Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
July 20, 2004
.r ■ ■ a nd \ Re A Meeting July 20, 2004 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Conference Room ROLL CALL: City Council /Agency Members: Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 1. CLOSED SESSION. a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer about labor contract negotiations - California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union Local 911 (Confidential, Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit), Arcadia Police Officers' Association, Arcadia Firefighters' Association, and unrepresented employees: Department Heads, Division Managers, Supervisors and Part-time Employees (City Negotiators William W. Floyd and Tracey Hause) 2. OPEN. SESSION Review of sample certificate and proclamation designs from other cities a. 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members /Agency Members: Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDAITEMS LASER IMAGED, Gary A. Kovacic, Mayor . John Wuo, Mayor Pro rempore . Roger Chandler, Gail A. Marshall; Mickey Segal, Council Members - William R. Kelly, City Manager Jim Barrows, City Clerk �/� WELCOME TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thank you for attending an Arcadia City Council meeting. The following information is provided to make the meeting a more meaningful and understandable event. The City of Arcadia is governed by a five- member City Council, which also serves as the Redevelopment Agency. Every even - numbered year, either two or three Council Members are elected at large to serve four -year terms. The City Council elects, from its membership, a Mayor to serve as the presiding officer for a one -year period. The City Manager is employed by the City Council to carry out its policies and to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the City and the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS are held on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 240 W. Huntington Drive. Meetings are broadcast live on cable channel 20 and replayed at various times in the following weeks. From time to time, special meetings are scheduled for specific purposes. The City Council follows a regular order of business, as provided in the agenda for each meeting. The agenda is prepared and made available to the public 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Full agenda packages are available for review prior to the meeting in the City Clerk's Office at City Hall and at the Arcadia Public Library. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION is invited at all City Council meetings. At each regular meeting, time is reservec • for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council on any matter. There is a five - minute time limit per person. Please be aware that, pursuant to the provisions of the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from taking action on any issue not listed on the agenda, unless an emergency exists requiring City Council action or an urgent need for action arises after the agenda is published. Time is also reserved for individuals wishing to address the City Council about a scheduled "Public Hearing" item. With respect to Public Hearings, persons addressing the City Council should limit their remarks to the matter under consideration. CONSENT CALENDAR items are considered to be routine in nature and maybe enacted by one motion. There is no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member so requests. An ORDINANCE is a City law which can only be amended or repealed by adoption of another Ordinance. A proposed Ordinance requires two readings —an introduction and an adoption —at separate City Council meetings. Ordinances become effective 30 days after adoption. A RESOLUTION is an official statement of City Council policy, directs certain administrative or legal action, or embodies a public City Council statement. A Resolution is adopted the same night it is proposed. Once adopted, it remains City Council policy unless changed by a subsequent Resolution. In compliance witi te,ARICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, if you need special assistance tc • participa%inia,City!CbuhcR in Ping, please contact the City Manager's Office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. i • C , J MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full 4. PRESENTATION of plaque to George Sanders., 5. PRESENTATION of Certificates of Congratulation to the Arcadia Cardinals baseball team 6. PUBLIC HEARING —CITY COUNCIL All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items 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 Items 6.a, b, c, and d. you may be limited to raising only those issues and objectiorii which you or someone else raised at or prior to.the time of the Public Hearing. , a Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of roofing material at 1104 Rancho Road Recommendation: Deny b. Ordinance No 2195 changing the zone from C-0/Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple- Family Residential at 646- 650-West Huntington Drive Recommendation: ' Introduce C ' County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures Annual Weed Abatement Charge List Recommendation: Approve d. 2004 Public Health Goals Report for the City of Arcadia Water System Recommendation: Receive and file TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO. WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 7. MATTERS FROM ELECTED'OFFICIALS City Council Reports / Announcements /Statements/Future Agenda Items 8. CONSENT — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the Julv 6, 2004 regular meeting-and the June 29, 2004 and July 1, 2004'adioumedmeetings Recommendation: Approve 2 CONSENT — CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the July 6 2004 regular meeting and the June 29, 2004 and Julv'1 2004 adjourned meetings Recommendation: Approve C. Recommendation: U prohibiting advertising sign boards: adding a definition for advertising Recommendation: Adopt e. f. g. Construction of St Joseph Reservoir Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56 h. Agreement to lease /purchase re placement water and/or storage space in Raymond and Main San Gabriel ground water basins Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve and ratify a 'lease agreement with Southern California Water Company and to approve future agreements for replacement water and/or storage space • r� U City Manager and City Clerk to execute this agreement Recommendation: Adopt agreement Recommendation: Adopt i. Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Proiect • Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Nativ Engineering, Incorporated in the amount of $104,717.00 for the Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project j. Water meter boxes and accessories Recommendation: Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000.00 to Armacast Products, Incorporated for the purchase of water meter boxes and accessories k Electrical lighting and accessories Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with WEST -LITE Supply Company, Incorporated in the amount of $102,418.00 for the purchase of electrical lighting and accessories 1. Motor vehicle fuel Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve a change order for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel from Southern Counties Oil m. Telephone voice mail system Recommendation:. Award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corporation in an amount not to exceed $32,244.75 for the installation of a • telephone voice mail system n. Cable telecast of City Council meetings Recommendation: Authorize the retention of Studio Spectrum, Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 to film, program and provide other ancillary services related to the live broadcast of City Council meetings during Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 o. Brass valves, fittings and water related materials Recommendation: Reject bid submitted by National Water Works and direct staff to re -bid the contract P. Revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and Procedures Recommendation: Adopt q. Revised Statement of Policy concerning the role of City Council Board and Commission Liaisons Recommendation: Adopt • H 9. CITY MANAGER a. Conversion of the Lucky Baldwin Community Picnic to a July 4` Celebration Recommendation: Provide. direction ADJOURN the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to August 3, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers Conference Room • F - I LJ ANNOTATED COUNCIL AGENDA — CITY OF ARCADIA TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION 1. a. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6 to confer about labor contract No reportable action negotiations — California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' by the City Council. Union Local 911 (Confidential, Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit), Arcadia Police Officers' Association, Arcadia Firefighters' Association, management and unrepresented employees; Department Heads, Division Managers, Supervisors and Part-Time Employees (City Negotiators: William W. Floyd and Tracey Hause). 6. a . PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL: Consideration of an appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Appeal was denied. Review Board's denial of roofing material at 1104 Ranch Road. Uphold decision of Planning Board and Recommendation: Deny appeal Architectural Review Board. 4 -1 Marshall "no" 6. b. PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL: Consideration of Zone Change No. Z 2004 -002 to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Table consideration. Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R -3 /Multiple Family Residential. of this item until zoning review is Recommendation: Approve Zone Change. brought back to Planning Commission and Council in the fall. This item will be considered at that time. 5 -0 6. c. PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL: Conduct public hearing to provide Arcadia residents, who have been charged Approve inspection and /or abatement service fees by the County, an opportunity to 5 -0 protest the Weed Abatement charge list; approve the charge list so that the County Auditor may enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. Recommendation: Approve charge list. 6. d. PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL: Receive public comments on the Public Health Goals report for the City of Receive and file Arcadia's Water System. 5 -0 Recommendation: Conduct public hearing on the Public Health Goals report for the City of Arcadia's Water System, direct staff to respond to any public .testimony, and receive and file the 2004 City of Arcadia Public Health Goals Report. Pa 1 of 4 LASER IMAGED I., Page 2of4 8. a. CONSENT AGENDA (ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY): Approve Request for approval of the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting and 5-0 June 29, 2004 and July 1, 2004 adjourned meetings. CONSENT AGENDA (COUNCIL): 8. b. Request for approval of the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting and Approve June 29, 2004 and July 1, 2004 adjourned meetings. 5 -0 8. C. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, ORD.2191 amending Section 6611 through Section 6614.1, Divisions 1 through 5 Adopt Chapter 6, Part 1, Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding door -to- 5 -0 door peddling, soliciting, and canvassing. 8. d. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, ORD. 2196 deleting section 9275.1.37 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to Adopt advertising sign boards and adding new sections prohibiting advertising sign 5 -0 boards; adding a definition for advertising sign boards and adding a message substitution clause to the commercial and industrial zoning regulations. 8. e. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, RES. 6426 approving program supplement agreement No. M005 to agreement No. 07- Adopt 5131 to encumber federal aid funds for the pavement rehabilitation of Santa 5 -0 Anita Avenue, Sunset Boulevard, and Duarte Road Project. 8. f. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, RES. 6427 approving program supplement agreement No. MOOS to Agreement No. 07- Adopt 5131 to encumber federal aid funds for the Santa Anita Corridor ITS project. 5 -0 S. g. Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and WORK AS authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract Accept all work as COMPLETE documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56. complete 5 -0 S. h. Authorize the City Manager to approve lease /purchase agreements for LEASE groundwater pumping rights and lease storage space in the Raymond and Main Approve /PURCHASE San Gabriel Ground Water Basins. 5 -0 AGREEMENTS 8. L Award a contract in the amount of $104,717 to Nativ Engineering, Inc. for the AWARD 2003 -2004 Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project and authorize the Approve CONTRACT City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement in a form approved 5 -0 b the Ci Attorney. 8. j. Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000 to AWARD Armacast Products, Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Approve CONTRACT Accessories. 5 -0 EXT. Page 2of4 1 '. 8. k. Authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of electrical lighting and PURCHASE accessories in the amount of $102,418.00 and waive any informalities in the Approve ORDER/WAIVE bid or bidding process. 5 -0 BID PROCESS 8.1. Authorize the City Manager to approve a contract change order to Southern CONTRACT Counties Oil in the amount of $90,000.00 for the purchase of motor vehicle Approve CHANGE fuel. 5 -0 8. M. Award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corp. for the installation of a AWARD telephone voice mail system in the amount of not -to- exceed $32,244.75 and Approve CONTRACT authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement in 5 -0 a form approved by the City Attorney. 8. n. Authorize the retention of Studio Spectrum, Inc. in an amount not to exceed AGREEMENT $25,000.00, to film, program, and provide other ancillary services related to Approve the live broadcast of City Council meetings during Fiscal Year 2004 -2005. 5 -0 8.0. Reject bid submitted by National Water Works for the purchase of valves, brass fittings, and water related materials for the Public Works Services Reject Bid COMPLET Department's warehouse and direct staff to re -bid the contract. 