received for the SHARE or RM Program to substitute for other funds; provided, however, GRANTEE may use the FUNDS received for the SHARE or RM Program to substitute for the following funds only: (I) Formula Allocation Procedure funds; (ii) Proposition A Discretionary funds; (iii) if GRANTEE has incurred debts or is planning to incur debts to balance its operating and capital budgets for the same fiscal year in which the FUNDS were programmed (the "Same Fiscal Year "), GRANTEE may use the FUNDS received for the SHARE or RM Program in lieu of such borrowings; and/or (iv) Proposition A & C Local Return funds budgeted for the Same Fiscal Year which were originally programmed as operating revenues and which have been reprogrammed for F capital purposes; provided, however, the total amount of FUNDS received for the SHARE or RM Program budgeted in the Same Fiscal Year as operating revenues does not decrease as a result of such reprogramming and the Maintenance of Effort continues to be met. 3.5. Any unspent FUNDS received for a particular Program must be returned to MTA no later than 60 days after the completion of any required fiscal and compliance audits of such Program performed- either b-y-th-e-M-TA or GRANT -EE, -- un-le"- henvise agreed to ;n = ruing_ by the parties ARTICLE 4 — AUDIT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 4.1. Each fiscal year, MTA or its designee shall have the right to conduct a financial and compliance audit(s) of GRANTEE's Programs. GRANTEE agrees to establish and maintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents in accordance with conditions defined by this MOU. GRANTEE shall maintain financial records for three (3) years after the end of the fiscal year within which the FUNDS were dispersed. MTA may audit as provided herein up to three years after the end of the fiscal year within which the FUNDS were dispersed. 4.2. GRANTEE shall comply with all Federal National Transit Database reporting requirements and shall annually submit a completed copy of said report to MTA. 4.3. By November 30th of each year, the GRANTEE shall submit to the MTA a completed TPM form which separately reports prior fiscal year data pertaining to all non formula service. 4.4. By December 30 of each year, the GRANTEE shall submit to the MTA an annual financial audit report which identifies the use of the FUNDS for transit purposes. ARTICLE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS 5.1. Each grant given pursuant to an Annual Funding Mark shall be a one -time grant subject to the terms and conditions agreed to herein and in the GUIDELINES. Notwithstanding the term of this MOU, each grant does not imply nor obligate any future funding commitment on the part of the MTA. 5.2. GRANTEE understands and agrees that in programming the FUNDS and entering into this MOU, MTA is acting pursuant to its statutory authority and shall have no liability in connection with the use of these FUNDS for public transit purposes or for any of the Programs. GRANTEE shall fully indemnify, defend and hold the MTA, its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any liability and expenses, including without limitation, defense costs, any costs or liability on account of bodily injury, death or personal injury of any person or for damage to or loss of risk of property, any environmental obligation, legal fees and any claims for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of (i) breach of GRANTEE'S obligations under this MOU; (ii) misuse of the FUNDS by GRANTEE, or its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors; (iii) any act or omission of the GRANTEE or its officers, agents, employees or subcontractors in the ,i.. performance and/or provision of the services provided under the GRANTEE'S Programs. 5.3. GRANTEE agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations in the provision of public transit services and any services rendered for the GRANTEE's Programs. 5.4. The MTA reserves the right to terminate this MOU and withhold the FUNDS if it is date mined that the- ri��t <<�*nnliP�l x�ith all thP�p .$ an(j.s ^nrlitinnc [`nntainP.[j herein or in the GUIDELINES. 5.5. Any withholding of FUNDS, termination of the MOU, or imposition of any financial penalty against GRANTEE pursuant to the GUIDELINES is subject to nine (9) affirmative votes by the governing board of the MTA. 5.6. No amendment or modification to this MOU shall be binding upon either party unless such amendment or modification is in writing duly executed by both parties. This MOU shall not be amended or modified by any acts or conduct of the parties. 5.7. GRANTEE is not a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA. GRANTEE shall not represent itself as a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA and shall have no power to bind the MTA in contract or otherwise. 5.8. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be duly executed as of the dates below with all the formalities required by law. .Oft City of Arcadia GRANTEE Date: Approved As To Form: 0 Date: �wm t PC a3AKL2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Roger Snoble Chief Executive Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: LLOYD W. PELLMAN COUNTY COUNSEL By: UU 0 (C(DPY - ‹`rY oF� o A ARCADIA f�` �°g STAFF REPORT August 20., 2002 Development Services Department TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrato L/ SUBJECT: REVISED CHANGES TO THE R-1 AND R-0 ZONING REGULATIONS BACKGROUND Since the 1940's the City's single-family zoning regulations have undergone numerous changes (see attached History Exhibit A). The most recent changes were in 1999 when the City Council adopted new R-O and R-1 zoning regulations relating to the scale, mass and bulk of residential dwellings. The regulations were designed to accomplish this by: 1. restricting the height of the front entry, 2. requiring no portion of a building to encroach through a plane projected from the front property line and 3. restricting the number of garage openings fronting on a street. One of the changes recommended by staff at that time was inclusion of a floor area ratio (FAR) of 50% that would place a limit on the maximum allowable square footage of houses and structures on a lot. It was the consensus of the City Council in approving the new regulations that they did not wish to impose a • FAR because they wanted to see how the new regulations would work to accomplish their goals without a FAR. During the October 1999 hearing process several homeowner associations expressed interest in having a FAR in their area and at a later study session the City Council approved a process whereby a FAR could be implemented in these areas. The Santa Anita Village initially expressed interest in establishing a FAR for their area, but did not proceed for reasons unknown to staff. No other ,�r `a"*� homeowners association even pursued the concept of adding a FAR to thei PR 1 area. �� Single-Family Report SS- August 20, 2002 Page 1 Throughout the past three years, the Development Services Department staff has monitored the construction of new dwellings to determine if the 1999 revisions have accomplished their goal of reducing the overall mass of dwellings. Although there has been an observable change in the street elevation, it is staffs opinion that the codes need to be further refined to better address entries, architectural projections and street side yard setbacks. In addition, to addressing the above issues, the Development Services • Department is recommending that new sections be added to both the R-O and R-1 zoning regulations that address circular driveways and non-permanent structures such as tents and canopies. DISCUSSION Front Yard Setbacks/Entries • Front Yard Setback requirements (9252.2.2 and 9251.2.2) are proposed to be changed to state "There shall be no vertical or architectural elements located above the entry that emphasize the scale and massing of the structure. No architectural features shall be allowed in the required set back with the exception of an entry as defined in Section.9252.2.1, a gable roof not exceeding a maximum height of 14 feet and roof eaves." • Building Entry has been specifically defined as noted below to provide both the public and staff with a better understanding No building shall have an entry exceeding a building height of fourteen (14'-0") feet. Entry is defined as any portion of a building that provides access to the building, including any and all portions of the building directly above a porch, foyer, sitting room, or any other area, whether or not it is usable floor space, including, but not limited to, balconies, open air space, enclosed air space, attic space, decorative railings, columns and finials and dormers or vents. Side Yards on Corner Lots • Side Yard — Corner Lot - this section requires the second story to be set back a minimum of 5'-0" from the first story and that no portion of the structure shall encroach through an angle of 40 degrees as measured from the property line. In addition staff has added wording that says "Expanses of flat building walls shall not exceed 25 feet in width without providing architectural indentations and/or projects width a minimum depth of two (2) feet and a minimum width of Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 2 • • Side Yard — Reverse Corner Lot —the new amendments would require a 25'- 0" street side setback in lieu of 20'-0" and that the second story be set back 5'-0" from the first story and that no building encroach through a plane projected from an angle of 40 degrees. Also, staff has added wording that says "Expanses of flat building walls shall not exceed 25 feet in width without providing architectural indentations and/or projects width a minimum depth of two (2) feet and a minimum width of 6'-0"." Driveway Areas An item that staff hears about periodically are "circular driveways" and the area it occupies within a front yard. Although the City has. a requirement that no more than 40% of a front yard area shall be hardscape, currently circular driveways are allowed on all lots, regardless of lot width. Several cities we checked with only allow circular driveway where is a minimum amount of frontage on the street. Staff is suggesting the following code addition: "Lots with street frontage of 75 feet or greater are eligible for circular driveways. On lots with more than one street frontage, a circular driveway shall be located on the street frontage that is 75 feet or greater." "The circular driveway shall not have a width greater than 15 feet." "The circular driveway shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet measured perpendicular from the property line to the furthest distance of the inside edge of the circular driveway." Tents and Canopies A more recent problem being encountered in the residential zones is the addition of temporary tents and canopies used as "carports" and/or patio covers. The Development Services Department is recommending that the following be added to the City's regulations: xxxx. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. (amend the EXCEPTION to read) EXCEPTION. One (1) temporary or portable structure with the exception of tents and canopies, not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and eight feet six inches (8'-6") in height is permitted. Said structure must comply with all setback requirements and, if applicable, be approved by the City's established Homeowners' Associations: xxxx Tents and Canopies It shall be unlawful for any person, to erect, put in place or maintain in place, any tent, tent-house, canvas house or structure constructed of canvas, Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 3 cloth or other fabric; any canopy or canopy structure constructed of canvas, cloth or other fabric or material within a distance of one hundred feet from the front property line of any lot or subdivision of land within the city, or within twenty feet of any dwelling, house, building or other structure or within the required side and rear setback of any property.. Exceptions: The provisions of this section shall not apply as follows: 1. Decorative canopies and awnings constructed as a component or feature of an overall architectural design. 2. Picnic umbrellas not in excess of ten feet in diameter. 3. Temporary tents and canopies. Temporary tents and canopies of any size may be erected in any location with the exception of the front yard and/or street side yard setback areas on a parcel or lot for a period that is not in excess of three (3) days. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is generally defined as the combined gross floor area of all floors in all buildings and structures on a lot including basements, enclosed covered porches and patios, enclosed carports, garages and storage sheds. Some cities exclude basements, garages, unfinished attics, unenclosed porches, decks, balconies and patios and storage sheds from this definition. In other cities the FAR is based not on living area, but rather on the total building envelope area enclosed by the exterior walls. In other words air space above entries, stairwells, etc. would be calculated as part of the overall FAR. The following is an example of allowable square footages utilizing a FAR on typical size lots within the city. SQUARE FOOTAGES ALLOWED BY FAR'S RANGING FROM 25% TO 50%* LOT SIZE 25% FAR 30% FAR 35% FAR 40% FAR 45% FAR 50% FAR 7,500 1,875 2,250 2,625 3,000 3,375 3,750 10,000 2,500 . 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 12,500 3,125 3,750 4,375 5,000 5,625 6,250 15,000 3,750 4,500 5,250 6,000 6,750 7,500 22,000 5,500 6,600 7,700 8,800 9,900 - 11,000 30,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 4 y As an alternative to floor area ratio, some cities establish a maximum size of dwelling permitted on a lot based on the lot square footage. The following is an example from the City of Monrovia: • Lot Size (square feet) Maximum size of House (square feet) 5,999 or less 2,000 6,000 -7,500 3,000 7,501 - 8,499 3,250 8,500 - 9,999 3,900 _10,000 - 17,499 4,500 17,500 - 19,999 4,800 20,000 - 22,499 5,100 22,500 - 24,999 5,700 25,000 - 27,499 6,000 27,500 - 29,999 6,300 30,000 - 32,499 6,600 32,500 - 34,999 6,900 35,000 - 37,499 7,200 37,500 - 43,559 7,405 43,560+ 17% lot area Notes: Attached garages are counted as accessory floor area Floor area is measured from external walls Accessory Buildings - the ratio of total gross accessory building floor area (including attached garages) to lot area can not exceed the percentages shown in the following table: MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING FAR* Lot Size Floor Area Ratio 0-43,560 SQ. FT. 10% Over 1 acre 8% *Accessory structures cannot exceed 80% of the dwelling unit size Design Review A separate report has been prepared relative to architectural design review for single-family dwellings. ACTION The above information is for discussion purposes. The Development Services Department is requesting direction from the City Council on how you would like the City to proceed. Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 5 4 HISTORY OF THE R-1 AND R-O REGULATIONS Since the 1940's the City has revised the single-family regulations many times to create regulations that would provide better residential development in the City. The following is a summary of some of these changes: 1940 There were two single-family zones, R-1-A First Single Family Residence District and R-1 Single-Family Residence District. The maximum height allowed for a residence was one/half the width of the street upon which the lot fronted, not to exceed 2 1/z stories in height Lot coverage was limited to 30% and 40% on corner lots. There is no restriction on lot coverage on interior lots. There were no setbacks set forth in the code. 1949 The two single-family zones were changed to R-O First One-Family Zone and R- 1 Second One-Family Zone. The height allowed was 2 1/2 stories not to exceed 35'. Front yard setbacks were established for the R-O zone of a minimum of 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 30'; in the R-1 zone the minimum was 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 25'. The interior side yard setbacks for both the first and second floor in the R-O and R-1 zones was a minimum of 3'-0" feet. On a corner lot the setback requirement was a minimum of 10'-0". The established rear yard setback for both the R-O and R-1 zone was 25% of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 25'-0". - The maximum lot coverage was eliminated. 1964 • The building height was reduced in both the R-O and R-1 zones to two (2) stories, 35' maximum • Page EXHIBIT A 7/02 1t • 1965 The interior side yard setback was increased to a minimum of 5'-0" for both the • first and second floor. On a corner lot the minimum side yard setback on the street side was 10% of the width of the lot but not less than 10'. 1967 The side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks were changed for both the R-O and R-1 zones as follows: R-O - For a two (2) story dwelling the setback was 5'-0" for the first floor and 10'-0" for the second floor. R-1 - For a two (2) story dwelling the setback was 3'-0" for the first floor and 5'-0" for the second floor. There were no changes to the front yard setback for the R-O zone; however the front yard setback in the R-1 zone was changed to 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 25'-0". The rear yard setback in the R-O zone was increased to 35'-0". The rear yard setback for the R-1 zone was changed so that no portion of a second story would be closer than 35' and the first floor was still 25%•of the depth of the lot with a maximum requirement of 25'. 1969 • A maximum lot coverage of 45% was established in the R-O and R-1 zones. 1973 The front yard setbacks in the R-O and R-1 zones were changed to 30' and 25' respectively. The rear yard setback in the R-1 zone was changed to a minimum of 25' for the first floor and 35' for the second floor. 1980 The side yard setbacks were amended to require a minimum of 10' in the R-O zone for both the first and second floor. The R-1 zone required a minimum of 5'- 0" for the first floor and 10' for the second floor. Page 2 7/02 • • 1988 The building height and side yard setbacks were amended. The building height was based on a sliding scale ranging from 25' to 35' depending on the lot width. Setbacks were changed to require a minimum of 10'-0 for the first floor in an R-O zone and 5' + 10% of the width of the lot for the second floor with a minimum of 10' required, with a maximum requirement of 15'. The R-1 zone was amended to require a minimum of 5' for the first floor and a minimum 5' + 10% of the width of the lot for the second floor with a minimum of 10' required with a maximum requirement of 15'. In addition an ordinance was adopted which required a minimum 20' side yard setback on reverse corner lots in both the R-O and R-1 zones. 1990 An ordinance was adopted to change the maximum lot coverage in the R-O, R-M and R-1 zones to be 45% for one-story dwellings and 35% for two story dwellings. • In addition a second ordinance was adopted that established new building height requirements in the R-O and R-1 zones of: Lots less than 75' in width 25' Lots 75' in width or greater 30' New setback requirements were also adopted as follows: R-O 1st Floor 10% of the width of the lot — not less than 10'-0" - maximum required is 15'-0 2nd Floor 20% of the width of the lot — not less than 15'-0" — maximum required is 20' R-1 1St floor 10% of the width of the lot— not less than 5'-0" — maximum required is 10' 2nd floor 20% of the width of the lot— not less than 10' — maximum required is 20" • 1994 Code change to prohibit projects having more than a single-story directly above any proposed below grade or subterranean garage in the R-O and R-1 single- family zones (Ord. 2020) Page 3 7/02 1999 Major revisions to the R-O and R-1 Regulations: Building Height: Reduced the height of entries to 14'-0" (both R-O and R- 1) Front Yard Setback: No portion of structure may encroach through an angle of 30° (was 40°) (both R-O and R-1) Side Yard Setback Minimum 10% of width of lot— 1 story— Minimum 5' R-1, 10' R-O Minimum 20% of width of lot— 2 story — Minimum 10' R- 1, 15'-0" R-O Maximum setback requirement has been eliminated Side Yard Setback— Corner lot Minimum 15'-0 (staff recommended 20'-0 with 45° angle) - R-1 Minimum 20'-0" — R-O Parking 2 spaces and 1 addition space for 5 or more bedrooms Parking — garage On lots less than 100' in width no more than 16 linear openings feet of garage openings facing the street Side Yard — swimming Pools 5'-0" Fence Height—front Yard 3'-0" (used to be 4'-0') — R-1 -- 4'-0" R-O Front Yard Land- Not more than 40% of required front yard may be paved. Scaping In addition to the above, the Development Services Department recommended a maximum FAR at this time of 50% - which was not adopted. Miscellaneous Changes 1988 - In 1988, the City Council adopted regulations to be used as consideration for establishing the formation of any new homeowners association or annexation to an existing association. If homeowners are interested in forming a homeowners association in any portion of the City, the criteria set forth in these regulations should be initiated. This criterion was used to annex an area to the Highland Homeowners Association in 1994. 1992 In 1992 a committee was established to study architectural design review for the single-family residential properties within the City. The task of the Committee Page 4 7/02 I was to develop design guidelines that, if adopted, could be implemented by future design review board(s). The Committee proposed that architectural design review be applied to all R-O and R-1 single-family zoned properties within the City not currently located in an existing homeowners association. The Committee felt that design criteria should be broad enough to allow flexibility of design and to provide some generalized standards to avoid that which is substantially unrelated to the neighborhood and garish. As a result of the Committee's recommendation, a text amendment was initiated (T.A. 93-003). Based upon all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission upon consideration of the text amendment voted 3 to 2 to not recommend approval of this text amendment. On November 2 three Council Members felt that based upon the hearing before the Planning Commission, there did not appear to be adequate interest from the public in pursuing architectural design review and no further action was taken. • Page 5 7/02 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS BASED ON ANGLE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SETBACK (feet) 30 Degree Angle 35 Degree Angle 40 Degree Angle _ 25 14.4' 17.5' 21' 30 • 17.3' 21' 25.2' 35 20.2' 24.5' 29.4' 40 23.1' 28' 30' 45 26' 30' 30' 50 28.9' 30' 30' 51 29.4' 30' 30' 52 30' 30' 30' Note: 30'-0"is the maximum height allowed by code on lots 75'-0"or greater in width 25'-0"is the maximum height allowed by code on lots less than 75'-0"in width Based on the above information, a building would have to be set back a minimum of 52'-0" feet from the front property line to allow the maximum height limit allowed by code of 30'. • MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION • SUMMARY OF SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS FOR THE CITIES OF SAN MARINO, SOUTH PASADENA AND LA CANADA/FLINTRIDGE .