5 -0 �Wp 8. P. Adopt the revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and STATEMENT Procedures, dated July 20, 2004, so as to no longer require the City Manager Approve with the OF POLICY review and approve all requests for certificates, as long as said request meets following changes: (Certificates) the guidelines noted in the policy. Time permitting, the City Manager can place a legislative position item on an agenda for City Council consideration; Council does not have to copy the City Manager on thank you letters, congratulatory letters and letters of regret sent on City letterhead. 5 -0 8. q. Adopt the revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and WORKAS Procedures, dated July 20,2004, so as to require the Council Member's attendance at the first (l commission meeting after he /she is appointed Approve (absent an emergency or other unavoidable conflict) and direct that further attendance at board and commission meetings by the Council Liaison is on an "as necessary basis" with no expectation that the Liaison will attend every 5 -0 �C.aA�GNW meeting. Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 9.a. CITY MANAGER: Discussion regarding conversion of the Lucky Baldwin Day Community Picnic to a City will host a 4` of July 4 t Celebration. July event in 2005. 5 -0 EMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: • Zoning review (fall) Page 4 of 4 46: 0117 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004 MINUTES Audio and video tape copies of the City Council/ Redevelopment Agency proceedings are on file in the office of the City Clerk The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday; July 6, 2004; 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber Conference Room pursuant to the previously adjourned Regular Meeting. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic ABSENT: None. TIME RESERVED FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There were no members of.the public who elected to speak at this time. L CLOSED SESSION a Pursuant.to.Government Code 54957.6 to confer about labor contract negotiations - LPBORNEGOIIATIONS California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union Local 911` ,(Confidential, Supervisor, Professional and;General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit), Arcadia Police Officers' Association, Arcadia Firefighters' Association, management and unrepresented employees; Department Heads, Division Managers, Supervisors and Part-Time Employees (City Negotiators: William W. Floyd and Tracey Hause). I OPEN SESSION a. Bill Kelly, City Manager presented samples of certificates and proclamations from various municipalities for•the Council's review; the City Council decided to keep the current Arcadia proclamation and certificate design, deplete the current supply of presentation folders and then order a gold motif background for future use. RE{1ONVENE The Regular Meeting of the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency was REGULARMEETiNG reconvened in the City Council Chamber at 7:03 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Brenda Simonds, Arcadia Methodist Hospital, Chaplain . PLEDGE OF Taylor Lagace, Cardinals Baseball Team ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic ABSENT: None. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, noted that there was no reportable action from the item discussed in Closed Session. 1 LASER IMAGED 712 0/2004 �O 46: 0118 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kelly made a numerical clarification regarding item number 8.1. on the Consent Calendar. MOTION - ORD. & It was moved by Council Member Marshall and seconded by Council Member Chandler, RES. READ BY TITLE then carried without objection that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only ONLY and that the reading in full be waived. 4. PRESENTATION of PLAQUE TO George Sanders. Mayor Kovacic recognized George Sanders, a pharmacist from Colonial Pharmacy on Baldwin Avenue, who has made several significant community contributions through his service in both his profession and the Lions Club. 5. PRESENTATION of Certificates of congratulations to the Arcadia Cardinals baseball team. The Mayor recognized the players and coaches from the championship winning Cardinals baseball team; each player was presented with a certificate of recognition. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL' a. PUBLIC HEARING —Bill Kelly, City Manager, Don Penman, Assistant: City Manager /Development Services STAFF REPORT Director, and Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator presented the facts (Appeal of Planning of the public hearing which was an of the Planning Commission's decision Comm. Denial) involving the roofing material installed 'at 1104 Rancho Road. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the appeal based upon the Architectural Review Board's and Planning Commissions determination that the proposed roofing material will not be architecturally harmonious and compatible with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. COUNCIL In response to a question from Council Member Chandler, Ms. Butler reported that DELIBERATION there are other homes in the area, at least two, with composite roofs which do not have permits on file. PUBLIC COMMENT Lisa Carlson applicant, provided testimony regarding her appeal of the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission's'denial of her installation of a composite roof product. She responded to various. questions from the City Council regarding her roofing permit. Jarinder Gupta. 1103 Rancho, spoke in support of the applicant; he noted that the improvements made by the current owner have improved the property value of the home and those of surrounding properties. Maggie Breedon, applicants mother, spoke in support of the owner, noting that she suffers from severe allergies, and that the decision to install the composite roofing was solely based upon the structural needs of the home. Jack Lynch 224 Hacienda Drive, spoke in opposition of the applicant's request; he noted that he is a member of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board; the City has noted clearly during the permit process that composite roofs are not allowed in that HOA area; he requested that the City Council support the ARB. Gary Dorn ARB President, spoke in opposition to the applicant's request. 2 7/20/2004 46: 0119 Mr. Penman noted : that staff would normally. investigate a report of a roof installed without a permit. MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Marshall and seconded by CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Segal to close the public hearing. HEARING COUNCIL ,...Council Members and staff initiated discussion on the public hearing item including the DELIBERATION permit process, the impermissibility of composite roofs in,..the HOA areas, and the consideration of this item as a matter of "first impression." Council Member Wuo suggested that the City research the permit issues on the other homes with composite roofs in the area; he further noted that is was the applicant's responsibility to inform the City when she changed materials. Council Member Marshall commended the ARB members for all of their hard work; she suggested that the ARB's update their materials list once a year; she supports the a pplica nt's: appeal. Mayor Kovacic noted that just because other composite roofs were installed does not mean that.this appeal should be granted; he also noted that the few composite roof homes are, at least, tolerated within those areas; they may not be as noticeable due to the majority of conforming homes in the area. The .City Attorney noted that there may be a statute of limitations issue regarding enforcement remedies for the non - conforming roofs. MOTION It was moved by Council. Member Chandler and seconded by Council Member Segal to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's determination and the ARB's denial based on the following finding: that the proposed roofing material will not be architecturally harmonious and compatible with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Segal, Wuo, Kovacic NOES: Marshall b. PUBLIC HEARING —Mr. Kelly introduced Mr. Penman who provided the facts of the proposed zone change. STAFF REPORT (Introduce Ord, 2195)Ms. Butler noted the public hearing was submitted by the property owner at 650 Huntington Drive to rezone the property located at 646 -650 W. Huntington from C- O /Professional Office to R -3 /Multiple Family Residential; the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval; zoning has changed several times at the project site; the current use is commercial and applicant wants to construct multi - family housing; the proposed zone change is consistent with surrounding residential development and will bring the property into conformance with the multiple - family land use designation of the General Plan; staff recommends that the City Council approve the Zone Change Z- 2004 -002, adopt the Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance for introduction at a future City Council meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Jeffrey Lee. 650 W. Huntington Drive, is the applicant in this matter and spoke on his own behalf. Annick Dolonhauer W: Huntington Drive., #8, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. . 3 7/20/2004 46: 0120 Fran Mills, 634 W. Huntington =Drive #11, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. Molly Robins 642 W. Huntington Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. I , MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Segal and seconded by CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Wuo to close the public hearing. HEARING COUNCIL The ,City Council and staff, initiated deliberations on this matter which included DELIBERATION comments on housing density, parking impacts, and the General Plan. Mayor Kovacic noted that this may be an opportunity for the City to make a statement about housing density by not approving the zone change. Mr. Penman noted that staff is working with a consultant to review the General Plan and zoning consistency issues. The City Attorney noted that the applicant Is not legally required to an answer from the Council this evening and that the municipal code has no established time limit for approval or disapproval of the matter." . MOTION A motion made by Council Member Chandler was withdrawn for lack of a second, A motion was made by Council Member Segal and seconded by Council Member Chandler to table this item for a future Council agenda when it can be discussed in light of forthcoming recommendations on the city-wide General Plan and Zoning consistency review. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo; Kovacic NOES: None. c. PUBLIC HEARING —Mr. Kelly reported that this is an annual public hearing to allow property owners, who STAFF REPORT have been charged Inspection and /or abatement service fees by the County, an (Weed Abatement opportunity to protest the Weed Abatement charge list; staff recommends, that the City Charge List) Council review testimony from listed property owners, if any and take appropriate action. Otherwise, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached charge list so that the County Auditor may enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. COUNCIL None. DELIBERATION PUBLIC COMMENT'- -None. MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Chandler and seconded by CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Segal to close the public hearing. HEARING MOTION It was moved by Council Member Segal and seconded by Council Member Marshall then carried on roll call vote as follows to approve the weed abatement charge list so that the County Auditor may enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. 4 7/20/2004 ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, Kovacic NOES: None. 46: 0121 d. PUBLIC HEARING —Mr. Kelly, Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director, and Tom Tait, Field Services STAFF REPORT Manager presented the staff report regarding the Arcadia Water System's Public Health (Arcadia Water Goals Report. System — Public Health Goals Report) Mr. Tait reported that Senate Bill 1307 mandates that the City prepare, a report every three (3) years to inform the public about the Public Health Goal mandate which was exceeded during that time period; in addition, a public hearing must be conducted for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report; Mr. Tait further noted that the water system is in compliance with all federal and state health -based drinking water standards, the Public Health Goals are advisory and not mandated; the City is committed to providing the safest and highest quality of drinking water to residents; staff listed the achievements of the past three (3) years;.staff recommended the opening of the public hearing, public testimony and response, and for the Council to receive and file the 2004 City of Arcadia Public Health Goals Report. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COUNCIL . In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, . Mr. Malloy, noted that;the ,cost to DELIBERATION improve the water system to achieve even a negligible improvement in water quality would be prohibitive; the quality of Arcadia's water is already above the standards set by regulation. . MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Marshall and seconded by CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Segal to close the public hearing. HEARING MOTION It was moved by Council Member Marshall and seconded by Council Member Segal then carried on roll call vote as follows to receive and file the City of Arcadia Public Health Goals report. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members.Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, Kovacic NOES: None. AUDIENCE TIME RESERVED FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION Jack McEwen, spoke in support of changing the name of El Monte Avenue to Seabiscuit. 7.. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Chandler had no report. CHANDLER COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Wuo announced that the Arcadia Relay for Life event will be held this WUO Saturday and Sunday, July 17 and 18, at Santa Anita Racetrack. COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Marshall noted that the grand opening of the dog park was successful MARSHALL and encouraged the owners of large dogs not to visit the park on the designated small dog days; she reminded the public about the Thursday free concerts' on the City Hall Lawn; she announced the Recreation and Community Services Department's Battle of. 5 ' 7/20/2004 46: 0122 the'Boards and Bands event upcoming on July 31 and referenced an anonymous quote, "History is always repeating itself, but each time the price goes up." COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Segal requested information from the City Manager regarding the staff SEGAL follow up on the composite roof issue for the alleged illegal roofs. Mr. Kelly notes that staff had appropriate direction and authority to conduct an investigation into the matter of the homes in the HOA area with non - permitted composite roofs. MAYOR Mayor Kovacic announced thatArcadia now has a "Block Party" planning kit available to KOVACIC residents; copies can be obtained from Pat Auriemmo in the Development Services Department. CITY'CLERK City Clerk Barrows had no report. BARROWS: ° 8. CONSENT AGENDA — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Consent Agenda items were read as follows by the Executive Director: a. MINUTES Request for approval of the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting and June 29, (Redev. Agency) 2004 and July 1,2004 adjourned meetings. MOTION - CONSENT It was moved by Agency Member Chandler and seconded by Agency Member Marshall, AGENDA then carried on roll call vote to approve item 8.a. on the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency consent calendar. ROLL CALL AYES: Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None CONSENT AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL: The Consent Agenda items were read as follows by. the City Manager: b. MINUTES , - Request for approval of the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting and June 29, (City Council) 2004 and July 1, 2004 adjourned meetings. c. ORDINANCE Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending No. 2191 Section 6611 through Section 6614.1, Divisions 1 through 5, Chapter 6, Part 1, Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding door -to -door peddling, soliciting, and canvassing. d. ORDINANCE No. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, deleting 2196 section 9275.1.37 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to advertising sign boards and adding new sections prohibiting advertising sign boards; adding a definition for advertising sign boards and adding a message substitution clause to the commercial nad industrial zoning regulations. e. RESOLUTION No. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving 6426 Program Supplement Agreement No. M005 to Agreement No. 07 -5131 to encumber federal aid funds for the pavement rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue, Sunset Boulevard, and Duarte Road Project. f. RESOLUTION No., Adopt a Resolution.••of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving 6427 Program Supplement Agreement No. M005 to Agreement No. 07 -5131 to encumber 6 7/20/2004 f a 46: 0123 federal aid funds for the Santa.Anita Corridor ITS project. g. ACCEPT WORK Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and authorize AS COMPLETE the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56. h. Authorize the City Manager to approve lease /purchase agreements for groundwater LEASE /PURCHASE pumping rights and lease storage space in the Raymond and Main San Gabriel Ground AGREEMENTS Water Basins. (Groundwater & Storage) i. AWARD,, Award a contract in the amount of $104,717 to Nativ Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 CONTRACT, 2004 Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. J. AWARD Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000 to Armacast CONTRACT EXT. Products, Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. k. APPROVE Authorize the City ; Manager to approve the purchase of electrical lighting ' and PURCHASE & WAIVE accessories in the amount of $102,418.00 and waive any informalities in the bid or BID PROCESS bidding process. I. APPROVE Authorize the City Manager to approve a.contract change order to Southern Counties CONTRACT CHANGE Oil in the amount of $90,000.00 for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel. ORDER m. AWARD Award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corp. for the installation of a telephone CONTRACT voice mail .system in the amount not to exceed $32,244.75 and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. n. AUTHORIZE Authorize the retention of Studio Spectrum, Inc. in an amount not to exceed AGREEMENT $25,000.00, to film, program, and provide other ancillary services related to the live broadcast of City Council meetings during Fiscal. Year 2004 -2005. . o. REJECT BID Reject bid submitted by National Water Works for the purchase of valves, brass fittings, and water related materials for the Public Works Services Departments warehouse and direct staff to re-bid the contract. p. STATEMENT OF Adopt the revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and Procedures, POLICY (Certificates) dated July 20, 2004, so as to no longer require the City Manager to review and approve all requests for certificates, as long as said request meets the guidelines noted in the policy. (This item was pulled from the consent calendar for separate discussion by the City Council. - see below). q. STATEMENT OF Adopt the revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and Procedures, POLICY (Board and dated July 20, 2004, so as to require the Council Member's attendance at the first (1n Commission Liaisons) commission meeting after he /she is appointed (absent an emergency or other unavoidable conflict) and direct that further attendance at board and commission meetings by the Council Liaison is on an "as necessary basis" with no expectation that the Liaison will attend every meeting. 7/20/2004 46: 0124 MOTION - CONSENT It was moved by Council Member Chandler and.seconded by Council Member Marshall, AGENDA then carried on roll call vote to approve items 8. b through 8. q., with the exception of item 'B p., on the City Council consent calendar. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None p. STATEMENT OF Adopt the revised Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and Procedures, POLICY (Certificates) dated July 20, 2004, so as to no longer require the City Manager to review and approve all requests for certificates, as long as said request meets the guidelines noted in the policy.° COUNCIL Mayor Kovacic requested that this Item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for DELIBERATION separate discussion and disposition; the Council deliberated whether to include certain items of legislative support or opposition on their agenda and discussed adding certain types of letters to the list of correspondence not required to be copied to the City Manager. MOTION - CONSENT It was moved by Council Member Kovacic and seconded by Council Member Chandler, AGENDA ITEM 8. p. then carried on roll call vote to approve item 8.p, noting that the statement of policy should include the following: that the Council need not copy the City Manager on thank you letters, letters of condolence, letters of regret, and congratulatory letters sent on City letterhead. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None 9. CITY MANAGER a..: Mr. Kelly reported that at its July 1, 2004 meeting, the City Council directed staff to move forward with plans for a 2005 July 4"' celebration that will be held in lieu of the 2004 and 2005 Lucky Baldwin Day Community picnic. The City Council and staff initiated discussion on this matter including the cost of the event, its competition with other fourth of July events in the region, and how to merge existing Lucky Baldwin Day events into the new celebration. MOTION - It was moved by Council Member Segal and seconded by Council Member Wuo then PROFESSIONAL carried on roll call vote to approve a fourth of July, 2005 event in lieu of the 2004 SERVICES AGRMT. Lucky Baldwin Day and for staff to commence planning efforts in that regard. ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES. None ADJOURNMENT Noting no additional business, at 11:03 p.m. the City Council /Redevelopment Agency (to August 3, 2004, adjourned its Regular Meeting in memory of Victor Zonveo and George Fuson to 6:00 p.m.) August 3, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room. James.Barrows, City Clerk by Vida Tolman /Chief Deputy City Clerk 7/20/2004 0 �fo 2ctn - imp STAFF REPORT Development Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and.City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Qr By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Joseph Lambert, Associate PlannerJi.�- SUBJECT: • SUMMARY The property owner, Lisa Carlson, is in the process of re- roofing her house, guesthouse and garage at 1104 Ranch Road. A roofing permit was issued on February 25, 2004 for the installation, of a Monier Shake roof on the above structures. Monier Shake is an approved roofing material in the Santa Anita Oaks Association area. -0 Unfortunately, the roofing material installed was not Monier Shake, but "Grand Canyon - Stonewood" composition roofing and is not one of the roofing materials approved by the homeowners association. A stop work order was issued and Ms. Carlson was advised that prior to proceeding with the completion of the roof, approval of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) would be required. The Architectural-Review Board (ARB) denied the composition roofing material on April 13, 2004. Ms. Carlson appealed the ARB's denial to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission at its June 8, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to deny the appeal. Subsequently, on June 16, 2004, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.to the City Council. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the appeal, based on the inconsistency between the, installed roof and the roofing materials approved by the Association. , LASER IMAGED ARB Appeal 1104 Rancho Road July 20, 2004 Page 1 q4 Recommendation: Deny BACKGROUND On February 25, 2004, the Building Services Division issued a roofing permit to Yan Hoi Tang to re -roof the dwelling, guesthouse and garage with Monier Shake for the subject property. On March 20, 2004, complaints were received regarding the roofing material being installed at the subject property. Upon inspection by both Planning and Building Services staff on March 29, it was verified that the roofing material installed was different than that specified on the building permit. While the installed fiberglass composition shingles are allowable based on the building Code, they are not a roofing material approved by the Santa Anita Oaks Association. Due to the discrepancy between the approved material listed on the Building Permit and the material that was actually installed, the Building Inspector issued a "Stop. Work Order". Approximately 80% of the roof had been completed at this time. " . As noted above, Ms. Carlson was advised that the roofing material being installed was inconsistent with the material indicated on the permit and was not an ARB approved roofing material. The letter further stated that before the homeowner could proceed with completion of the roofing, approval of the Santa Anita Oaks Association Architectural Review Board would be required. The property owner, Ms. Carlson, submitted her request to Gary Dorn, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board for the Santa Anita Oaks Association. On April 13, 2004, the Association denied Ms. Carlson's request to use the composition roofing material. A copy of the denial letter is attached. Ms. Carlson appealed the ARB's decision to the Planning Commission and on June 16, the Commission denied the applicant's appeal. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Applicant's proposal is to re -roof the existing house, guesthouse and garage with "Grand Canyon - Stonewood" composition roofing material. The owner's reasoning for the change to composition shingles is that she was informed by her contractor that her roof structure would not be able to support the weight of the Monier Shake, Building Services requires an analysis by a structural engineer for any roofing material that weighs more than six (6) pounds per square foot. The approved Monier Shake roofing material weighs 5.96 pounds per square foot. Therefore, when a building permit was issued for the Monier Shake, a structural analysis was not required. Typical composition shingles weigh approximately two to three pounds per square foot. The applicant also states in her letter of appeal that the material blends in well with the other homes in the neighborhood (see attached letter from applicant). After conducting a windshield survey in the Santa Anita Oaks Association area, staff observed three homes that. have composition roofing materials. Upon review of the ARB Appeal 1104 Rancho Road July 20, 2004 Page 2 • • • building files, it Was found that there are no, roofing permits on file for any of these •' homes. It is unclear how or when any of these roofs were installed. Photographs of these homes are attached. ARB Findings On April,,13, 2004 the Architectural Review Board denied the proposed,.composition roofing material. The denial was based upon the finding that the Association has a list of approved roofing materials within the Santa Anita Oaks Association and that composition roofing material is not on that approved list. The letter of denial from the chairman of the Architectural Design Review Board is attached. Santa Anita Oaks Association Regulailons City Council Resolution No. 5290 (attached) sets forth conditions, regulations, procedures and standards for the Santa Anita Oaks Association to ensure architectural compatibility. between buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Association `area. Part 6 of Section 3 of Resolution 5290 (EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS) states that 'Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall of fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of-other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood'. • PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission at its June S, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to deny the rappeal. The Planning Commission ,concurred with staffs analysis. and denied the use of composition roofing material based on inconsistency with the list of approved roofing materials within the Santa Anita Oaks Association. The Commission also found that the composition roofing material was not compatible with those materials used in the surrounding area. The Commission stated that the application must be analyzed as if it were not partially installed, because the installation was done without 'appropriate approvals. The Commission in making ,their. determination noted that the use of composition material was inappropriate for the area. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Architectural Design Review decisions will I hot have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION City Council Resolution No. 5290 governing the Santa Anita Oaks Association area sets forth findings for design review approval. The City Council should determine if the ARB Appeal 1104 Rancho Road July 20, 2004 Page 3 installed roofing material is compatible and harmonious with the other structures and properties in the neighborhood. • The Development Services Department recommends denial of the appeal. Based on several field inspections it is staffs opinion, that the subject roofing material is not compatible with roofing material of other structures and homes in the neighborhood because composition shingles have not been used in the surrounding neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Denial of AoDeal If the City Council intends to take action to deny the appeal, the Council should move to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's determination and the ARB's denial based on. the following finding. That the proposed roofing material, will not be architecturally harmonious and compatible with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. Approval of Appeal If the City Council is to approve the appeal, the Council should move to approve the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission's denial based on the following finding or any other finding they determine to be appropriate. • • That the proposed "roofing material will be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the other properties and structures in the neighborhood Attachments: Location Map Aerial Photo Photographs PC'June 8, 2004 Minutes City Council Resolution No. 5290 List of Approved Roofing Materials within Santa Anita Oaks Association The following letters: a. Letter of Appeal by Ms. Carlson. dated June 16, 2004 b. Letter of Denial by Gary Dorn dated April 13, 2004 C. Letter dated April 14, 2004 by Greg Gerlach, Building Official d. Copy of the Building Permit issued on February 25, 2004 e. Copy of the "Stop Work Order" dated March 29, 2004 f. Correspondence Approved by: 'lam William R. Kelly, City Manager ARB Appeal • 1104 Rancho Road July 20, 2004 Page 4 Rancho Road . , • • . - � I � \d leal 2 00 4 by. R.S.Gonzelez, may, : Fed \�� f1,, n111) (11u1 - (119iJ_ (1131)' (1131) (1129 (112(1 t - ...... .-, (1115) n1fA. - ,�` nip Z ., m . I C (231) F00' FOOTHILL 8L "? n ose) nom W Q p . (fog (1a,) noo9 (io3,1 ,010) nsn nsaj FLORAL? not rvr� nevi ngp) (154) V (IOU) (IOU) :< Rancho Road . , • • . - � I � \d leal 2 00 4 by. R.S.Gonzelez, may, f ![bf I v l ljr r i I /r I� I y ' � f• 1 „ f; ''p r/ � � sr / r � r , I/ r N t, t v^YS ., f 4 l r 1 I IL r u m 0 �, , sn a w n fi?.� r .r ry Y �� r� -- ° � � d -i e"b ,i t .. __ , T � r$ ,. d�� �P if .��i� . � � ,i � e (� .,. 1 ��!.1.1E� F �i �. _ r "� .�._ � .. 11 `1�_' °r0 al; i 'h I ✓1K sf �l !t i � � � �"w i Y I V Y I V - .— e v � � �f '.! f �,.1VL [r { F� � � � 1" 1 6. PUBLIC NEARIN - APPEAL • 1104 Rancho Rd. Lisa Carlson Consideration of an appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's denial of roofing material. The staff report was presented. In response to a, question by Commissioner Wen, Mr. Lambert stated that the Planning Commission should consider the compatibility issue and the roofing material that is being used. The roofing that is being currently installed is not the same material listed on the building permit. The public hearing was opened. Lisa Carlson, 1104 Rancho Rd., said that originally when they purchased the home, it had cedar roofing and she knew that it would have to be changed soon. She hired a contractor who pulled the building permit but when they began installing it, it,was determined that the roof would need to be reinforced to be able to accommodate the new roof. She inquired about her options and was told by the contractor about the roofing material'that she began installing. She remarked that she did not intend to deceive anyone but she encountered a problem where her roof would be unable to accommodate the roofing material without reinforcement. She could not use any other material other than the composition shingle. She felt that.the Homeowners, Association's image of a composition roof was from the 70s, black and plain. But, the material that she chose is a 3- dimensional quality product. She is not trying to cut costs or detract from the neighborhood. She approached her neighbors within a 100' radius and all were pleased with what she was proposing and did not object to it. She submitted several letters in favor of her proposal, the invoice for the roof as proof that it is expensive, photos of her home with the roof, a photo of another home in the area with composition roofing, various photos showing her overhang and a 11 letter from her physician attesting to the fact that both her and her mother are allergic to cedar roofing: She went on to say that the roofing that she chose is nice and compatible with the homes in the area. The home is setback far from the street so someone driving on the street would be unable to tell what roofing material is being used. She also said that the Showcase House in Pasadena used the same material. This material is suitable and blends in with the area. In answer to a question by Chairman Baderian, she said that she knew when they purchased the home that they would need to re -roof, although, she did not find out about the limitations on the roofing material until later. The building permit was pulled for material that was on the Homeowners Association's approved roofing material list but because her roofing structure would not be able to support the weight of the material, the contractor recommended the proposed material. She relied on her contractor's expertise. After she was issued the "Stop Work Order" and was told to obtain the Homeowners Association's approval, she was denied the roofing material by Crary Dom. She said that she also got the opinion of two other contractors who concurred with the weight of the material. Maggie Breeden, 1104 Rancho Rd., confirmed that both her daughter and granddaughter suffer from allergies to cedar. The roof was 85% completed when they were issued the "Stop Work Order ". They • called Pamela Blackwood, the President of the Homeowners Association, who felt it was a nice roof and could not understand why the board denied it. She thought that they should update their list of roofing Arcadia City Planning Commission 11 6/8/4 material. The installed roofing material is thicker than most composition shingle and attractive. The neighbors like what has been installed and have not objected to it. They were disturbed when they received an anonymous letter regarding the roofing material. Of course now it does not look good • because it is unfinished. There are many roofs on Foothill Blvd. that have this type of roofing and it has not affected property values. Jack Lynch, 224 Hacienda, said .that it was obvious to him that this was composition roofing when he first saw it. He has. lived in this area and served on the Architectural Review Board for many years. They have a list of approved, materials, which makes it easier for City staff and the homeowners when they try to re -roof. When he saw the home being re- roofed he asked the contractor for a copy of the building permit which he could not produce. There are plenty of lightweight roofing materials that could be utilized. It is achievable. 5 Their list clearly indicates that no composition should be used. He did not think that the neighbors would tell the owner that they were not happy with the material. It is clear that they did not follow procedure. He stated that there have been a couple of aluminum roofs installed which were reviewed by the Homeowners Association. The Architectural Review Board will occasionally permit various roofing materials on request basis. Regarding the roof on the house on Woodland Ln. he said that happened without their knowledge. He said their list was changed approximately two years ago. Occasionally they get requests for different materials and they make a determination. The Homeowners Association's decision is made on appearance and architectural value. They are concerned that this will set a precedent. Even though the material that Ms. Carlson may use is of high quality, the subsequent homeowner may come and say that they cannot afford the same material and would like to go with a less expensive roofing, and he thought this would set a negative precedent. Gary Dorn 1410 Rancho Rd., Chairman Architectural Review Board for Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner's Association, said that they have never allowed composition roofing in their Homeowners • Association. He felt this would compromise the character of the area. Carlton Seaver, 1115 Rancho Rd., said that the home owner did not approach him regarding this roof. This is an acceptable roof but it is not as interesting as,the previous material. He thought that it was inappropriate to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission, when they did not approach the Architectural Review Board for their approval. Steve Mathison, 900 Paolma, member of the Architectural Review Board for the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association said they hope that the Planning Commission will deny this request because it will set a negative precedent and massage. They have roof issues all the time. He read a letter from Tony Henrich the Chairman of their Architectural Review Board which in part stated that the homeowner changed roofing material midstream without obtaining the necessary approvals, which he thought was deceitful. In rebuttal, Ms. Carlson stated that the Homeowners Association's list had another light weight material but she was advised that was still too heavy. She remarked that she did not set out to deceive the Architectural Review Board, but this was the only material that could be used. As far as support beams, she could install that but that would take away from the look and character of the house. She reiterated that from the street this does not look like composition roofing. She felt that the list needs to be revised and updated. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. • Arcadia City Planning Commission 12 6/8/4 MOTION: • It`was moved by Commissioner Hsu,..seconded by Commissioner Lucas to close the public hearing: The motion passed by voice vote with no.one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Hsu,'Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian NOES: None In answer to a question, by Commissioner Olson, staff indicated that they were unaware of the roof on the house on Woodland Lane. This was just brought to their attention tonight. Ms. Butler explained that the Planning Commission should consider the roofing material and consider the homeowner's appeal of the Homeowners Association's action. Chairman Baderian remarked that there was a similar situation that came before the Planning Commission not too long ago where the applicant had done something without first obtaining the` appropriate approvals. In that case, they considered the project as if nothing had been done. He felt that the Planning Commission should view this in the same manner, i.e., they should not consider whether the roof is 85% complete with roofing material that is not approved by the Homeowners Association, but they should review it as the roof is not there and the owner wants to install a roof not approved by the Homeowners Association. Ms. Butler added that the resolution is specific about obtaining the proper approvals and compatibility. Whether the roof is almost completed or not is irrelevant. She did discuss the weight of the roof with the Building Official who said that the weight of the permitted roof is 5.9 lbs and the structure could technically hold up to 6 lbs., indicating that this is pretty close to the limits on the structure. But, they should have obtained the approvals prior to installing the new material. It is difficult to say whether this will set a precedent or not but the Homeowners Association's list is two years old. Chairman Baderian noted that some' of the approved materials on the list are not even being made and are unavailable. He asked Ms. Butler if they should keep in mind that the roof is 85% complete? Commissioner Lucas felt they should review this as the roof does not exist. They should consider this as the Architectural Review Board denied the roofing material and now it has been appealed to the City. He did not think they should rewrite the authority of the Homeowners Association because that should be done at the City Council level. Commissioner Olson felt they should look at this as if it is not there. There was no hearing before the Architectural Review Board. He had mixed feelings about this and was troubled by the fact that the applicant did not go before the Architectural Review Board and no formal hearings were held with the neighbors. He had a problem with the Architectural Review Board in this matter. He had concerns that the Architectural Review Board did not look at it ahead of time and denying the roof. Having said the above, he still felt that they should look at the proposed material as if it is not installed. MOTION: • Arcadia City Planning Commission 13 6/8/4 It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to deny the appeal. Commissioner Olson thought this could have been handled better. He asked that the Architectural • Review Board be more flexible in looking at their standards and how they implement and approve things. It is sometimes difficult to take an old house and retrofit it vs. a brand new home. Commissioner Wen agreed. He felt there was a lack of communication. He was sympathetic with the homeowner. Commissioner Hsu agreed. ' Commissioner Lucas said manufacturers are always coming up with new materials and technology. He thought they should be able to find material that is light weight and compatible. He encouraged the association to look at new materials that are compatible. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian. NOES: None:. Chairman Baderian' noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by June 16. • • Arcadia City Planning Commission 14 6/8/4 RESOLUTION 5290 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY.LN THE SANTA ANITA OAKS, D ARCHITECTURAL ,DESIGN ZONE AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City,Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 3231, and adopts the following resolution pursuant to Ordinance'No. 1815, for the property described n Exhibit A, attached hereto., To implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association D,Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Board ". The governing body of the Board, is the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association. Section,2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth . in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. Section 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will - -be harmonious. with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the follow_ ing conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those do control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except in Tracts 14656, 13544, and 10617 in which no one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contain less than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not'it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. I- L-1 -1- " 5290 I. FRONT YARD. No building shall be erected less than sixty -five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 and 11013 shall not be less than fifty -five (55) feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be les.0 than fifty (50) feet. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimurn required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. CORNIER LOTS. On a corner, lot, a separate carport or garage not connected to a dwelling, as an integral part thereof, shall not be located less than twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line. 4. GARAGES. A carport or garage not connected to a dwelling, as an integral part thereof, shall not be located less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be one hundred forty (140) feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 and 13544 which shall be one hundred twenry -five (125) feet, and in no case shall the garage or carport be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. 5. TREES. No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, or pine tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at a point on the tree which is not more than three feet above the grade immediately adjacent to said tree, shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the Board • Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of anv structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the'lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, will or fence shall be compatible with existing- structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. S. APPROVAL OF BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure; roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board. • -2- 5290 No structure, roof, wall of fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. . If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. BOARD. The Board shall be empowered. to 9. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Board. C. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City "Clerk and the. Director of Planning. f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. • g. Permanent written records of the meetings,- findings, action, and decision of the Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall" be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 10. POWERS OF THE BOARD The Board shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3 b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 6. & 7 of Section 3. • 3290 C. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d. Any of the conditions,set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, may b( • made less restrictive by the Board if the Board determines that suck action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. e. The Board shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk. 11. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the application. b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the, Board Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Proces_0 application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Condition. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate' for the Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director, of Planning. 12. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. _ a. The Regular Review Process must be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, (eligible for Sliort Review) in those cases in which the applicant failed to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, which .the Board has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. -4- 5290 C. The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the - .consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. The application shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. e. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30)' working day period; be deemed an approval of the plans. 13. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been • unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 14. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWER. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 15. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7 working days of the Board's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 16. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from the Board's decision shall be guided by the following principles: 5290 a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary t establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 6 7 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials _& Exterior Building Appearance). b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles .of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 6 & 7 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). C. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions. Nos. 6 & 7 of Section 3 of this Resolution : Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes: the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Condition No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front yards). SECTION 4: The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety am • general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the pL- :pose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment _.f surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment.of the community, effecting property values and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. -6- • 5 290 All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale • for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of anv court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or, more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. ATTEST: / CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: U DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia CITY OF ARCADIA J I CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN; Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5290 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino NOES: None,., , ABSENT: None - mot_ .r x •. _. /s1 CHRISTINE AN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 -7- 5290 dr- EXHIBIT A Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Baldwin Avenue and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Oakmeadow Road; thence southerly along the centerline of Oakmeadow Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence westerly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence southerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Baldwin Avenue to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Oakmeadow Road and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue .to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly properti� line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with theo westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence northerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence easterly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of Oakmeadow Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Oakmeadow Road to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of. Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line of distance of 65 feet; thence easterly along a line parallel to the southerly property line of Lot 76 of Tract No. 11074 to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue a distance of 65 ° feet to the point of beginning. • 10 5290 SANTA ANI'i. OAKS HOMEOWNER ASS0 u ROOFING STANDARDS 0 -:i 02 1 un- +Architectural Review Hoard has estabiishad the following roofing materials as compatible and harmonious, and approved In the Santa Anita Oaks. a, NOT APPROVED: Composition shingles (tar paper), ftbergalss shingles, aluminum or rock. +n 6. NOT APPROVED: multi - stacked ridge end kicks; must maintain horizontal ridgallne. c. APPROVED: Class A and Class B (see following Cherie) In sarthtona colors only. HT SHAKES: �i . LIFELINE TILE SHAKE 0 TO'd TDIZI ZOOZ OT unt' 601, 602, 503, 6VTV- 02979 :xP -1 50e, 507, 541, 642, 643 GNDD i11U GW-LST I I �4 z6ocilo r?�( 00 �I��la4 N C �u 2 W1� pq, ZxQtx i� � c� A,, J DESCRIPTION AMnUN, r t � ��, cA , l PLANNING APPLICATION � $M,00 IJ ` lJ !.} , DU E coy f✓�� V� CHECK PAID: $210.00 CHANGE: UO RECEIVED JUN 16 2004 CTY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK C) l -3�oz CLIENT NAME PAI _w4 JUN 16" W4 Gerald A. earKv Treasurer Arcadia RLCVD BY; CA 01000071931 PAYOR: TODAY'S DATE: 06/16/04 REGISTER DATE: 06/16104 TIME: to 0 APRIL 13, 2004 LISA CARLSON 1104 RANCHO ROAD ARCADIA CA 91006 DEAR MS CARLSON PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOUR REQUEST TO REROOF YOUR HOME WITH GAF COMPOSITION HAS BEEN DENIED. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HAS THE LIST OF APPROVED ROOFS FOR THE SANTA ANITA OAKS. IT IS A LONGSTANDING POLICY OF THE ASSOCIATION TO EXCLUDE COMP SHINGLES FROM OUR LIST OF APPROVED ROOFING MATERIALS. SINCERELY YOURS GARY DORN ARB CHAIRMAN r. . 0 April 14, 2004 1104 Rancho Road Arcadia, CA 91006 C ity Of Subject: Re -roof at 1104 Rancho Road, Arcadia Arcadia City records show that you,are the legal owner of the subject property. On February 25, 2004 a Roofing Permit was issued to you to reroof your house, Development 'garage and guesthouse with Monier Shake (see attached copy of permit). Contrary Services to what is shown on the permit application, the house, garage and guesthouse Department were reroofed with fiberglass composition roofing materials. As you are aware, -the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner's Association (HOA), which regulates the type of roofing material allowed in your area, does not permit fiberglass composition roofing. Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code and City Council Don Penman Resolution number 5290, copies of which are attached for your information, gives 4ssistant City Manger/ the HOA clear authority to regulate roofing in your area. Therefore, the roofing Development Services materials must be corrected as follows: Director 1. Obtain approval from the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association for the composition fiberglass roofing materials installed on your house, garage and guest house, or remove roofing and install a roofing materials that is on the association's approved list (AMC Section 9272.2.3). Please be advised that you have until May 15, 2004 to correct the above noted violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code as well as comply with the requirements of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association. Failure for you to comply with this letter by the specified date will result in this matter being referred to the City attorney's office for further action. I have attached a homeowner's information packet as well as a list of roofing materials approved by your association for your information and use. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please call Building Inspector John Zurick at (626) 574 -5417 or me at (626) 574 -5418. Sincere 4 4,,� Greg Gerlach Building Official 240 West Huntington Drive c: John Zurick, Building Inspector Mr. Gary Dorn, HOA Chairperson (letter only) 0 • 0 Post Office Box 60021 Ref. Notice 20 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574 -5414 (626) 447 -3309 Fax uevefopment Services uepar, 240 West Huntington Drive, Post Office PER1Virf NO. $00- 018 -223 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Jrydia (626) 514 -5416, Fax (626) 447 -9173 Permit Type: Roofing JECT TRACT NO. LOT NO. APPLICATION DATE ISSUED BY PRINT DATE PERMIT STATUS AMT 2/25/2004 GRG 7:52 3/22/2004 Issued - - each Bldg pemdt ASSESSORS PARCEL Na GEO CODE PROJECT ADDRESS $566.25 5770- 010 -020 Flat SWMFAU 1104 Rancho Rd 56.25 88 -3027 TotaM for: 99-3027 56.25 OWNER MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NO. Inspector#: JOHN w n, nom EMAIL ADDRESS: APPtICJ1NT MAIUNO ADDRESS - - PHONE NO. TANG, YAN HOI EMAIL Aooatsss: CONTRACTONIPROFESMONAL MAILNG ADDRESS PHom mo. (626) 288 -1536 FAX NO. Yan Hoi Tang 3912 Vachon Dr Rosemead CA 91770 EMAIL ADDRESS: LieenseNo. 620138 Type: B Expires: 5/31/2005 12:00: - TENANT MAILING ADDRESS . PHONE NO. FAX NO, DESCRIPTION T/O AND REROOF HOUSE, GARAGE AND HUEST HOUSE WIT H MOMER SHAKE OVER NEW SHEATHING (60 SOS, 5.96 PSF, ICBOR.2656, 3453) - APPROVED BY HOA CewMrueNon Type UUM n m Value Value 28,000.00 • value Construction Type UOM 528,000.00 OCCUPANCY: Rero - QTY UOM DFSC AMT AMT PAID ACCT Flat Bldg Issue Auto $40.25 $40.25 01 -3104 each Bldg pemdt 5526.00 5526.00 01 -3104 Totals far: 01 -3104 $566.25 $566.25 Flat SWMFAU 56.25 56.25 88 -3027 TotaM for: 99-3027 56.25 $6.25 Total Fees: 5572.50 Total Amount Paid: TOTAL VALUATION: QTY UOM DESC a of UulM I Value AMT AMT PAID ACCT .3 -22 S572.50 Paid Today: This perma /plan review expires by time limitation and becomes null and void if the work authorized by the permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of,issuance or if the permit is not obtained. within 180 ys from the date of plan submittal. This permit expires and becomes null and void if any work authorized by 4p is permit is suspended or abandoned for 180 consecutive days or if no progressive work has been verified by a City of Arcadia building inspector for a period of 180 consecutive days. CALLS FOR INSPECTION INSPECTORS' OFFICE HOURS Requests for inspection should be made at least Monday - Thursday Friday one (1) business day in advance of the inspection 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. by telephone at (626) 574.5416 for onsite work. 