-..; � .I �.-12. l.. .I 1. ,1. ..,, ,,, �- ,,. A..... _ I• -..,;. -� -�: .., ?,` _I i ;:`j u 1 a' 11:.2�"� +l! tla�� "i 1� { 1:11:�.1 J 5 fi ,V.�..1.'. ','A �1:+\' 1 1 ( - ..::.. ._. •: -r �.. I I, � r II.:I :z'::A �' ,.. � { �, a -3�4 t: I:,.� s . .. � . _r �,��A�� . .I _,.. u 1 -_ Ir I I,..... ....... ,, e z... ,.._ 2 - „.. .: ,s __. ..... _, _. . :. .�. ::,.r. . . .- V , r, ..._, ._,r ItP .,...�r...w r..1, ,,.l.�,.,t:.,.,4. 1 �:ff,. J e ..r ,�,. ...;,r �� ..., t !. .4,. v:_.. ... :;- 4..:....1. J. :�..r-. I ,. tl.13.1 ,1r( .••.1.. .J .: .,,..,.. 1.. ,,,9 i, I r 1 .: I ,.r. ",..a.l-.:.I_L 4 .t-,L-:- ! .. -�:: '1 ,,.,, -,t,., .: ....,.. �:_ 7. .., r _.n, 1 li .1 .I ,., pI- � �d5.Pnit1,1: S�r .{I, :, �. ..... ,. 'T. ., r.... ..- ., 4. i.,t..P �.4; ..:.- - ..�. .....e :tom. I .,;.;i ;: r -,p ,'�.J�h:' �'I �:�� I� �, .� 1.: �+.;`;; .fa F . r.0 ;I: ; ,.., ,a I a F,_ . �.,; -, , . .y o ,, :, , ,,. " -"` .r'� ,;: 1 I=;, ryw .. , 1..I ,r,_. .,. � �', :�., ,..511+,11 1. ., 1, ,sl , p. .`r:1: 1 S.. ;,r. "I ,J __!. 1 t. r .nF.l•".;I'•rl- lur I �P�:Cllrt.lyr{,}I ;� EGI�LAT` ON� , , :� ,>L. EXIS .l � .: „, , I•.l �; � ,:. ,1, I ® 4 !�;;L, ,� �5, TR ® �� ,,� . : rJ: ,� ,:.. 1 • ...� N ..1 SAN Ni>A►f��NO�, � r, PASfA NA �L � � .,LL � -f ,„! p,.7l1_.1, nl. ,, .,! 4,' �.. .... 7..�. /.. ,:,,. - � .... .. ::. .,._! �,,... ,....:;._: I f �� { J`'6 I: .4:,�. r.lF,..LIV O„r..�:.r,.11.,.I 1 .:�. ... .-'s ,L.:.. 11- -.. 1- ..,-r d I , 't t L, 111! .:,• 1 ...., I-L 1 :�,J.. ,, r,v 4!. -rz.- ........- .. :� .,— .;!,:: -1:::,: ..: t .� ...vc k� ..r w -k . 1. ,� ,..,,d �3.1:.-,. 5 E ! M ., h z .r ,�:— i .,....: ”: _ .; � 1 :.: F l it r i, r '! 1 .lv,,.,- ro.l5,r ,,ril�.l q, { .1 �.. 'I [ It ? ! �_u r ,,.. _ .. _:as .l...,f L. Lrrrrl. 1,1 ,i JI,„,:dr {r- �h 14 y.•,,. •....;,. gH�.,.i l— '.h7 1 ,I,5141.,n1 11 �.�.a:,. �,.1;4, d �,�....�I 4 T,:Ii 1 :: _....:!r _- (•. '-.. -:, ! -.. _�.. i1 11�-..-.. -.-.1111 411.jll 4 s flf.:a.-L I.s.` .:. .... ...I v.,.�t__,-�. 111.4:I`.a,,.,'�•,lL,. .a Building Height 25' - < 75' frontage 25' - on lots <10,000 sq. ft. 35' 32' - Non hillside lots 30' —75' or greater 30' - on lots btwn. 10,000 28' — all others frontage and 12.000 sq. ft. 35' — on lots btwn 15,000 sq. ft. and 17,000 ft. ft. 40' — on lots > 17,000 sq. ft. Building Height— Maximum entry height Same as building height— Maximum 14'-0” on Same as staff's Entries 14'-0” as long as they don't dwellings less than 75'-0" recommendation encroach through a 40° from the front property angle line Front Yard Setback 25'-0" min — R-1 zone- no Front yard setback is 25% of the depth of the Minimum 25' —no portion may encroach specifically delineated on a lot, need not exceed 35'— greater than 50' through 30° angle "Yard Map" at City Hall. with exception of first floor, 2nd floor may not 'encroach through 45° angle Side Yard Setback Single-story: 10% of the 5' minimum —no building 10% of the "average" lot Single story - 10% of width of the lot, not less to encroach above a line width, but in no case less average lot width. 5' than 5' having an angle of 30° than 4' or greater than 6' minimum, 20' maximum Two-story: 20% of the from the vertical and in width Two story— 20% of width of the lot, not less passing through a point 6' Minimum of 12' where average lot width. 10' than 10' - No maximums above the grade of the used for driveway minimum, 20' maximum • 4111i • t ci: .; I .. . ,:•.. .. ...• iE: �': 1 L.. � � 1' I , ;RE ULA IO EXIS`TING SAN O PI'' SADENA F. INTR'IDOE1 �.�I !� ;.f 1t q r II� ,!'l-I�I� f"► ., .� ,•: ...,..... .-.[h.,u,. t, ,,:.,:, "�"erl ,: :a.:i4,..t. _ ,. � ..: .�. . ,. '. ,..... ., ::r:.. ... .r. ,. ..1 ., t.l.f:.._i;1:i,.w.l .,_..... _, _ ..n t Side Yard Setback • adjacent property of the purposes (cont.) common property line. Side Yard Setback— Minimum 15' Does not indicate Does not indicate 20% of average lot width; • Corner Lot 10' minimum, 20' maximum Rear Yard Setback Single-story— 25' Does not indicate 25' 15' Two-story — 35' Lot Coverage Single-story dwelling — Depending on the area in 40% of the lot 10,000 sf or < — 34$ 45% the City, the lot coverage 10,001 sf to15,000 sf Two-story dwelling — 35% ranges from 30% to 40% 32.5% or 3,900 sf of the "actual" lot area whichever is greater 15,001 to 20,000 sf 30% or 4,875 sf whichever is greater 20,001 or more sf 25% or 6,000 sf whichever is greater Floor Area Ratio None Depending on the area in Any dwelling in excess of 10,000 sf up to 20,000 sf the city, the FAR ranges one story shall not exceed max. 34% FAR from 30% to 40% of the a FAR of 35% plus up to 20,001 or more sf,max. "Actual" lot area 400 sf for an attached 2- 30% FAR car garage or up to 600 A conditional use permit net square feet for an is required if the total attached three-car area exceeds 20,000 sf. garage. Detached single story accessory buildings are not counted towards the FAR -2- 7/23/02 ..Ilu.�. l._ �... _ s -,v!:. I!s _ -..'aar, I d Yk C 1:-! •,p... 1.. a .s,,: 1 ,.!,,. ._ik:`,._.-.� - 3 1 w a:,i Y IJ �I/►p�,'.+/� A 1. a 1. t'.-t Y 1"�� L`,SRLt/1'®-�f1 ..� � (p] ...4.,�d... I .... .._.I - .... ._. .. _ 1.e .... t.. �� _�l� � �r{.HIP,L41 .F.y_,{ , IvL�it�l ,�l,.-,i„- .,ntl.y.�l� ..y�l _.4,' ,C'F;h.._7- - _!{ :.; :� :: ._. �_. � ,;.:.: 1.a: . y�.: 4..i'.. S:C 1'� +ar '. -, r -�, � .._11 a 1-s :: ::�.,: - t_ .1 I }_a .iv� :a_;. ,:__ 1._ ..p �. - � y �. .:: -'.,, :, :- f• ati. .. _ i r 3. l.�f -r` 'N :L. ,c I i1-.�.Itl ,_(` r <_ .1 v .. i Y 1:_V.'�.r.P 1 7:r c; 1) -.Ia„IIc . ..I�E�:IJL .,TIQN;, � ,� 1 �.; �I ,_ , �rE,LI:�� .:.,� .. a ; � EXIS IN,G � ti SAN .MARINO . '. PA.SA®ENA � h_..�11, 1 � , r ,-r s . � 'rd f„ R':r( 1 T#1.I.IE11 _1 hY fL�.1rIL ffJ.:g: 'it�.h -Ih � >' ,. :•:'- .:-: �.:� -_. Parking — Number of 1-4 bedrooms —2 spaces 1-4 bedrooms — 2 spaces Not specified 2 spaces within a garage spaces 5 or more—3 Spaces 5-6 bedrooms—3 spaces . 7 or more beds. —4 plus 1 for every 2 additional bedrooms Parking —garage 2 garage openings facing No garage providing more N/A N/A openings street on lots <100'-0” in than two car spaces with a 9252.2.7 -- Page 10 width—3 max. on lots door may be constructed in over 100' • the front yard • • • -3- 7/23/02 to co r C3) CO :1' N CD Imo- In CO r CO CO z1 t- C3) 1` LC) N O CO CO CO r 0) N- ZT CO LO d, O L r f` CO 0) ti' O CO N f` Cr) CA LC) O CO N CO d' CA 1 N co d- O •Cll C� = N � CO 4 LC) l6 CO CO N- 0) O O r rN CO C7 "d' d 10 CO co O) .c (1) >, O T- r r r r r 7- r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CO O) N Z3 o O E Co O x N E O LC) O 10 C.O N- CO 0) O r N CO '4' LO CO N- CO O) O r N CO d' LO CO N- 0) 0) O r N u) 2 N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO q1- d' 'd d' d' d' .4- -1- d' 10 10 10 (I) U° /. ARCADIA fti�RpoaATED- STAFF REPORT August 20, 2002 Development Services Department TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penr an, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrate ) SUBJECT: REVISED CHANGES TO THE R-1 AND R-0 ZONING REGULATIONS BACKGROUND Since the 1940's the City's single-family zoning regulations have undergone numerous changes (see attached History Exhibit A). The most recent changes were in 1999 when the City Council adopted new R-O and R-1 zoning regulations relating to the scale, mass and bulk of residential dwellings. The regulations were designed to accomplish this by: 1. restricting the height of the front entry, 2. requiring no portion of a building to encroach through a plane projected from the front property line and 3. restricting the number of garage openings fronting on a street. One of the changes recommended by staff at that time was inclusion of a floor area ratio (FAR) of 50% that would place a limit on the maximum allowable square footage of houses and structures on a lot. It was the consensus of the City Council in approving the new regulations that they did not wish to impose a FAR because they wanted to see how the new regulations would work to accomplish their goals without a FAR. During the October 1999 hearing process several homeowner associations expressed interest in having a FAR in their area and at a later study session the City Council approved a process whereby a FAR could be implemented in these areas. The Santa Anita Village initially expressed interest in establishing a FAR for their area, but did not proceed for reasons unknown to staff. No other homeowners association even pursued the concept of adding a FAR to their area. Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 1 } Throughout the past three years, the Development Services Department staff has monitored the construction of new dwellings to determine if the 1999 revisions have accomplished their goal of reducing the overall mass of dwellings. Although there has been an observable change in the street elevation, it is staffs opinion that the codes need to be further refined to better address entries, architectural projections and street side yard setbacks. In addition, to addressing the above issues, the Development Services Department is recommending that new sections be added to both the R-O and R-1 zoning regulations that address circular driveways and non-permanent structures such as tents and canopies. DISCUSSION Front Yard Setbacks/Entries • Front Yard Setback requirements (9252.2.2 and 9251.2.2) are proposed to be changed to state "There shall be no vertical or architectural elements located above the entry that emphasize the scale and massing of the structure. No architectural features shall be allowed in the required set back with the exception of an entry as defined in Section.9252.2.1, a gable roof not exceeding a maximum height of 14 feet and roof eaves." • Building Entry has been specifically defined as noted below to provide both the public and staff with a better understanding No building shall have an entry exceeding a building height of fourteen (14'-0") feet. Entry is defined as any portion of a building that provides access to the building, including any and all portions of the building directly above a porch, foyer, sitting room, or any other area, whether or not it is usable floor space, including, but not limited to, balconies, open air space, enclosed air space, attic space, decorative railings, columns and finials and dormers or vents. Side Yards on Corner Lots • Side Yard — Corner Lot - this section requires the second story to be set back a minimum of 5'-0" from the first story and that no portion of the structure shall encroach through an angle of 40 degrees as measured from the property line. In addition staff has added wording that says "Expanses of flat building walls shall not exceed 25 feet in width without providing architectural indentations and/or projects width a minimum depth of two (2) feet and a minimum width of 6'-0"." Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 2 • Side Yard — Reverse Corner Lot—the new amendments would require a 25'- 0" street side setback in lieu of 20'-0" and that the second story be set back 5'-0" from the first story and that no building encroach through a plane projected from an angle of 40 degrees. Also, staff has added wording that says "Expanses of flat building walls shall not exceed 25 feet in width without providing architectural indentations and/or projects width a minimum depth of two (2) feet and a minimum width of 6'-0"." Driveway Areas An item that staff hears about periodically are "circular driveways" and the area it occupies within a front yard. Although the City has a requirement that no more than 40% of a front yard area shall be hardscape, currently circular driveways are allowed on all lots, regardless of lot width. Several cities we checked with only allow circular driveway where is a minimum amount of frontage on the street. Staff is suggesting the following code addition: "Lots with street frontage of 75 feet or greater are eligible for circular driveways. On lots with more than one street frontage, a circular driveway shall be located on the street frontage that is 75 feet or greater." "The circular driveway shall not have a width greater than 15 feet." "The circular driveway shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet measured perpendicular from the property line to the furthest distance of the inside edge of the circular driveway." Tents and Canopies A more recent problem being encountered in the residential zones is the addition of temporary tents and canopies used as "carports" and/or patio covers. The Development Services Department is recommending that the following be added to the City's regulations: xxxx. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. (amend the EXCEPTION to read) EXCEPTION. One (1) temporary or portable structure with the exception of tents and canopies, not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and eight feet six inches (8'-6") in height is permitted. Said structure must comply with all setback requirements and, if applicable, be approved by the City's established Homeowners' Associations. xxxx Tents and Canopies It shall be unlawful for any person, to erect, put in place or maintain in place, any tent, tent-house, canvas house or structure constructed of canvas, Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 3 cloth or other fabric; any canopy or canopy structure constructed of canvas, cloth or other fabric or material within a distance of one hundred feet from the front property line of any lot or subdivision of land within the city, or within twenty feet of any dwelling, house, building or other structure or within the required side and rear setback of any property.. Exceptions: The provisions of this section shall not apply as follows: 1. Decorative canopies and awnings constructed as a component or feature of an overall architectural design. 2.- Picnic umbrellas not in excess of ten feet in diameter. 3. Temporary tents and canopies. Temporary tents and canopies of any size may be erected in any location with the exception of the front yard and/or street side yard setback areas on a parcel or lot for a period that is not in excess of three (3) days. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is generally defined as the combined gross floor area of all floors in all buildings and structures on a lot,including basements, enclosed covered porches and patios, enclosed carports, garages and storage sheds. Some cities exclude basements, garages, unfinished attics, unenclosed porches, decks, balconies and patios and storage sheds from this definition. In other cities the FAR is based not on living area, but rather on the total building envelope area enclosed by the exterior walls. In other words air space above entries, stairwells, etc. would be calculated as part of the overall FAR. The following is an example of allowable square footages utilizing a FAR on typical size lots within the city. SQUARE FOOTAGES ALLOWED BY FAR'S RANGING FROM 25% TO 50%* LOT SIZE 25% FAR 30% FAR 35% FAR 40% FAR 45% FAR 50% FAR 7,500 1,875 2,250 2,625 3,000 3,375 3,750 10,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 12,500 3,125 3,750 4,375 5,000 5,625 6,250 15,000 3,750 4,500 5,250 6,000 6,750 7,500 22,000 5,500 6,600 7,700 8,800 9,900 11,000 30,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 4 As an alternative to floor area ratio, some cities-establish a maximum size of dwelling permitted on a lot based on the lot square footage. The following is an example from the City of Monrovia: • Lot Size (square feet) Maximum size of House (square feet) 5,999 or less 2,000 6,000 -7,500 3,000 7,501 - 8,499 3,250 8,500 - 9,999 3,900 _10,000 - 17,499 4,500 17,500 - 19,999 4,800 20,000 - 22,499 5,100 22,500 - 24,999 5,700 25,000 - 27,499 6,000 27,500 - 29,999 6,300 30,000 - 32,499 6,600 32,500 - 34,999 6,900 35,000 - 37,499 7,200 37,500 -43,559 7,405 43,560+ 17% lot area Notes: Attached garages are counted as accessory floor area Floor area is measured from external walls Accessory Buildings - the ratio of total gross accessory building floor area (including attached garages) to lot area can not exceed the percentages shown in the following table: MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING FAR* Lot Size Floor Area Ratio 0-43,560 SQ. FT. 10% . Over 1 acre 8% _ *Accessory structures cannot exceed 80% of the dwelling unit size Design Review A separate report has been prepared relative to architectural design review for single-family dwellings. ACTION The above information is for discussion purposes. The Development Services Department is requesting direction from the City Council on how you would like the City to proceed. Single-Family Report August 20, 2002 Page 5 HISTORY OF THE R-1 AND R-O REGULATIONS Since the 1940's the City has revised the single-family regulations many times to create regulations that would provide better residential development in the City. The following is a summary of some of these changes: 1940 There were two single-family zones, R-1-A First Single Family Residence District and R-1 Single-Family Residence District. The maximum height allowed for a residence was one/half the width of the street upon which the lot fronted, not to exceed 2 1/2 stories in height Lot coverage was limited to 30% and 40% on corner lots. There is no restriction on lot coverage on interior lots. There were no setbacks set forth in the code. 1949 The two single-family zones were changed to R-0 First One-Family Zone and R- 1 Second One-Family Zone. The height allowed was 2 % stories not to exceed 35'. Front yard setbacks were established for the R-O zone of a minimum of 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 30'; in the R-1 zone the minimum was 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 25'. The interior side yard setbacks for both the first and second floor in the R-O and R-1 zones was a minimum of 3'-0" feet. On a corner lot the setback requirement was a minimum of 10'-0". The established rear yard setback for both the R-O and R-1 zone was 25% of the depth of the lot, but need not exceed 25'-0". The maximum lot coverage was eliminated. 1964 The building height was reduced in both the R-O and R-1 zones to two (2) stories, 35' maximum • Page EXHIBIT A /02 • • 1965 The interior side yard setback was increased to a minimum of 5'-0" for both the first and second floor. On a corner lot the minimum side yard setback on the street side was 10% of the width of the lot but not less than 10'. 1967 The side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks were changed for both the R-O and R-1 zones as follows: • R-O - For a two (2) story dwelling the setback was 5'-0" for the first floor and 10'-0" for the second floor. R-1 - For a two (2) story dwelling the setback was 3'-0" for the first floor and 5'-0" for the second floor. There were no changes to the front yard setback for the R-O zone; however the front yard setback in the R-1 zone was changed to 25% of the depth of the lot, with a maximum requirement of 25'-0". The rear yard setback in the R-O zone was increased to 35'-0". The rear yard setback for the R-1 zone was changed so that no portion of a second story would be closer than 35' and the first floor was still 25% of the depth of the lot with a maximum requirement of 25'. 1969 A maximum lot coverage of 45% was established in the R-O and R-1 zones. 1973 The front yard setbacks in the R-O and R-1 zones were changed to 30' and 25' respectively. The rear yard setback in the R-1 zone was changed to a minimum of 25' for the first floor and 35' for the second floor. 1980 The side yard setbacks were amended to require a minimum of 10' in the R-O zone for both the first and second floor. The R-1 zone required a minimum of 5'- 0" for the first floor and 10' for the second floor. Page 2 7/02 1988 The building height and side yard setbacks were amended., The building height was based on a sliding scale ranging from 25' to 35' depending on the lot width. Setbacks were changed to require a minimum of 10'-0 for the first floor in an R-O zone and 5' + 10% of the width of the lot for the second floor with a minimum of 10' required, with a maximum requirement of 15'. The R-1 zone was amended to require a minimum of 5' for the first floor and a minimum 5' + 10% of the width of the lot for the second floor with a minimum of 10' required with a maximum requirement of 15'. In addition an ordinance was adopted which required a minimum, 20' side yard setback on reverse corner lots in both the R-O and R-1 zones. 1990 An ordinance was adopted to change the maximum lot coverage in the R-O, R-M and R-1 zones to be 45% for one-story dwellings and 35% for two story dwellings. In addition a second ordinance was adopted that established new building height requirements in the R-O and R-1 zones of: Lots less than 75' in width 25' Lots 75' in width or greater 30' New setback requirements were also adopted as follows: • R-O 1st Floor 10% of the width of the lot — not less than 10'-0" - maximum required is 15'-0 2nd Floor 20% of the width of the lot — not less than 15'-0" — maximum required is 20' R-1 1st floor 10% of the width of the lot — not less than 5'-0" — maximum required is 10' 2"d floor 20% of the width of the lot— not less than 10' — maximum required is 20" 1994 Code change to prohibit projects having more than a single-story directly above any proposed below grade or subterranean garage in the R-O and R-1 single- family zones (Ord. 2020) Page 3 7/02 • 1999 Major revisions to the R-0 and R-1 Regulations: Building Height: Reduced the height of entries to 14'-0" (both R-O and R- 1) Front Yard Setback: No portion of structure may encroach through an angle of 30° (was 40°) (both R-O and R-1) Side Yard Setback Minimum 10% of width of lot— 1 story— Minimum 5' R-1, 10' R-O Minimum 20% of width of lot— 2 story— Minimum 10' R- 1, 15'-0" R-O Maximum setback requirement has been eliminated Side Yard Setback — Corner lot Minimum 15'-0 (staff recommended 20'-0 with 45° angle) - R-1 Minimum 20'-0" — R-0 Parking 2 spaces and 1 addition space for 5 or more bedrooms Parking — garage On lots less than 100' in width no more than 16 linear openings feet of garage openings facing the street Side Yard — swimming Pools 5'-0" Fence Height—front Yard 3'-0" (used to be 4'-0') — R-1 -- 4'-0" R-O Front Yard Land- Not more than 40% of required front yard may be paved. Scaping In addition to the above, the Development Services Department recommended a maximum FAR at this time of 50% - which was not adopted. Miscellaneous Changes 1988 - In 1988, the City Council adopted regulations to be used as consideration for establishing the formation of any new homeowners association or annexation to an existing association. If homeowners are interested in forming a homeowners association in any portion of the City, the criteria set forth in these regulations should be initiated. This criterion was used to annex an area to the Highland Homeowners Association in 1994. 1992 In 1992 a committee was established to study architectural design review for the single-family residential properties within the City. The task of the Committee Page 4 7/02 was to develop design guidelines that, if adopted, could be implemented by future design review board(s). The Committee proposed that architectural design review be applied to all R-O and R-1 single-family zoned properties within the City not currently located in an existing homeowners association. The Committee felt that design criteria should be broad enough to allow flexibility of design and to provide some generalized standards to avoid that which is substantially unrelated to the neighborhood and garish. As a result of the Committee's recommendation, a text amendment was initiated (T.A. 93-003). Based upon all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission upon consideration of the text amendment voted 3 to 2 to not recommend approval of this text amendment. On November 2 three Council Members felt that based upon the hearing before the Planning Commission, there did not appear to be adequate interest from the public in pursuing architectural design review and no further action was taken. Page 5 7/02 • MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS BASED ON ANGLE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SETBACK (feet) 30 Degree Angle 35 Degree Angle 40 Degree Angle _ 25 14.4' 17.5' _ 21' 30 • 17.3' 21' 25.2' 35 20.2' 24.5' 29.4' 40 23.1' 28' 30' 45 26' 30' 30' 50 28.9' _ 30' 30' 51. 29.4' 30' 30' 52 30' • 30' 30' Note: 30'-0"is the maximum height allowed by code on lots 75'-0"or greater in width 25'-0"is the maximum height allowed by code on lots less than 75'-0"in width Based on the above information, a building would have to be set back a minimum of 52'-0" feet from the front property line to allow the maximum height limit allowed by code of 30'. • MI CELL ki NEOUS INFORMATION • SUMMARY OF SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS FOR THE CITIES OF SAN MARINO, SOUTH PASADENA AND LA CANADA/FLINTRIDGE I fi _ �! ]` i r C fir,` 7. , +. :1 �l r gym 1' _.,I'h. I t -L -1 VA ,I .. .,l ,,:1�,.,,. ,.. t , .: -.:. ,_.. '.I,:1 4 l I.I�tt ..... ., , ,. .. .._!.. „ XJ ,.. .. J�. . .,. .., .t t: ... .�.: .. _:.. .: _,._ _:, 5 .Ir.t { 1.,1 � ry, ! 4� ,t�t :., _ ! a ,. ,:.;., �, ,,, ,, , :�:,. _...L,,,.,.,.._....�t,t_..,_,:t:,...:. �:.;.:. ;!. ...,.. ., . .I J:. '..._, a �, .:� a::.:r ,�.l: ,.. r,l I :d .3F.,119 Il'fn;� rfJi,, 'Ltl�,��f �,,,,T .. ..... d ,:. ,i.. ._-e J -! l ,I:,.dr ,: . ..: ::: ,,i,;' ..:d : .r„.;,, J f{ ,1 .t, .>I -.� G' �, f L. ,"!IJ ,.�,! I � ,. i;l� � ,: � I ! I �: ,, i , _, ay ,.;- I c ,f r d �i I 1 ''F� I _ !9i „e .. d .f r y P i.... ,t - ,. - ,:, f ( I ;,t dy1: ,..: I 1(I I 11„ h54�Ir. ,�: i, EG.l1LA .IONS l :.: : , :, :: � , .- :, ,, ,� VIII ,rf ,� ,; r _I,sir�,,�:� :,� � Il L�,,,; EX STI � .. ,, I I SAN,:.MIAR NO�� : 7 , :L N iRI��G�� r � ASA® ILIA I ..,_� �.. � �� F Ftt. :r� .......I —1 5. ,.:.... � i, Building Height 25' - < 75' frontage 25' - on lots <10,000 sq. ft. 35' 32' - Non hillside lots 30' —75' or greater 30' - on lots btwn. 10,000 28' — all others frontage and 12.000 sq. ft. 35' — on lots btwn 15,000 sq. ft. and 17,000 ft. ft. 40' — on lots > 17,000 sq. ft. Building Height— Maximum entry height Same as building height— Maximum 14'-0” on Same as staff's Entries 14'-0" as long as they don't dwellings less than 75'-0" recommendation encroach through a 40° _ from the front property angle line Front Yard Setback 25'-0" min — R-1 zone- no Front yard setback is 25% of the depth of the Minimum 25' —no portion may encroach specifically delineated on a lot, need not exceed 35'— greater than 50' through 30° angle "Yard Map" at City Hall. with exception of first floor, 2nd floor may not encroach through 45° - angle Side Yard Setback Single-story: 10% of the 5' minimum —no building 10% of the "average" lot Single story - 10% of width of the lot, not less to encroach above a line width, but in no case less average lot width. 5' than 5' having an angle of 30° than 4' or greater than 6' minimum, 20' maximum Two-story: 20% of the from the vertical and in width Two story — 20% of width of the lot, not less passing through a point 6' Minimum of 12' where average lot width. 10' than 10' - No maximums above the grade of the used for driveway minimum, 20' maximum ®IA 1.. :s.L OG I 1 � Y '' .. ..1, � � !�I IO r :.:I LA; N EXISTING SAN-�iIARIN® PASADENAI FLI LRID �, , .:I a �/ l ]+� -ir ? 1 J.14.�i.,11 "��i. �].,t �)!�. :i: I a. r Iw 1.1 a e- I �, 1 11. fir I � .- I �. Side Yard Setback V adjacent property of the purposes (cont.) common property line. Side Yard Setback— Minimum 15' Does not indicate Does not indicate 20% of average lot width; Corner Lot 10' minimum, 20' maximum Rear Yard Setback Single-story — 25' Does not indicate 25' 15' Two-story — 35' Lot Coverage Single-story dwelling — Depending on the area in 40% of the lot 10,000 sf or < — 34$ 45% the City, the lot coverage 10,001 sf tol 5,000 sf Two-story dwelling —35% ranges from 30% to 40% 32.5% or 3,900 sf of the "actual" lot area whichever is greater 15,001 to 20,000 sf 30% or 4,875 sf whichever is greater 20,001 or more sf 25% Or 6,000 sf whichever is greater Floor Area Ratio None Depending on the area in Any dwelling in excess of 10,000 sf up to 20,000 sf the city, the FAR ranges one story shall not exceed max. 34% FAR . from 30% to 40% of the a FAR of 35% plus up to 20,001 or more sf max. "Actual" lot area 400 sf for an attached 2- 30% FAR car garage or up to 600 A conditional use permit net square feet for an is required if the total attached three-car area exceeds 20,000 sf. garage. Detached single story accessory buildings . are not counted towards the FAR -2- 7/23/02 ;;,,.,4!.::.;,.�,:;I..:�;„.I,IJ�1.a l-1..,I c�'.i..t..1:rti r(II J:..kL.��ex,l.1.:4.F1 4tat.�i uIr rI G I a'ra,g.t,.5.J....f e.f,:�:;,.:9.d,.1,:...1,:1,r,:,.,I.1.,�:?..,:r.r:.,,�l.T.y. .-..a,.l I.h{9�J-:.:`I_ F+F_..]._Z[`rx�1..:.,,+1-51 I�I'r-..r�lir,.1,._,v _.I,.,.r,:y s-�.-!,.,_.I._,_r..�:..�_...—.:,...:-:. r _-.,,:-.'.r:.'.l'_L..._._e__.1 1 �,_-�.l.-...,e_,1r_,,._I,.�...__�::_:.:.r,,::...F„_._i..-1..0..I,._1_.i�r_.{.5..?.;..:, .. ..3,....:•1 1 x :'r .: - _:..:� u.�'I.�.I::n..!:g...-,,�},4..L..t�:e,,.:tL tI,r.r D 11' -'I>'lLq p�1,.., G J T uv �w 0� : 5t ,a '`piNru.. � . ,�a.,,n.1.21 :,. ..- . 5, uubJ a.�, )- ". .�,r d I . c 1 _ I , c=.it Ag,ei 9. h &A R, UL TI 1 C�,n..;y. (EXIS_ INC1 1 . ,. P AN_MAR INO 1- .t a ` PA ADENN , t i FL� TRI D Els '.1_ I 1.: i4 �. _ m I I � I 3# Sr 1 re:;l1 £i J . Parking — Number of 1-4 bedrooms— 2 spaces 1-4 bedrooms — 2 spaces Not specified j 2 spaces within a garage spaces 5 or more— 3 §paces 5-6 bedrooms— 3 spaces • • 7 or more beds. —4 plus 1 for every 2 additional bedrooms Parking —garage 2 garage openings facing No garage providing more N/A N/A openings street on lots <100'-0” in than two car spaces with a 9252.2.7 -- Page 10 width —3 max. on lots door may be constructed in • over 100' the front yard • • • • • -3- 7/23/02 • • • • �.► -`- CO r O CO "fit N O 1� In C) r CO CO d' t-' 0) f� N O CO CO Cr) r d7 N •Kr N C C C d' O 1` Cr) C) '1' O CO N h Cr) 0) O CO N CO 'TT C� r 1` N CO - O p as -_ CO C.O CO O C3-5 O O r r N CO C'O 'd' d' Lri 1.0. CO 1` f` CO CO O = r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cr)• C c i • L Cr) �_, c p 'a E O LO O Lo O 1` CO O) O r N CO �t 10 CO N- CO O) O r N CO 'I' L (O 1` CO o O r-- N 0 r r N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ' 'd' r to to to U) • • • SAN MARINO DESIGN REVIEW Ao 87 Win_ IARCAbIA ORl'O$ATE9,,� MEMORANDUM Development Services Department August 20, 2002 TO: William R. Kelly, City Manager FROM; Don Pennon, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF SAN MARINO In response to an inquiry from the City Council member Kovacic, the following is a summary of San Marino's design review process. San Marino Background The San Marino web page states, "The founders of San Marino wished it [the city] to be uniquely residential - single-family homes on large lots surrounded by beautiful gardens, with wide streets and well maintained parkways. There were to be no manufacturing districts, heavy business areas or any apartment houses or duplexes." The majority of the City's growth occurred between the 1920s and 1940s. San Marino's housing stock reflects custom built homes, many designed by well known architects of the era such as Wallace Neff and Roland Coate. According to the 2000 census, San Marino is 3.8 square miles with a population of 12,945 and 4,437 housing units. In comparison, Arcadia is 11 square miles with a population of 53,054 and 19,970 housing units. Design Process Prior to 1999, the City of San Marino required design review for single-family dwellings, but had limited guidelines to assist in evaluating residential designs. In 1999, San Marino adopted Residential Design Guidelines prepared by R-1 8-7-02 memo re San Marino ADR San Marino Design Guideline Memo August 20, 2002 Page 1 • Cotton/Beland/Associates that provide clear and concise design policies for residential projects within their City. One of the major goals of their guidelines is to: "preserve and reinforce the existing architectural character and identity found within San Marino's residential neighborhoods." (See attached Goals and Organization and Contents from San Marino's guidelines) The guidelines contain approximately 60-pages of written and graphic illustrations to help residents understand the City's unique residential characteristics and to promote architectural design which will enhance the City's established neighborhoods. Implementation of the residential design guidelines is administered through City staff, the Design Review Committee (DRC - a six (6) member body appointed by the City Council), the Planning Commission and the City Council. The guidelines are utilized as the basis for evaluation of proposed residential projects. Staff initially reviews all projects prior to projects being forwarded to either the DRC or the Planning Commission. New homes, projects which include any addition of floor area to a residence, modifications to the exterior façade visible from public view, a change of roof material that is not on the city's pre-approved roof materials list and all front yard fences, walls and gates are reviewed by the Design Review Committee at a public hearing. The DRC meets twice a month. The application process for the DRC is approximately three (3) to five (5) weeks. A new home or a residential project that necessitates a "variance" requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and is reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meets once a month and the process takes approximately six (6) to eight (8) weeks. The time frames above are reflective of the processing once the specific application has been filed and does not include the time involved with the initial staff review. Attached is a flow chart illustrating San Marino's design review process. The cost for the design review process is: DRC $ 75.00 CUP $680.00 The following table compares the single-family residential construction activity in Arcadia and San Marino: R-1 8-7-02 memo re San Marino ADR San Marino Design Guideline Memo August 20, 2002 Page 2 City/Types •. 