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Closed on alternate Fridays) STOP WORK ORDER CITY OF ARCADIA BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE • ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91007 • (626) 574 -5416 THIS TAG SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY OF ARCADIA ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE`SECTION (S) COMPLY ON OR BEFORE: 0 INSPECTOR: DATE: "d • 0 To: Community Development Division May 27, 2004 RE: 1104 Rancho Rd. Appeal Dear Sir: We were relieved as we received your letter regarding the hearing to be held on June 8, 2004 on the appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board's denial of roof material for the subject property. We are neighbors of subject property. We felt very upset & disappointed from the first day the installation started. Actually, the bamboo fence on Foothill Blvd. on south side of the property should be another topic to discuss in addition to the roofing material. We would like to make few comments on this matter and please do believe that our opinions are not trying to harm anyone but for the benefits of our community Our concerns are set forth below. 1. The property is located at the entrance of Rancho Road — it is the first • house on the street from Foothill Blvd, so it gets most attention from Foothill busy traffic, and also neighbors; 2. The material used reflects the level /class of the community. So the wrong material used will give wrong image of the property, it will not only affect the value of the property itself but also the value of our whole' neighborhood; 3. We've heard that the property was on MLS listing for sale about couple of months ago. So the purpose of using secondary material was not clear. Nevertheless, the material used should not be acceptable in this neighborhood for any reasons. The installation is easy and simple but the influence to the neighborhood is well beyond imagination. Please DO put our concerns on this matter into consideration. We're look forward to your continuous efforts improving our commmunity. Sincerely, Your Rancho Neighbors 0 THOMAS P. BECK 236 Hacienda Drive • Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 355 -3300 June 1, 2004 RECEIVED City of Ar AND 2 2904 Planning Commission development r o , o ; con P.O. Box 60021 LemmunNp DsV64410m Division Arcadia, Ca 91066 -6021 RE: . 1104 Rancho Road, Arcadia, CA Hearing Date: June 8, 2004 Q 7:00 p.m. Dear Commission Members: Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the above - captioned meeting to express my strong objection to the asphalt tile roof. I am a member of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association. As you know, the homeowner took out a permit to' put on a certain roof and then egan putting on an asphalt file roof that is absolutely not allowed in our neighborhood. This was brought to the attention of the homeowner by numerous people. It was only after we got the city involved that the job was "red tagged ". The owner subsequently called me to explain that his wife and daughter were "allergic" to cedar shake. Further, that they could not put any approved roofing • material on because their roof would not, support it. I have lived in the Santa Anita Oaks since 1985. I've been on the Architectural Review Board since the early 1990's. We have absolutely never permitted someone to put an asphalt tile roof in our neighborhood. Even assuming there was some allergic reaction to cedar shake (this is the first time in my life that I've heard of anything like this) then the homeowner has the option of re- enforcing the roof to support a lightweight tile. Other homeowners have done exactly that to support any additional weight. It is not an excuse that the roof would have to be reinforced. This is very doable and is often done. If this homeowner was permitted to put an asphalt tile roof on it would open the door for other homeowners, should they wish to want to "save money" and put on these types of roofs. Long ago we drew the line that these types of roofs would not be permitted in the Santa Anita Oaks. Please help us enforce our rules that everyone, except this homeowner, has accepted. Very truly yours, THOMAS P. BECK 0 Lisa Carlson 1104 Rancho woad Arcadia, CA 91006 n, LJ July 6, 2004 Re: 1104 Rancho Rd roofing material City Council of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Members of the City Council, I am in the process of re- roofing my home which is located at 1104 Rancho Rd. After having completed more than 80% of the re- roofing I was given a 'stop work' order. When I initially took the permit out to re -roof I had intended to use Monier ceramic tile: However, after the contractor began work on the roof it was determined that the wide overhangs around the entire house would not support the weight of the tile. This greatly limited my options of roofing material. The original roof was cedar shakes. However, my mother and I are allergic to cedar. Also, the fire retardant chemicals applied to the cedar create a health risk. And with out these fire retardant chemicals the roof is a fire hazard and uninsurable. Hence, I could not go back to cedar shakes. Therefore, I chose GAF, Grand Canyon, composite shingles. The main reason is that it is light weight. Other features include the look. It is 20% thicker than conventional composite and allows for maximum dimensionality. It has texture and gives the impression of rugged wood shake. The material is also durable (meets and passes ASTM 3462), high performing (super heavyweight laminated design is over 450 lbs. per square foot) and safe (class A rating from UL). The ARB does not approve of my choice of composite shingle because they believe it does not comply to sub - section 6 of section 3 of resolution 5290 of the regulations for the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners' Association which states that, "Materials used on the exterior of any structure including roofing ... shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood.' Sub - section 7 makes a similar stipulation for the exterior building appearance in that 'The appearance of any structure, including roof ... shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing ... in the neighborhood." However, I have attached photos of three other homes in the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners' Association that have composite shingle roofing - material. This hereby demonstrates that composite shingle is used by homeowners of the association. And demonstrates that the roofing material I am using is similar; compatible and harmonious. A precedence has been set with these three other homes. How can the ARB single me out and deny me when they have allowed three other home owners in the Santa Anita Oaks' Association to use composite shingle? The ARB also claimed that in accordance with section 2 of resolution 5290 my use of composite shingle would not "promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, (or) protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments ... 0 • Lisa Carlson 1104 Rancho Road Arca, a, C✓3 91006 • However, the roofing material on my home is not cheap - looking nor does it devalue the properly value of my home or other homes in the Santa Anita Oaks Association. The composition shingle I selected has been used on multi - million dollar homes. It was recently used for the Pasadena Showcase Home. A home with an estimated value of $10 million. As for the architectural character that the ARB is so adamant to protect and maintain, I am leaving the structure of my home in tact and in its original channing design. I am not demolishing anything or replacing the original home with an over - the -top, gaudy new mansion. By choosing another, heavier roofing material I would be forced to redesign the architecture and, therefore, would not be able to maintain the "architectural character' of my California ranch -style home. I chose the home for its architecture. It is a single level home with great wide overhangs around the entire house, guest house and garage. I want to preserve the look of my home and not detract from it by installing obtrusive support beams or removing the four foot overhang around my entire home. My home is now more than 80% complete. The roof looks wonderful. It does not detract from my neighbors' homes. It is in harmony with the homes in the assoction. Even members of the ARB stated at the hearing in front of the Planning Commission on June 8 that they saw nothing wrong with the roof, they liked the look, however, they had a made a blanket ruling several years ago that no composite material would be allowed. Their reasoning was that there are many types of roofing materials in the marketplace and they did not want to devote the required time necessary to review them all. To my knowledge at least three other homes in the association have composite shingles as evidenced in the photos provided. This makes me wonder why I am being singled -out. The ARB is made up of older, married, white males. The ARB, under their own rules and regulations, has no justification to deny me; I feel I am being discriminated against. I am a single minority female who is raising two young children, one of whom just graduated kindergarten from Highland Oaks Elementary, where I am member of the HOPTA and also volunteered regularly.I live a quiet, peaceful life with my children and my parents. For the ARB to go after me is unsettling to say the least. I have researched the ARB and found that they only started enforcing and tightening their rules within the last 10 years. This coincides with the influx of the Chinese population to Arcadia. No where, does the ARB state that they are an equal opportunity board who does do not discriminate against individuals based on race, age, gender or marital status: I am concerned that the ARB is discriminating against me. What other cause do they have to attack me and refuse me the right to repair my home? The ARB did not object when the homeowners on 5 Woodland Lane used composite shingle. The ARB did not force the city to order a stop -work order when the homeowners at 557 Foothill Boulevard used composite shingle. The.ARB has not forced the homeowners at 1415 Rodeo Road to remove their composite shingle. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, the ARB has deemed that three other homeowners' use of composite is allowable, but mine �s noF How can they make-such - -a- ruling? How does the ARB4ustKy this derision Rari�m9 Sexism? Reverse ageism? Marital discrimination? What is it that separates me from the other homeowners? My life, my home is being dictated by a few men with an unfair bias. I find this un- conscionable and down -right unlawful. • Lisa Cadson 1104 Rancho Road Arcadia,'C:A 91006 I have spent a great deal of money improving my home. My, choice of composite shingle was not for economical reasons. In fact, it is more costly than the Monier tile. Times have changed, materials have improved. Composite shingle has allowed me to retrofit a 45 -year- old house. It has allowed me to maintain the architectural style of my home. The ARB needs to review their list. They need to take the time to review new materials. Under the ARB's regulations they cannot allow other homeowners, but disallow me the right to use composition shingles. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Lisa Carlson 0 3 David Lin, M.D. Garfield Medical Center Alhambra; CA 91801 626- 300 - 1068 June 8, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: n Maggie Breeden is a patient of mine with acute asthma. Both she and her daughter Lisa Carlson have severe allergies, one of which is an allergic reaction to cedar. It brings on an acute upper respiratory irritation that frequently triggers an asthma attack. Therefore it is recommended that they stay away from cedar products. David Lin D . • Dennis and Theresa Treadwell • 1436 Orlando Drive Arcadia,'CA 91006 626 - 836 -9121 June 8, 2004 Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB City of Arcadia To Whom It May Concern: We are residents in the Santa Anita Homeowners Association. We find no objections to Lisa Carlson's use of GAF's high quality Grand Canyon composite shingle tiles for her roof at 1104 Rancho Road. • Sincerely, Dennis Treadwell Theresa Treadwell • Narendra and Usha Gupta 11.03 Rancho Road Arcadia, CA 91006 June 8, 2004 To City of Arcadia HOA ARB I am Lisa Carlson's neighbor directly across the street. I have no objection to the choice of the composite shingle roofing material that she has chosen to re -roof her house. Also, 1 have not gotten any notice from the City of Arcadia, the HOA , nor ARB as to whether I approve or disapprove of the composite shingle. Si* n erely, tt� � Dr. Narendra Gupta Dr. Usha Gupta • • (Rancho Santa Anita 9?,pidents Association Serving the Lower Rancho June 6, 2004 Dear Planning Commission: On Behalf of the Architectural Review Board for our Homeowners' Association, we ask that you disallow the subject composition roof and support Gary Dorn and his Architectural Review Board. One of the key elements of style in all associations is the roof. It is typically 50% of what you see from the street. The predominate roof material has been wood shake and shingles; the new synthetic roofs are designed to simulate this thick texture and varying roughness. It is our harmony. This harmony throughout our neighborhoods provides architectural quality and home value. It is like the beautiful red tile roofs of Santa Barbara and the historic thatched roofs of England. It is their heritage of architectural quality and uniformity. . The subject owner received a permit for a roof approved by the Association - - then switched to an illegal roof without notification or permission. A few homeowners have tried to bootleg additions, revisions and materials of . construction in our Associations - - thinking they can get by - - thinking, "catch me if you can ". We appreciate the Planning Commission's understanding of this occasional problem and the goal of all ARB's to maintain the harmony and values of our neighborhood as required by our City Resolutions. We ask that you reject the owner's appeal for a non - conforming roof and help us maintain a community of beautiful homes. Thank you, Tony HenriCh ARB Chairman 431 North Altura Road Arcadia, CA 91007 41 n U DECLARATION I, 4' �PYKM , hereby declare that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter; that my business address is 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California; that I am employed in Los Angeles County, California; that I placed public hearing notice for I M �(1Y1mylo in (application number) L envelopes addressed to property owners whose names appear on the attached list supplied by the applicant, which envelopes were then sealed and postage fully paid thereon and on 30t-,l U 1 1DOLA deposited in the U.S. mail at Arcadia, California. I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: — f In I OA Declarant • t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN• BEFORE THE I1Z._ R e «n'LKilIJ►[011 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by and before the ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL to determine whether or not the following request should be approved, conditionally approved or denied. 