2000 2001 2002 San Marino — New Dwellings 2 2-3 0* Arcadia — New Dwellings 98 81 24* San Marino Remodels** 90-100 90-100 90-100 Arcadia Remodels 303 310 115* *Through June, 2002 **This is an average that they process per year; they didn't provide us with actual numbers. Also included is a copy of the Table of Contents that identifies the subject matter included in the design guidelines. A copy of San Marino's residential design guidelines are included for your information. Attachments: San Marino Residential Design Guidelines City of San Marino — Goals, Organization and Contents Design Review process Flow Chart Table of Contents • R-1 8-7-02 memo re San Marino ASR San Marino Design Guideline Memo August 20, 2002 Page 3 COMPARISON OF FAR'S FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS . Address Street Dwelling Size Access. bldgs.* Lot Area FAR Dwelling** FAR House+Access. Bldgs° 615 Camino Real (East) 3,192 655 8,930 35.7% 43.1% 661 Camino Real (west) 4,773 469 10,250 46.6% 51.1% 705 Cortez 3,000 427 9,260 32.4% 37.0% 242 Duarte Rd. (West) 5,997 923 38,770 15.5% ' 17.8% 2517 El Capitan Ave 3,758 713 8,701 43.2% ' 51.4% 978 Fallen Leaf 12,790 2,816 40,510 31.6% 38.5% 1020 First(South) 3,547 1,537 11,050 32.1% 46.0% 915 Foothill 6,002 672 39,000 15.4% 17.1% 2719 Gilpin 4,258 931 16,000 26.6% 32.4% 1012 Holly 5,409 1,123 23,318 23.2% 28.0% } 303 Joyce 3,010 900 9,000 33.4% 43.4% 61 Lemon (West) 4,252 884 12,060 35.3% 42.6% 504 Leroy (West) 3,800 661 9,020 42.1% 49.5% 17 La Sierra (West) 4,728 713 13,065 36.2% 41.6% 324 Las Flores 6,525 1,075 25,000 26.1% 30.4% 303 Laurel 2,827 593 6,350 44.5% 53.9% 139 Longden (East) 4,506 814 16,200 27.8% 32.8% 1856 Oakwood Ave 4,318 707_ 14,620 29.5% 34.4% 356 Palm Dr 6,851 831 16,800 40.8% 45.7% 1600 Rodeo Rd 6,868 1,017 30100 22.8% 26.2% 509 Rosemarie Drive 4,001 450 9,250 43.3% 48.1% 300 Santa Rosa Rd 3,720 638 8640 43.1% 50.4% 821 San Vicente 5,788 822 31,130 18.6% 21.2% 1829 Second (South) 5,020 680 15,544 32.3% 36.7% • 1118 Sixth Ave 6,103 949 22407 27.2% 31.5% 308 Walnut 6,146 1,069 26,760 23.0% 27.0% 2702 Warren Way 5,088 1,139 15,040 33.8% 41.4% ' 541 Workman 3,020 582 7,800 38.7% 46.2% *Accessory buildings include detached garages, patios, cabanas, pool houses, etc. **FAR Dwelling may in some cases include attached garages , • y � OFD U G �/a gr- 01CC qsa/ r1 G 1,q�iu ARCADIA ` • °42-011ATsv-s STAFF REPORT Development Services Department August 20, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director' By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Jim Kasama, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2165 AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A SUBSECTION 14 TO SECTION 9264.2.9 AND AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.39.3 TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATIONS IN THE CBD/CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE, SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. RECOMMENDATION: INTRODUCE SUMMARY Text Amendment Application No. TA 2002-001 was initiated by Leon E. Felus, on behalf of Cirrus, LLC to amend the Arcadia Municipal Code to add Automobile Fueling Stations (i.e., self-serve gas stations with convenience marts) to the list of "Uses Subject To A Conditional Use Permit" (CUP) in the CBD/Central Business District Zone. Automobile Fueling Stations are presently allowed with an approved CUP in the C-1/Limited Commercial or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zones; that is, the C-1 , C-2, C-M, M-1 and M-2 Zones. Automobile Fueling Stations are currently defined and regulated under Section 9275.4, the City's Drive-In Business Regulations (attached). Cirrus, .LLC intends to convert the Chevron Automobile Service Station building at 102 E. Huntington Drive into a convenience mart. The proposed text amendment, however, would be applicable throughout the CBD Zone (see the attached maps). The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the text amendment as set forth in Ordinance No. 2165. f-. sue. , BACKGROUND The use designation, "Automobile Fueling Station" was added to the Arcadia Municipal Code in 1997 by Text Amendment No. TA 97-003 (Ord. No. 2077) which was initiated by the Chevron Products Company. That text amendment was proposed in response to changes in the way gasoline is marketed, and was for a convenience mart to be operated in conjunction with a self-serve gas station. Ordinance No. 2077 established specific regulations for automobile fueling stations as a Drive-In Business (see Subsection 4 on p. 487 of the attached Section 9275.4, Drive- In Business Regulations) and allows them with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the following zones: C-1/Limited Commercial Zone C-2/General Commercial Zone C-M/Commercial-Manufacturing Zone M-1/Planned Industrial District Zone, and M-2/Heavy Manufacturing Zone Ordinance No. 2077 did not include the CBD/Central Business District Zone because automobile service uses and convenience marts are generally not considered appropriate uses for the "Downtown" area. DISCUSSION The proposed text amendment is to add Automobile Fueling Stations as item no. 14 under Section 9264.2.9, which is a list of "Uses Subject To A Conditional Use Permit" (CUP) in the CBD/Central Business District Zone. The text amendment will also add the CBD zoning designation to Section 9275.1.39.3, which is the above list of zones in which an Automobile Fueling Station may be permitted with an approved CUP. The proposed text amendment has been initiated to enable the existing Chevron Service Station building at 102 E. Huntington Drive to be remodeled into a convenience mart. However, the text amendment allows for the consideration of granting a CUP for an Automobile Fueling Station at any location within the CBD Zone. The existing Chevron Service Station is a legal-nonconforming use in the CBD Zone. If this text amendment is approved, and a CUP is subsequently granted to convert the automobile service building into a convenience mart, the resulting Automobile Fueling Station would be a conforming use. TA 2002-001/Ord. No. 2165 August 20, 2002 Page 2 Applicant's Supportive Comments The applicant has provided the following comments as to how the City of Arcadia will benefit from the proposed text amendment/ordinance: • Increased sales of goods will help to foster economic growth in the Central Business District and in turn will increase the City's sales tax revenues. • The site is within a City Redevelopment District. Conversion of the use from service bays to convenience food mart will mandate a $500,000 complete renovation of the existing structure. This project will contribute to the City's redevelopment goals. • The proposed conversion will utilize materials more consistent with the Guidelines for the Central Business District (i.e. stucco, stone wainscot and slate roofing). • The convenience food mart use is more closely aligned with the permitted uses of the Central Business District than the existing service bays. • The convenience food mart use will be housed completely. within the proposed structure. Conversely, the present condition affords direct views into the open service bays. The conversion will eliminate the visual clutter that currently exists. Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Waiver The Chevron Service Station at 102 E. Huntington Drive is within the Central Redevelopment Project Area. Automobile service uses and convenience marts are considered "Inappropriate Uses in the Project Area" under Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 172. Therefore, the proposed Automobile Fueling Station required a Waiver from ARA Resolution No. 172. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency approved a Waiver on June 18, 2002. If this text amendment/ordinance is approved, the subsequent remodeling of the automobile service building into a convenience mart would be subject to Design Review approval by the Redevelopment Agency. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, at its July 23, 2002 meeting considered the proposed text amendment. There was no opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one member absent to recommend approval of Text Amendment No. TA 2002-001. The Commission's minutes are attached. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendment, by TA 2002-001/Ord. No. 2165 August 20, 2002 Page 3 f itself, will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and this text amendment/ordinance does not constitute a "project" under Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. If this text amendment is approved, any subsequent consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Fueling Station will be subject to an environmental assessment under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed text amendment will have no direct fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Introduce Ordinance No. 2165: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the Arcadia Municipal Code to add a Subsection 14 to. Section 9264.2.9 and amending Section 9275.1.39.3 to allow Automobile Fueling Stations in the CBD/Central Business District Zone, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: 1) Area Map of CBD/Central Business District Zone 2) Aerial Photo of CBD Zone Area and Zoning of Vicinity 3) Ordinance No. 2165 4) July 23, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes • 5) Notice of Exemption TA 2002-001/Ord. No. 2165 August 20, 2002 Page 4 ' -—N 1.1 *NN, T ' c �, r.a r. \ I . o' HST 2 rm "�� rL � � n„��I nr+l,.,,I,n rb w,ST JOSEP U 7 - h'..? ST y —y m , ' ST JOSEPH w a A r 'a '■� hc'•iinhv'L2 I h 1;:,,,J II1IimhN \ r,w ■ / SANTA CLARA ST PAMS ,.r, ra s fp z vry ,..06-e, z ftaip- w Mg up / / va /��J�/ ¢ WHEELER Q` ________iz ��- r p�%ter ��►� 411541 I1/I4JIWk1' A."-.�/',A5.1° "AAA, .► HU NTING], HUNTINGTON DR '' PreAry r refj r A r 1,4#' , :0' mre , r OW Z 50 'c ' -v I M1....,. p, p. ., a. P. „ n. R,%/!.d G• A . r., rw ,� ,f I„q ra .. :.i ALTA ST.,,, ALTA ST , p 0,ALTA ST I r • „, ,,, 0. 0, . 0. 0. .. ,. 0 sf 4 1m %/A, I ', BDwra S mg BONITA ST BONITA ST BONITA ST 0 ,m r, , r,.. ,a f. , ,,. r,,, ,a 1 ,a --- I. _ ,� ' ,. ��A � TA-----""ST'' ,� a. .. a. a. .. Mn F. �� 4 r,m ,� ,,,. r , .„A � • • ,IA ST CALIFORN ,�, • = „w ,. „r w rw�r� , 04 M m on 'Z\% R. ST DIAMOND ST 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet ,, w, • N. a ,m ,a. ' 'a a.. 'W "A an r,~ O. rn an 1”' „„ - - _ -�.- -- pp 1.04 i i H P. III1II � ' "TY OF`, �� District • e ui es •� A`Y a cn• Development Services Department �y ARCADIA t' s�( Engineering Division TA ,, Prepared by:R.&Gonzalez,June 2002 CORPORATF+9". 4 - - - .. :-.,.. ' ,--:-, T. .4 .4,4'..."..,, .1 01,7r. ,.41 ,--c--r•.,-,-, ,'-'-•-4'.. ,; 1:-.-... ''74-,--.. • ,=.4;-, -..f.-L, ,,,,',-4,-4. t;-,.-w'~''*'--''''",,;&..,...- 4.;\ -,. 1.',:.,•;-.,, ,,,--;,:i k-, ..r.,1V4.4„5 -'7;.,4,4,,4 J!....,.:,. J•;•:;.r4,-,,t‘4S,_„..„.:;' .-..1;•••i, ,c1--,.•••„1.,•- ,2.... ---,;4• , •;.;.:0,:••.;:•••,-,a. 4,■;, •''''•'n-.1,,,,,i;0„,11,74:ap ...Ft'i';`_tiV,1%;,, ,,---; -.-...-,---.4.,-,.--„..,,,,A.,,-./.'„... •,...,,,,J1..,....,. • . ':-.t'-'.'f-rf.At,Z 4.. 4,i,E,,i ''r. ',IV;-'A .:'.q-?.; " 4°Cri„,,TO—j--'j- jr'-.. ' °-1N034% - ',.4..,,,,-, 4,1-,,,,1.....,,-- ,.;14;ivz,,,-Kcii,t,,10,,F.- :.:1,,,,,,,,..= -_. .,,.,_.44-'--4--,P=4-0. ;TTV;..„4,3T-i 4,1;''' i- . p--,-1,-,,.,..--- _,,w1*-A.,-... . ,A."-4...,_.4-4.4.4-14., -74.--.--. .- ---- . A -,..,,, _.;-,,,..._;.;--,,--...--;:-----ast---- ' -.----,,,,,mirw--•;_r_71,:, --4,•fil-•-•-•.---k•':?71 - -4,2--tn,i...,,,,?:-!,..-:--.N,.,:; N 4-'.%'-'1_, .1?"-t.- -,•:-; ..w...---.;-f-0; 1:-,... --,1-''-`-' •'•_•7 , -ii.,- 4:'. '"'J rr-c;r1T•:-',..„'T3ifin , .'''''':0,17,,-;',,g, ir---,■.„-•i,'", ,1 „:.itt;.'T. ■'-7-'';.-:'-• ,-.•=i,;',4 07,1'• '1 i,, i..-,.'f,,..k...C.: r!'''0,:-?-,Ti,..,..-''t'7.--ga14r st.7:-"7";' fk.4F- ----,-••••,404--.,•-.----:-Ni F"C---tf_;,..„„ •.,..-..,...,--,-,••::;.:-4-.••=4;4•,! „T., -„--•„3-;-...,„,--- ......,,„11.4..„..„,,,...•,..„-_-,24...,.., •,.• -2' .°°,44..1 _ „1.4.,,,f,,,-,,,, _, '---„t•;. .:.'-,, ,,,---,,i,"•-•- ,-;A:7lair.,2;,,,,,,,,,,, -'3,,,,iir.;-.4,• .4, _,.., , ,-..,'.,---,• T". '-7"4.■j-- -T-4.1.'14' "'"" ..k-44.7..e.e;- '•--; 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet -,,,-, ----- _,_,, :.,..2.ii,-,-:-„,,,,,,,-,,..,--witiii-4,..-0.4sr42-,,,,--P,• ._., -.4_..,._, 4_t. -..Tz-ji5-,„-;-0A,, .7t-il:::_,---t--2—'_','A.:-' .,.. -.f:',4'.`.i,-,,51,:::.„,?,;.,,,,..;i...,... :',...-,-„Y .,. ..i, 1-40-*"=.:Ci2D-1;;;..1-t?•4M5i4 =."='." 4W-1:,, _:...°41°,44i 11':Tifk ° =T'.re-fj:_74,:l,4111...;1•4"."-;:,-.-,-.11.44,144,,°14. 4...,4, ,', Et-- ,-.;*'°;°-°." ''',■:T:44 4:-.?!<.:,,;.::-A ''''' ' ' .'4::,-.--,:•:kfi-"--P61--.7,,Vr,:re,-xpx.---.,- -- ,-,-,,i:`,"- .,.ifr. .t.k:.-t„,:1V.t.g1 P4tvk,:-A-. -`. ,"• 4".:-,-:S-.7.-f:' .=. .A0-.,:1131.M4 ' ,I72.1t7-'74,41t, 4Alik.W7T.--*.lrM:f-1,f4t1,,Til. 4-1"P-1-4-fe'fA`:=1;iit. i'6 716-_=.1t-_--,','Aze,:lt:'1r-tt... ;-„„,•--,:: - .':-,-2.-- :._. :,,t---,:,. ..477:1r ..W.-'.'""?-''".1-:4-'1,'=.=:---r- :j:= Irr.i. -._-74""_-t4,- i'5',Y:::'.'„Pfi1", 1,..-,',4. 1...:-...,-, '.,:.;,,..-Vp*Ii.---72,-TV:cr ti.;-..-5,:, rr'-'-'2?---r--A411.,:iic-1-J.1.--il,:.:=4„ki,otr.,-,--,- ,,,,,..t,-3.4•r„ .;-,..-.•:-'.-.-.4.4.,-.,-4.7,_,L_.it.: cr..=6- 1-;Rh.:7,,,424.-,.,---,yr,..-,,,,, ..,,..,--..--....7-et.r.7.$ 44,-,R=Kt,Stri•-•4 4 ,,v, 4-61,4 tr„ -wpt;-:?_!,.,_,;;;•-•;,,,,,7.: .4 174,„F„.„"j'j° ,,.'4":°'.:!4:„.4.- i.,.,„,,M-i-_, c:j.i4Zr.....,4T4g-ti,,S4 t ,4-44,t 7•,.0,77,1.7.,_17.20..:.-_,r,44.Ve°,: ' ,..5.iT4-44.2,.,01,.g,,..,.gi.,7,-4,.,r,O,T,441.: „,..,4,,,,,.7,7, ,,„.- '...,$.;"Ir-i;,';',' 1 6::?Af;g.,.;:7- -V -.',-,,,,t,,,7,,44,M,..2413:*TA'. .....-s.m.r.,,vz., 7.-i-,:,..;%_47,c ;17,,-,,,,..i-..0,..,-_,,,,,,... ,..„-• d- -,H,1,..-,,,o,. ....--r,,,-:,,, W, .4.444,,.r."5..r-71-7-54:-.7....7,...„;7., .=',i'.ii :,.:=.::±,:fe., la,:11.,:i'..--''.3,41 . 41.7. ,fm... ,u,---: :.;:v'"4.04,:-.R...,:;,;7jit:px... 5441 ,=,;:t..-.''''''F`:S'A.'F.' ,ic ,...-':- ..rd,:.A,....... ;..-^ ',.-.---..f---"ff,s altiL":74,4,.T-Z:Ilt-F7:,i1;t'':.1:i5_* ;,7*--,-,i a 1...,,At:i. ,-.:.#47:9r1‘20,f,:;•:t • ,:--,.:-.,. . ..-,.rf.,,,q1 1,-,,,iov-:-:::,,,,,....4 ,-;:,. 7,7.44',-',-'_'..-y2.1 al ',,,^-;,, :".17:1,,:!--- .7-:,4-77,',7,zit--„s vm.-..,,I".13,-;*•,---'10,';;k4 • 1 ::....,. ..,,-.,:3,::;;.a r ,.. ,_,...-,;..„4„..,..,:wr: .„ .,- „,. ...,,._,..._ dr,,,i,,../ .../.,e,„_:::„.A,'ocky,,,e,. ,-:_..,,,''A.:4;:::a, .51%.,:'.::4t,,,7,.;,.... '":.,_1,-t--;;-1,qi---,-.::ktuit,4,-_,.:,-,-;--•&t.„'4 0-..,,o,,,,:it.-14.,?•,71.-,,, • ,,F' ..,-. -,..-,.-- .::- .i,ik,...-t---"••. ;;--..•...1: -,--0.,..,,, ,,-;o At A ip-- .„.,..,,,,,_-=-,,:..,... .--.•;)1.:, rif_?;, ',' ,cB;''' ":"/A;'' ,r7,1/1._&''''V;,-. '•','•:-';''''''i';g,'4.'-•• '"riereP ,,f- 'b T.,T4''''''' ..' '2..064 / .1.A5647jOrclfril"'''' :,,,e-• Ri:'.- oiv-••-:,7(i•ciii-•!`••••• pt 40;- - - •'t-'4:''''OF-cop, -.4e,4"L.;.-1-'''''it'A'4 tal: ,,F, *9--,,Tt--,,,, ,V--.--.:--:. ,-.-,11r--?',4,... •.':-=-4:1?..-$.1.V.-;.;,K0 i,-- '4;1 93P•,-.,:-,--rd- 7- If,411.;}-,,.;' ,,..,. .4-:?.., i.,,wrsg,. .,,ei-,4 p,..-,.>, ,, .,e.,„*.,.,:,,,,o,l.i.:,,,,:,!„,„.,,,„,,.. ,,,„.,,,c„..,k„,,,,,,,, r ---.• itir r,...-:g, -. -,.,,=0'. '...-L .9",,.',14'.:,.......,-, .41-4,-,. 1.11'.,1 , 4,..,,, ,,,-/.444.C.. ,1:-. 4745',"., .,., d'- A 1.4- C4".¢..° -...•. .''',-.°44,-. 4."'"....,....4'..'" :'', .i Pt.'I.,,,"r..7;,'4.... •..,, 5.. ..4,.1,'''. ... .0 l', ..i 1',"A....'. ''''2'_■,''... ti... ':. 7.r .'1.'51.-'" 'l'.0",1.44g0,1411 U.'''''''''Z''.....''•.. 7.1,1 ri „'",7'..t1'7.4,■■ ..”.9P L ...:'W .A.'‘e-r:X." '...:'7'..-..':.?:; . V..'..g '"'OCIV'1'J 1.'V'r'r' ''? '1!'6'11.V7.,,'.:,;';7;,'.4.3,41P.Z;Z'?:,'.::,1;:. .Yitg '1.,,''..,'...,, '1. .„,.,.,....iNal. : , '''''''''!"'.'..Si....'' 4'..‘4,..:f. ;ip,''.;tLri:.i':;i::.,!'.1..'':,::: iY1314./,''''''7P,C■, : ''4,..,. .q;::,,;:f'.'};' 4/A3 ;.:;.:7;:..%%Vi;I:.';'i''.:10Al':.',:i ''''''.■'':;'''',.;9;-° !...IM'''41 11414: ' '' ' '' °C.... "15417q.4 lit5r,A'442";k'4AtiA'f ;:.'141' .1'31'.)14:-I''.4''.'?'7....,' ''''':: ';7.' '''' ''-' 4:') ,Y`,,C.k,--)6,44%''-' 4 :'''''•:!---71,Ati-,70 '4:ft. ,,r,.. ,' ...-. :.• 1.k.".-re,/'6 41- ° '' , ••40 1,7 ,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,/,„„,..4 i, ,,.,.,,,,., 4,„4,. 74 AV ,„,,,. - ..,,4,.,:,t,,,4"-A ,,,,,t., .,-;,A,, ,., . , 7 / •:,:t1.0.,;44.,,,,,.;._4,,s.,,,,,,,4_,, ::,-, „.7•--. 1,11, AP',"4,7._ „,,,w.:0-” 7,r7,4,#'-';:; .1-.. til,;•aseti.r;v4ti_ CBD■ , ..g4F-Et.d Li r7 4 ,,,„,_zr,%,, ____.----7- CSC. ,;.7,„e;;:i,..0,f7,',2,,,W. p`f,kg ..."-5„,,,,extrj,f, ef (....7 ,-,,,`,...!.,-.,..-; ,--;., •'.7.:,..-,t..<1•_,-,,yq tF...V ''' ,- --&--41,„'''-.,: tyse-„...„-efe ,,Wc••frif7._..;•-•,.-f,0=4„-';Poo?",,,ktii '.,-.,•,fr .4.,, -4,-.4,-,s,,,,;,,,,.,$,:i.,,,,,.47,„,-A,--, , ,•,„I 1::.-ernt,. ,=_ T2;21 7 / II ,-,-- '■32, ,,,, ,"7,,,,,,,, A■upASI!...6:.• . ,:,:-.F.L.,:::,.:f!.-_,-,..,..--:.::,:-=.".:--:„.•., 1 0,t,.7774 --41"1:44.i. .-,4,,,:,:t.,?:ifij fp!.,,..:7.•, .:,,,,if41 & ,A,V,A :•;r:P!..-',0:4;;V?S'Affir,- 3.1"),4-Y-j' 4'2_"±-':-IT-71.,:%:.:1,-L';',..tr..,-..., -;-. : --..E. villv.rf ti;.6.,1), :',iii:-..•,, Azir•-+'-'-'?1_,tii ;,„,_ 2„-__,- _ , „,7;( f.L:..f -'447'!--!--41,...-,,••, t4- 74--i'7471. 4,40.271,i!7-,;:--;.--;17.:7.4::::: ....z., - ="I'' '''''''''''' '''' '''' '--,, ••,-,--7,,z,•-v•.,- 1 4-' "i—'--a ---,.. .=-'r:'"''Z'*':.1-- 71'::::'!" 4'--1 ' bLEjltidir=1- 4-7r' .„, :-,.. 4,-.,; , 41744,4F-47:741, 0 re./WV-te,j; 1j-..',:xv..,A,.,i:.:-4,‘,-,,pzt,..-01Nck,,,.,..1,i;-,,--.@•,.... .:1: , ,... .„,„,,,,,.-.,.., , ...6.,,,,. .,.,-;:r.g.,,,,,,-.--.. .-,..6,,T, .•-,,r2,--.79•70,nFA-p7.--n-vi----ofilp-11;;'• -77:41 qt.0 rAA,-,--.-04-4,4.4P2r"..40''.,•Yv'Pr'"5-'70.--1-Ro'`:'-%f',.---''''''''';', "-''' 1 i47.7.-:;,:.„•--.-----re t..-i..i. - ...,-,',,,LirAkit.A:74.---,:',•.-•=i/I I*S-71")...:0;72p.gp-'4,-,,,,, ''!-iisi' - -,--,----x-4--- .-dr;"62''..jV..L,4Zf(,..-Sfrir-6,-'.,5'.4‘4 ifj.-7,1:lit-.9..,•:.,A,i-%.,.%,-4.;"A -I,:k*::4%•4'..t•:''.;.;-,'l'16:4,:"",• r'lit':',A 4'f"1,1 ,i•ji-A.4,:f.v-4; 0-v. . :ff,,,j(z-b-, .1,10A .4.1.,:-.. --...17-- ...... r4,-,..0:1...•=;*:1.*111.•;?g, II I 1 -'1'.•.;r2S- di i-A,,,,,,,,,--,..,,,Z :.--ki, .1.7.1,....,- .4.,•,........p.4. . , J... "...-,.• • , , __!.,,Irr-.,..,, -9.v,-"A 1 t,7:0-e,..,,I 4 ,k.1„ -,,,,,, ,i,,.A-A.-....,..z.,:ik,,. 47' '''' "e • ,-,-. '':Al•),.".'ii ,;:-,;--,,,,f;=:4,41 ;„..,...,r , -F' `'-'t;.r., .4 PR-3 CH.:.;‘:".i'V%;:•'; '''''''''''''.4" 1 -'.,-W- -:•.V. '10;.iiv...,.-,,,-.,-- -Y.-,, 'z•-!,-,..11Dt,1Q4 . ''' -a-."' ..OP.-4 4-Lauf' ' ,pR.,3 11-,,Vrl:re ,ICBC)11,.. PR-3 ',4 Vit,,,,,'*- ,•. ,e.° „. 4:. .. ..,,.-_,•,.4..'4,--„g-Y-.,-SV:,,-;-':, ',•-a-4-„--.4/.1F ,..4-1..-, - .,- _.„.4.... , :4... .i.4.11.,,,.----.. .-T.,..i. a: arw.,16,,-. ,,film.,..,..- .•;.,, 4"Y--V• •?.. ''''•t,'• *7',ii ,"--:-.',:,:-oos ,-„:.:,m...1-1---'4•44-ii-114 ,,..,:;,,„„,,,e,t, ..x.yit.tAti -.4.:./.6,„:;1„:"4-f,0#1----fr'',45'...i1„0„.„.;_,- .L,1__--,-,,:1---,r-:,,7,-.- r, 1,...5-,-44i•''{',;.,,t^' '?'"' ' °;1.■ 1 4.1';:-7.'02*-1'91$47:-1-i.-111:-'.•'•"'1'.. M-'. 1'.11,1f.,,11-'1 :'---1.•-jt=1,V;;;:";.,A,",.'4,1:::,--4-'.;,-;1 '19gsaIZ--,- -,-,-'-i-t.'41- : ''1:-.''.. 1 s,.:''';'!:„'I':-:-.:,i,,-7-'',,-i ,,,..90-..-- ze.i.i *.,„.,1,,a,'„1 ==.±-el-.'f----7'77- -, ff„) 20,.•^7.4-,' .. 1:, -3:.-.4_1 :•"-t-W L.,k4em 111-.• 1,•.;„;;;;„1-.L:4,-:,-;;,„.-,v-t..t ..!;•m, ,i,,„ -„:„1,•,,....:,.,:,..„:-„,„„.. ,-4,,, , 0i,..,..,?.-.,-... -,.:.1, .,.-, •z_. - -•-..,..7-- ,-.-;...ir imr;.......,- • VA.-45 •k;•;4:,•,'4•- /x••• -" . . ,444.1 .,:4641 atk TIY;Tti.•:!--,1,..-:-...-,,,„:4,481 i' =!i 1 -:4!.,..:•:!--rftzt ,••=•,r.if,.; l'.;;;;;;;;if.;.,• -/%,.,1" ,1,--=;•;:--4t.? '•-•,-:...wk, .--.prpliaz ‘1,,,,p8Din pH,CBD rdi PR-3.,''!,,;*-1,.7.1e:p.:_.!;,a'11,441 tt.4.:..../.0:'::: Z,41V4',.-!:,'41-11:,°.l °‘ l'1414 ,'S.414,41..'rT:'°' d.,.-V V 4/T,,,,,...A Alt'''Arj 14.1-;°7°,1111i -;---;'=:=-,,---" ="=R:':' ---e:;-...,--7:,-- - ,) -...•,--.,-04k.•-•••,•-x,r-,-*,-,-,.;::=:.,., .;.f.rer,••„;•$';:-.ez;-4.`••. •..•;-„..-L4E.,,•.„;,.._,,..;,e .=.1-1,--.;,. t -•••• -.-r.k.- - 'lr•-• 7 '.;','-_,--;.' ,_ 1 l',44f4.:.„,,,,„„,„:c,•,:-„,..:N iti;,' ,.140.1.4',..KF,'....55., i. 1 kitc4441-7;;:ki . ,;•1.?-. ,,1■4',-..,. 3„,,v.,,i, -7-i„;,,f1.... .4,...,a4.2.,• , -,_ 4;;!.:;,,,, ,..--4.5,--,- -p.,11:-:f=7:41, i• f:;'-;.,t4j1.4,144-.'vAt&:q.41?g;-:=•''.. :•:-aolvtil-ii _,== ;:;•T''',;-:j Pl'="t'-7-W:Ne,:-'' ".,,It'itr.; .;7:744- g,-.1--alt!•;4:01R•3 HI-. •-,, .;,OC,151-;..714,,:y 4CBD,!;.i.1,FLR:3 g..„,,,:,, ,,, t:i.-...A, ,,?, -: A ,ViY';=110 v,i,.''''';'-*, ,,.-40.t.;k,„„„l t'.:77.='-'-ft 40:,;. ',.,`,.. 11.NtrO -&•;;'-. '. F-114.,7 4 14ffi.Q;:;:_ ig!_?&!'?'_'.°111 --''''' ,-,irk....1441-41-4-4;.;,Rmr,' , A. 1 r'-'" ,.'1.-':Ii?.'41 r'.. 44'l'ij4"Fi. ,,,AfT?'''.'!';: g'4"* ' ''' -' ,r4.e.:74'1=4--.1i i'' 7..743.:424g.al.- -,-Y,,,',7-A,'4,,iatift-,4710•"':* _;--.-.,,, .. :lettift.....t.ti .e.:,... tr,,,4..i, ,....#4:,,i, „...,.,.,,„,.,..zi:;„01.,,,,11,4,110 __r_':'.4.'"r-6."-'''4-4 ''''''' .... ..',••,-, ,..-,.44%7-..,_-7.-,,,,, -'g':',.;•,,,;.4"1*7!'"sw7:"art ilpa.r',...7:,,,,4.e' ..--',A3-',:- t, f-i';7,-•.1f4`,-,-i,...2 '' 1p.,,,z-,„..._,N1.4 ,4i..-.:..,t, ....z.yL 1- -,...,..:-;.7„----..,..„..,4 .-0,LL,- ,1 ' •;,•-•,--_pk7,-- -•o;,47,.(-4-- „•)--• -''';-; .. eti ' '• ;;+-,;`• ',. 411-,-1----11:.'14.,,11-.11V4 - ''.-- - -7,-- - - - .L..),-..,--,--,,t'---.1 To il ,,,•. pR...3 ---CBD..1.e..I,.cBy FIR-,3 -.....'7 il.;',..,:.iticat.• ',:17,,,,,./:•;; 7,',,,,,,,Lc, ':::4'7-, I '-'2,', .,,L-1;11•. 7,1'''A''''.'"ra--1.1 /:',''.4 pi "i''',;7:, .-771 41 -': „ „,.. . 5••!,,: - ..;Fr. -_,.. :-c4: 34 TS ..: ...:7,-.77.7:11,,,,-,,-174.,,,,,til.A:„.111 i'-,,,,,t.-.:/-;_-7,...,.r,,kri.J.I.A ,--1, _4,.. , .-: '....-.',Virf..i%.. % ^..;.14 .i;4,,-,....1-A.7.,..,.:::. 1-, kkti. ,f.t:,: 4:..i. 2,i2zr. ,--'4-sc'v-*=-= H.,-"e.r ,4°47 t ff:tg72:alfrt:':. ''';',:!'•''I';.ft'41' i'::" .3'=''--0 :t'g-* 0 I-l'iTt.4. Pl"'' , ,•_,II'.,'ILT, -'.. ,,_,; -,,,---,,,, (p.-7..-7.i i:-.=, --;-...1744.;_•, r -;',;•.".1.;•;..Sr^:-"'-7-.•"` okc.-:, _--,:i•-4,:...t:.'...,-t;4C°. ".41-j-, It ..s..t.•',..t4•:---,4,-49_,217,..17- ,.:-..,,....rt.,-,,, , .1„- -... ....,,„Fr, I- .. ',.... ,ry-f,,,,4,1,i,-'7,,0..45, ig,---,4,,,L;virt-iizrE,:54,s-A-04---0--eisif.1.4havt:- 1! ..,....,„.„..,,,,?,,v ..-:_.!....:,. . - r,.;....-,;4•,:ty„f4i-v,11,•..,A; ,e...1, , ._41m; ::MI ffita f„.„IC1111 v.0147.V.-.11.!1'.:1W-':•44,-,Viga.gi.. ..4-,14,,;'.-.! A r4.,,,c:i.....-.A.TE• k,c7- i*,4•.'sj'A'711, :-Lic ...;:''' .1.4'0 pa**.-„,-, •ri ;.;.` -,&-:-12, ■ z'-‘,--4'''-li ---'i',--k-' "'5'----;77.-4 ,--=,,'ii.g-..1,-„- •17..-Arr:tri:77,4!;'' '2.-,,''' 4, 1. till.',- -- .,;,,,47•TwA.,15•:w•-••11,..;.,,,,-; -4:•• ••,z-- -,, .2Lvl•-•.',,t4-,s,--4'-'41.•••‘;-.4•.;---0-,--: • ':4Fa'•'-?-''''t:,'23.;zoil0,::',0:,,_,*.'''A3. 11-.4==40... .- ;-•,:,,,, ,,,,11,1,,Vr,,__,.r .''•,_ --,:.• :,,, ,- ,,!;;--;If',:;•,-.,I,:::.. .4 .,..,,... -, 1 ... ..,7,7;:,; . r..,.. ia.Z.10,04Mf i , •,..,,,..--,--;;,-,..,,,,,,,-9,,,,,,--,1/4;ice-.•-;,-4,-...m-,..,A..4At'- -..74573-..,1,..,4 f_°•i;„,..,44r4ii-,' .,I.t.,..,..-0,--,--.-49, -?,--;_„-- f:.-:-,-...., . a,`,..".-:-..,1,•,,,"' . ,,,,,..„-.,,. -5.1,4,.,,,t,o it, lakit.& ,t. 1, V :A,;,,..4 . , ',,.-..-: ..---; *I, ,,, ,,,li.1/4! - .' ,-, -1,V)M 4 - i'../ri.-'4t-i 4' ° °*-;: it. :q...---,--4-:4*----•; ',.!. . j g'i,--7,47.4.-'4r'jtj': -Y'-7'..'.. .4'7-..". ...-F.,-Lli,:' '-',. ';',..-',,::i...._,..; ,t,',!4'-„,„,..•,-„ ..--' 94`•:.3,PR-.3'1 ‘ ; -Itlitlit,-0;":;;,,,,,,,,:`•ret,:a•:‘,„„v=4,.t-:'• *.t . 7.4. .:r."";-.-;•:-._,.. 1 'Ii-3•._„,,,.,,,. ,,if,C77,:i .,1,1e.74Figi9 -,Itz4,.,i-,-:;4413,.,ill,,;;;1■;!ige,•./..., ...,,,77.,,;,..„1,,-,tyt,ir..;,=2,..0.. .,,,ii;:;42:ii,..i..;,., .4-0...,:-,IT-,,23.,:%.-i........„..%*,..0...,,,,-7. ,int...-1,--,----.,:.Al,;ifiloswm..,- v.,11 ; 0 I. crfy.,,,,,,,,..,:":k.: ._ ,,.,...•...0-,, --"j-4,..7'°:,','..,V j4°°7°4-4-.4".4.-1,4 ' `L p.A47:,:s,s0,1---....:1:11N.,:-err ,,,,iirit:iii.*W' -`;`,,„,,TM'..=•`=`'`:,=',,,,ir'•.;:;:4 t•:.,,SE.:'; ;,...., .,-,iii„:,..,_,.1,•,°';',11-::0',4,-, Ttet"44.......,....-0.44's',,-;:.- 2, f Eltirk''"'''''''''•• :'''..,14r.1-V-1'.,'„,..A'4'..,'''''''' ';'•'h...of.;SL''0.' ',.., iti;4A ,,,,,;r,..;If'','•'."1"..,i.Wa * .2;'';::r'4; e`i'' `-',!'X:'`'` j V.34 -j-4°"';',.;T:47:"ItErlictiTY:1°'W ,A.-ft 4,...,.50 ,41*.„..4., I „:VE., '7414;:i°,-°. j4,.,47,.T2 ,„4.4"it,,e-Okk. .' ;,.4.'::?:•;4, ::.-• ItinITWo!, °:'•13,1i, ..414-4,'1.'4°,:F.Li°51 '. 4.1? .4,,,,,..,,,4Mild..Z.MA 1 `" •'4,7.!,'' 0.,it,,IF-0„J -2.: --:,•,..14-t4,.,:e: ,i-;,..:0.47.-W:•-.=;."1. 7,".., :iy!',Y1-',.0`, '!,..L.:441,,r.".14.,i.„ --,..,,,4.,1.,:,.4.,-,-....i.:43-„,ig-:--21,..,-;„:" .;6....4 ..-t-,-..;•:••••: 147:;• 1 '••;;;.,'-!;"-,.-.;•.;•4;-.4-?Cit-itvi 1.,'''-5-'4,1,4;•.•.;'2',",',,, -,1•'67;••5•2'''''''1''g r'-i.''-q.114.-4.'...;,;-,' .tY,L--_--tf: •-,,2',,,,.,....,_,_'-,•,-,1-.1 i:V.;,,j,-L,Zr-,ft 4,-„. %..4 _ !I Vt....."' :4410.4 =t 0 ,e.„.._:i„.„: .,;!,,,,---: „..k•-4_ '• :Cr.;;R-:•••••••-• --;. ••'-,--„--7,-- ::::•• --,::,---•:7=1•--1!--._____ 1,1--....,•,,,, ,,--,*-.=---..,,41,. :Ix,,. 110;577,,3;-,:-7,t_,-,•4 2..,-,-;.,,,,,,....,,,,,; i i ;.:,.t., '=,-:-..":„..___- ,„7-:-.:•-i,.„„•—,4,,'''• ..,-- .4•14,to ,..q I, ,..1' _....4- - , i.,::,, .,-,..--,•.1•..4,....,C,7,--,,;:-rrsil',:-.... . 1-.,.,-fr. ,',..,e -:. 1' :,,,,+,`-_-:., 1—A : : A • A A,114::,.5,-, .tr,,----,,,.,. „._-", '•,,;,,,,,,,1 ,...4,1,i'l ...tratig,;_ ,-„•4_, -;;•,,lf,PR,3 f!rl-Ac,.4V.dq:;:s 1 ':,..5,;:.irdar,-.. ,,,9,,.: f ■-■ ' Central Business District t 0,1,ts3,4,-':27"--: ,:-,....,'lei 'm.•:.44.-I •F*,=-_•4:-'4. ._tt• c- --. ,i,•,,,-;,:-....-..i?.,. .$;,; ,1„-,••,-,.„..,,,,,-;„ ,77, ei 0.•,,,,,,-...... ;•,k....-,,..":„,„; I, • ,,t1-, ,.. ' '''''''' '1:1.'''.;:''..°44:f!=.,4: flaw;:,-1,.,-,_,:1.$-Ag'!,,,,ztv c-,--..,„;,--:;!7,7--;-`-- I 1 1.111 Arcadia i. ,,.,,, ,-- -:.,;:_,---or...: :',, ,,.,,4 tat't-'-'•Vi',-.Ilig::'-:-7'"14' - '-''':1''''--' '''..,• --.;'''r'l-,i1--.--'1'- :-,.„ ,-. '-,*--• .-ac.I, Pi•!' -.: - i',;:; .17.•;,' 04':..,,kl kE',13 - PR-I 1.1t5.,..,...T,Itt',:faii4,1 .4.-,'."'''.7".,--.ii:I.,7ir 4,-* ) - . ,,,,,,,,,.„....1..., .„ rvo. ,. 14,..„...„,, •,.„.7., ..,„_,..,..v.... ., ti6- ; . .. s., CBD j Zone i.-- jay.i., -,A'.:..,,,,.' ... -1<,"?.7. ,4,-.44,..g4W Of.',X4.4,17, i'''' 4,:4,4 4, ,,,4 ."--..,,nrjrillW°'-4 *I.,- :j.:,.../.4:- T4'.. . ''L.:, ‘‘ ,,4ir-'-.41n.-"r.- 4-‘1,1g57.7 .,,, --'1'- ,,--.1,,,a ...1Z4.-;-.1. L'-'''''tal■tritZ''- -' - k 1 1 i A,05t1IP 4$bA „', TY O c•I Ms: . . 1 . a ' • '- Central Business District - -szA, .-'1.,." .•"' 1 . - 7 i4.34•Itai..: , iii,,• •• �® 02..001 'i Development Services Department , ,.s,i.,713,:_c-AD.ji, --'w. . . • . Engineering Division "4,>%,„„:, .......<0' 9 I Prepared by:R.S.Gonzalez June 2002 (3-14'oRArz r pcsv_ 3o 0= OFD. c?' rY:c ; o 'ARCADIA felleff- l+\ io9 e)RpoRaTED- STAFF REPORT August 20, 2002 Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Agency Board Members FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator d;y SUBJECT: ARA RESOLUTION NO. 202 AND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 6316 ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21000 ET SEQ.) RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT SUMMARY Attached for the City Council's and the Redevelopment Agency's consideration are Resolution 6316 and ARA Resolution 202 recommending adoption of revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines The proposed 2002 Guidelines are an update of the previous guidelines adopted by the City Council and the Agency Board in March 2000. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council take two separate actions as follows: • 1. Under the Redevelopment Agency, adopt ARA Resolution 202; amending and adopting local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.); and 2. Under the City Council, adopt Resolution No. 6316 adopting local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) TA-8-20-02cEQA Report Adoption CEQA Guidelines August 20, 2002 P1ER IMAGED -4g /4 c 1 BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as contained in Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., is California's most important environmental law. It requires all public agencies within the state to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions. CEQA also aims to control environmental effects of agency actions by requiring agencies to avoid or reduce, when feasible, the significant environmental impacts of their decisions. CEQA requires all agencies to adopt specific objectives, criteria and procedures for evaluating public and private projects that are undertaken or approved by such guidelines. On March 14, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 6168 and the Redevelopment Agency adopted ARA Resolution 184 adopting the CEQA guidelines. Due to the CEQA changes during the past two years, new guidelines are proposed for adoption. The local guidelines are designed to assist City and Agency staff in assessing the environmental implications of a project prior to approval as mandated by CEQA. DISCUSSION When there are substantive changes to CEQA, the City Attorney's Office will prepare updated guidelines for adoption by the City Council and Agency Board. This is a ministerial process and public entities should adopt revised guidelines when necessary. The Attorney's office has prepared a set of updated Local CEQA Guidelines for the City and Redevelopment Agency to adopt in compliance with the above- described CEQA requirement. These guidelines are tailored to the City's and Agency's specific needs and provide step-by-step procedures for evaluating projects prior to approval. The updated guidelines also provide instructions and revised forms for preparing any environmental documents required under CEQA. Although there have been very few significant statutory changes to CEQA during the past two years that would impact the City and Agency, several bills were signed into law this past year that affect CEQA in some way that warrant changes to, the guidelines. Items 1 and 2 below have some impact on the City's CEQA process; the changes identified in 3 and 4 have little affect on the City because of the types of projects they describe. 1. AB1532 requires that public agencies conduct scoping meetings for projects of statewide, regional or area wide significance and to provide notice of the scoping meeting to: (1) any county or city that boarders on a county or city TA—s-20-O2CEQA Report Adoption CEQA Guidelines August 20, 2002 Page 2 r ' within which the project is located; (2) any responsible agency and (3) any public agency that has jurisdiction by law over the project; and (4) any organization or individual who has filed a written request for the notice Prior to adoption of this bill, scoping meetings were not mandatory. A new section entitled "Scoping Meetings" has been added to the "Initial Study" chapter of the local guidelines. 2. Los Angeles's new NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requires that "each Permittee shall incorporate into its CEQA process procedures for considering potential storm water quality impacts and providing for appropriate mitigation." The Initial Study forms have been revised to address potential stormwater impacts. 3. SB 610 expands the requirements for obtaining water supply assessments. Previously this only had been required for projects that required an EIR, specific plan or amendment to the land use element of a General Plan. A water supply assessment is now required for all of the following type projects whether or not an EIR is required: Q A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. ® A shopping center or business either reemploying . more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 sq. ft. of floor space. • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sq. ft. of floor space. O A proposed hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms 6 A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plan or industrial parking with more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land or having more than 650,000 sq. ft. of floor area. • A mixed-use project with one or more of the projects above. O A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. The City does not have any projects that are subject to this criteria. However, a new section has been added to the "Initial Study" chapter entitled "Consultation with Water Agencies Regarding Large Development Projects" to address this requirement. 4. SB 221 enacts new requirements to address the water supply needs of large development projects. Public Agencies cannot approve tentative maps, • certain parcel maps or development agreements for subdivisions of property into more than 500 dwelling units unless there is verification from the public water system that a sufficient water supply is available or that water supplies are or will be available prior to completion of the project. TA-8-20-o2CEQA Report Adoption CEQA Guidelines August 20, 2002 Page 3 � h The City does not have any projects that are subject to this criteria. However, a new section has been added to the "Initial Study" chapter entitled "Subdivisions with more than 500 dwelling units." The new local CEQA Guidelines- proposed for adoption by the City and the Redevelopment Agency at tonight's meeting reflect these changes. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that there be two separate actions as follows: Redevelopment Agency That the Redevelopment Agency Adopt Resolution No. ARA 202, a resolution of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency amending and adopting local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). City Council That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6316 amending and adopting Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Approved: • b4 William R. Kelly, City Manager/Executive Director Attachment: ARA Resolution 202 City Council Resolution No. 6316 TA—8-20-O2CEQA Report Adoption CEQA Guidelines August 20, 2002 Page 4