1104 Rancho Road REQUEST: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial to use roofing material not permitted by the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association. The Planning Commission upheld the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association denial to install composition roofing material not on the list of permitted roofing materials. APPLICANT: Lisa Carlson ENVIRONMENTAL Staff has reviewed the application and the project is exempt from environmental DOCUMENT: review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315. Notice of Exemption to be filed upon approval of this proposal. DATE AND HOUR Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: Arcadia City Hall Council Chambers 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 4 0 he application file is available for review at the Planning Services offices. This case will not alter the zoning of any property. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to be heard concerning the appeal. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the appeal. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the appeal, 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. Persons wishing to comment on the appeal may do so at the Public Hearing or by writing to the Community Development Division prior to the July 20th Public Hearing. It is in the best interest of any concerned party to be present at the Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter, please contact Joe Lambert by calling (626) 574 -5444 in City Hall or by writing to the Community Development Division at 240 West Huntington Drive, P. 0. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Public Hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. This notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the Public Hearing. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5 :30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays Opm 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed July 9th. Vida Tolman Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager &C -1117 f6l jo 1 6A q1 w,4 G. ri� I JUN 16 1004 «� LA 6l -3�o CLIENT NAME ! RECVD BY: CA 010000 ?1931 PAYDR: LU JUN 16 lone i TODAY'S DATE: 06/16/04 i REGISTER DATE: 06/16/04 TIME: 11:03:5; Gerald A r iiflKgl Treasurer Arcadia DESCRIPTION AMOUNT �^ �1/W1GI PLANNINGA�PPLICATION�_ -f - f210.00 DU� c { n �" - O � CHECK PAID: f„'.10.00 1 $. U t CHANGE: f.00 � u,u � f J f or am- ! fi VcL� E r 5770010010 HUNT, GORDON AND MARIE A TRS 0Ail RODEO RD DIA, CA 91006 5770010012 KLER, BALDEV S AND DAVIT K 01111 RODEO RD ARCADIA, CA 91006 5770010020 CARLTON, LISA 01104 RANCHO RD ARCADIA, CA 91006 5770010904 LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST 00500 W TEMPLE ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 5770029001 PANGILINAN, CYNTHIA 01050 RANCHO RD ARCADIA, CA 91006 5770029002 DOUGLAS, RENE AND NATALIA 00188 W FOOTHILL BLVD ARCADIA, CA 91006 5770010013 5770019009 5770029013 WONG, JIN S GUPTA, NARENDRA AND USHA TRS CHUNG, YOUNG C AND MI A 01105 RODEO RD 01103 RANCHO RD 01017 RODEO RD ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 5770010019 5770019010 CHEN, WEI HONG SEAVER, R CARLTON AND LAURA S GARY Y DORN 01114 RANCHO RD 01115 RANCHO RD RD H D ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, 91006 • L J A10 • f�,Ef I /0V z aooV C04 - 0 �o8.T�9 �• STAFF REPORT Development Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator Joseph M. Lambert, Associate Pla SUBJECT: SUMMARY Zone Change Application No. Z 2004 -002 was submitted by Jimmy Lee on behalf of the property owner, 650 Huntington Drive, LLC to rezone the property located at 646- 650 W. Huntington Drive from C -0 /Professional Office to R -3 /Multiple Family Residential. The Planning Commission at its June 22, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of this zone change to the City Council. , The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Zone Change application Z 2004 -002. BACKGROUND In 1958, a Zone Change was granted to change the zoning at the project site from R -3 to C -0. In 1977, the northerly 195 -feet of the project site was rezoned from C -0 back to R -3. Then in 1986, State Farm filed an application to change the zoning on the entire site to C -0 to allow for development of the site with the current 16,700 sq. ft. office building. � The General Plan designation for the site has been and currently is multiple - family residential. • LASER IMAGED: Z 04 -001 January 24, 2004 Page 1 of 3 Residential Recommendation: Approve DISCUSSION • The existing commercial office building was constructed in 1989. Prior to its recent sale; State Farm Insurance occupied the building. The General Plan designation for the site is Multipie- Family Residential (22 dwelling units /acre). The property contains 73,616 square feet (1.69 acres). If the zone change is approved, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing office building and construct residential condominium units. The maximum density allowed by the General Plan is .22 dwelling units per acre (for market rate units). Based on the current zoning code requirements and the General Plan, a maximum of 36 units (market rate) could be constructed on the site. Properties to the east and south of the site are zoned R -3 and developed with multiple - family units. Wi0f the exception of the C -2 commercial development along Baldwin Avenue, properties.to the west of Baldwin Avenue are also zoned R -3 and developed with residential I uses. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with surrounding residential development and with residential. development west of Baldwin'Avenue. This Zone Change will bring the property into conformance with the multiple - family land use designation of the General Plan. If this application is, approved, the office will become a legal non - conforming use. However, as noted, the applicant has indicated that their intent is to raze the office • building and m construct residential condominiu units: Future development of the site will be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedures. The Planning Commission at`its June 22 meeting recommended approval. of this zone change,.with the comment that the proposed rezoning of the property would bring the subject property into consistency with the General Plan. The proposed zone change brings the property into conformance with the General Plan and is consistent with recommendations, in the General Plan /Zoning study being completed by the Development Services Department. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the' provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Departmenthas prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on • Z 04 -001 January 24, 2004 Page 2 of 3 I • wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been drafted for this project. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve ,Zone Change Z- 2004 -002, adopt the Negative . Declaration and , direct- `staff, to prepare the appropriate Ordinance for Introduction at a future City Council meeting. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager I • • Attachments: Aerial Photographs and Zoning Map; Vicinity Map Photographs of surrounding properties Negative Declaration & Initial Study Environmental Information Z 04 -001 January 24, 2004 Page 3 of 3 I I I 0 Santa Anita Mall N �p 0 100 4 00 Feat HUNTINGTON DR fu,- rim Q 0 J nun MMER UP f mug Ito, mm (14 tale) WO) f9a (e14) wi Multiple- Family Residential . Multiple Family Residential paaaJ tefp M (e+n laosl n (BN} (e21) (e53) 650 W Huntington Drive Z 2004-002 ti O O Q V W 66 Gm Z H O m z H W ui O O t0 Z LLI V O N 0 N H U H a W W z L) o w N O w M N N �y ° z_ N N a► > � '�nzxa Nos�NZSNnx �, i, V4 r � O y �� C7 -- z t-v",4 , 4 mw a 0 H - ca � H � D W • H o• .d. F] w w I N z .. 0 w o z U) v, 04 1 M �// a �-y H F4' H O 5 N � 0 a N � I JL f" M � l � ! i I ,1 JIM 3 I + i ' i Y f + 1 ��v. I •> + T I • +� t i �r. , � t ear r' a A t � e IIrR i n h IF + i s, r +a Y 1 1 � $5 •. l ty re9 5 C ` t 1 4 !! v 1 vl � v r'� 1 a H t 4 ? S 1 1 1 rl 1 � I � wv � ��h _. _ �_ 5 :r:.. ��:..' i � ��i � i'' +i 1 9 `� t �" �,o �� � �i It. �� IP.. 1r�y Jt 4 � {� ifGc _ �� t,. 1 ce, P � � != { t S c '� ! � i � i " � , � � 1 f. I � „ , I p I A'lf x - A� �k'.i i I 1'. u # fi t M C.'J t} I r a� 1i i "_ t a I� y I l 1 g T 6 1 1 i A'lf x - A� �k'.i i 1 # fi t M C.'J t} I Yiif I� 1 y�lll I I� e Jlr l Y M I n +. 1 41 "' it I " If kh l I �d [ J • , Y M1 1 I I Nf Y i I 1N k 1 I k l III i Y a Y o, sFp4 Pi rr 1. Y ..� i ll j i II I � r e I n +. 1 41 "' it Y M1 1 y,.• i �, �'Lj r,; r It :� .. R I t x t � I. � I I �• F � I I! lit t. f I }�ti lr 1 ' 1 f } 4 ! iI ti ,^ )ri p" /.�tk -:j � -� ... ma t' Tf - I • l rr Y r Lr A f ' �j7fyji�� f ��r 1 A n ( r I II i u 4 r - n y 1 rill ( V S 1 r 1 E rEf. 1 � x i xy �� 11 A{ L Y I 1 f it I 1 J. 4 A tr ; 1 4 �d Y el 4 l r •' Lo q i I I 1 rr Y r Lr �j7fyji�� f ��r 1 A n 1 I 1. iP 4 r - r y rill ( V S 1 G 1 E � 1 � x s 11 �r L Y I 1 I i i)• J. 4 A s� 1 4 �d r •' Lo q i I I r I >>Y �j7fyji�� f ��r 1 +� � x {�• 5Y A� 1 • x r y 1 � fl °f;r� �n'k 1 ' 1 1 � s x s r'h Y I 1 I i i)• ;, -, 7 �, f i 7 � � 1� S� Y ` t ��, ��,I, 1,• i i � '��� Y �� ,,:y qq } . 3;'. � Sid ) + a '' +* ,r' � ���� �`' s � �; �, � r 4 l 9 {j� rr �`�. d 4�t' � ra x. r e „I ,, '�. � ' � "s + r.,. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) c a �'OA1AQ 1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project: Application No. Z 04 -002: An application to rezone the property located at 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple Family Residential. 2. Location: 646 -650 W Huntington Drive, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3. Entity or person undertaking project: Jimmy Lee - CDA 17528 E. Rowland Street Industry, CA 91748 (626) 913 -8101 The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the • Planning Commission /City Council's findings are as follows: The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site and will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, 91007 (626) 574 -5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 240 W Huntington Drive Arcadia, 91007 (626) 574 -5423 Joseph M Lambert Staff • Date Received for Filing Neg Dec 7/02 File No. Z 2004 -002 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE • ° +.°A.,° ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Application No. Z 2004 -002 2. Project Address (Location) 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Jimmy Lee,- CDA 17528 E. Rowland Street Industry, CA 91748 (626) 913 -8101 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia — Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Offrce Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442 6. General Plan Designation: Multiple - Family Residential (22 dwelling units/acre) 7. Zoning Classification: C -O 8. Description of Project: U -1- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 File No. Z 2004 -002 Proposed Zone Change to rezone the property located at 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional -Office to R -3 1Multiple Family Residential. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly : describe the project's surroundings.) North: Santa Anita Fashion Park: zoned C -2 South: Multiple- Family Residential: zoned R -3 East: Multiple- Family Residential: zoned R -3 West: Mixed Office and Retail: zoned C -2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ;] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation, / Circulation [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] L find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; there will riot be a significant effect in this case because the 0 -2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No. Z 2004 -002 Mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • [ ] I find that the proposed, project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ j I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and ,has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 'WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed, adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator . For: The City of Arcadia - Development Services Department May 24, 2004 Signature Date Joseph Lambert Donna Butler Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as, general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as . operational impacts. 40 -3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No. Z 2004 -002 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from ".Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. a) ,Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) . Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. B. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant: ` 0 -4- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 1. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which.would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C-O/Professional Office to R- 31Multiple Family Residential This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the Genera, Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval, including environmental review. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ - Potentially Significant - Less Than Significant ' With Significant No - Impact -. Mitigation - Impact Impact Incorporation AESTHETICS — Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources; including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and Its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which.would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C-O/Professional Office to R- 31Multiple Family Residential This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the Genera, Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval, including environmental review. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • CEQA Checklist 5 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than Potentially Significant Lass Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The proposed project shall only affect the rear portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. Agricultural areas do not exist at this location. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ Z quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ Z existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ Z pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to ` substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ Z concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ Z people? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional Office to R- 31Muttiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation . Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ Z habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ -Z CEQA Checklist 6 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than . Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or othermeans? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 31Multiple Family Residential. .This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the Genera, to Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change,in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside'of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? 0 CEQA Checklist 7 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ become unstable as a result of the project,' and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? • El N El 9 ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 8 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 31Mulfiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State. Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ become unstable as a result of the project,' and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? • El N El 9 ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 8 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W Huntington Drive from C- OlProfessional Office to R- 31Muft1ple Family Residential.. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. _ Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application. is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ through reasonably. foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in`a_ safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area ? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed • CEQA Checklist 9 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 0 A 11 • with wildlands? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional Office to R- 3 Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 C) ,Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on ❑ ❑ ❑ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? CEQA Checklist 10 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Signfcant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ N or redirect flood flows ?. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? ❑ 1) Potential impact of project post- construction activity on storm ❑ water runoff? m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material ❑ storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm ❑ on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ surrounding areas? ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑, ❑ N • CEQA Checklist 11 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding hydrology and water quality. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. g, LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑. ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ . community conservation plan? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple Family Residential: This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval. including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the.project; a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ El Z would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No mineral resources are known to exist at the site, which is currently_ developed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? • b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ CECA Checklist 12 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ Z levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adapted, within two miles of'a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards is established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. All proposed projects will be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and those standards outlined in the General plan. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ El example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of.replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. 'Huntington Drive from C -0 /Professional Office to R- 31Multiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The land use designation of the site is Multiple Family Residential, therefore any population and housing impacts have already, been addressed as part of the General Plan environmental review. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. • CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No _ Impact Mltigaton Impact Impact Incorporation vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ Z levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adapted, within two miles of'a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards is established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. All proposed projects will be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and those standards outlined in the General plan. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ El example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of.replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. 'Huntington Drive from C -0 /Professional Office to R- 31Multiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The land use designation of the site is Multiple Family Residential, therefore any population and housing impacts have already, been addressed as part of the General Plan environmental review. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. • CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® El Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 3 Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation, Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and will comply with all appficable building and fire codes, potentially decreasing the need for public safety protection. Therefore, impacts to public services are anticipated to be less than significant. 14. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adversephysical effect on the environment? The proposed project is a Zone Change'to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from'C -O /Professional Office to R- 3/Muttiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate,ineview and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and impacts to recreation services have already been evaluated as part of the latest General Plan update. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 0 5. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: CEQA Checklist 14 7 /02 File No.: Z 2004 -002 Less Than 1 * Significant No Impact impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air _ traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a'change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Res ult,in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ El Z. f) Result in inadequate'parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 311vfultiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and impacts to traffic and transportation services have already been evaluated as part of the latest General Plan update. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed 'wastewater, treatment requirements of the applicable ❑;. ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental • effects? CEQA Checklist 15 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant - Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the. ❑ ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than 1 * Significant No Impact impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air _ traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a'change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Res ult,in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ El Z. f) Result in inadequate'parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 311vfultiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and impacts to traffic and transportation services have already been evaluated as part of the latest General Plan update. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed 'wastewater, treatment requirements of the applicable ❑;. ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental • effects? CEQA Checklist 15 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and as such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 17. M ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means CEQA Checklist 16 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, at seq. , (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C- O/Professional Office to R- 3/Multiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and as such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 17. M ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means CEQA Checklist 16 7102 File No.: Z 2004 -002 that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone 646 -650 W. Huntington Drive from C -O /Professional Office to R- 3111hultiple Family Residential. This Zone Change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Any future residential development would require separate review and approval including environmental review. When an application is received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Any future residential development will be in conformance with the General Plan and as such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 0 • • CEQA Checklist 17 7/02 FYeceived (MON)MAY 3 2004 11:49 File No. CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTIINGTON DRIVE tv ARCADIA, CA 91007 J828)574 -00 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM DefB Filed: I v General Information 4 3. Name and address of davalopar or project sponsor. Address of project (Location): j�750 RLA14TIAOfor4 D(LIye, A- R[- �kDlo► Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ��REATI VE h� I fa>,► Lt55o GlATES t'75 r. kx7LJ L.AcND_` , T: IbJbNSTRY GA Di 1"14.8 GouTAt� TithHX 'L);(L f013.Slol or Ro9.�F15.1 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and faderal agencies: ZvNG c.JAW&rEr , CAA P. S. Zoning: G� S. General Plan Designation: �- Proieat Deserlodon 7. Proposed use of site (project description): B. Site Size: -7 3 , I (c Sq. Ft. f r ,] L_Acre(s) 9. Square footage per building: 3 �3►�t ►�DIt�cT S I .J l'(N "�oTDz.1, � u k�R�G� b y, S o 0 5,'�. 10, Number of floors of construction: Z e ;rro Z.Li6 w i to BASL�MG -re f Gr,A�A�r � 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: S rAN DAR -D S H D -0 t>1 Li� 12. Proposed scheduling of project. KRcAJf -&l "r)r& kle y. cow sjAg ern w 40 - N_ ov,�o 13. Associated projects: K /A- 14. 14. Anticipated incremental development: • N / Dt 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: N Ottst'r�{o�p 5 I z� : 2. S G-rJ 1 orL ;0 uNtrs � �r� s� 24� - 2rTaN GIT I �s.. 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: / 18.. If institutional, indicate the major. function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and.community benefits to be derived from the project: 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use pemut or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Ot P -Di (?J 7.on l a67 G(1"O-ntk L1 D G C( Sc- � IDIZLiTiZ� -r� }�auSi►Xs� l�sT�. EmuonWOFOM _ -2- 4a7 HeCeIVeC IMUN)MNY 3 2UU4 11:SU 20. Are the following items applicabie to the project or its effecls? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO . ❑ 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 0 ❑ 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. ❑ 23. Charge in pattern, scale or character of general area of pr*cL ❑ 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or titter. ❑ 25. Change In dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ❑ �Q . 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. ❑ 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ❑ 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? ❑ 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 0 30. Substantial change in demand For municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) ❑ 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) ❑ 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects ❑ 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, �/ policy or ordinance consistent with this Project? ❑ ❑ 38. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmonlal Setlin 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any .existing structures on the site, and the use of the • structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) . EnwMinw -3- Mot r 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspens. Indicate the -type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification - I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best, of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and infonnation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date J • EnvcmMtoFam 4— 4101 1 • Project Name: Arcadia Senior Housing Project Address: 650 Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 Environmental Setting 35. On the project site exists a 2 -story office building with 16,728 sf floor area On grade parking lot locates at the rear portion of the property. The existing topography is approx. 3 feet difference in 547 feet length from the front part to the rear end of the land. 36. The subject property is located at the south of Huntington Drive. On the East side of the property are 3 two -story condominium buildings. On the West side of the property is a 2 -story commercial building for office use. On the south side of the property is R -3 zone multi- family at 2 -story in height. is 9 `�� DECLARATION I, Mf'`L &YYco , hereby declare that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter; that my business address is 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California; that I am employed in Los Angeles County, California; that I placed public hearing notice for Z '1� - 0 O in (application number) • envelopes addressed to property owners whose names appear on the attached list supplied by the applicant, which envelopes were then sealed and postage fully paid thereon and on 60YIe. , -E deposited in the U.S. mail at Arcadia, California. I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. 9.M w'JMUA0. Declarant • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE 4CO S•°asrs° ,. ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all property owners within a 300' radius, that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by and before the ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL to determine whether or not the following request should be approved, conditionally approved or denied. Application No.: Z 2004 -002 Request: A zone change from C -O /Professional Office to R -3 /Multiple- Family Residential at 650 West Huntington Drive. Applicant: Jimmy Lee - CDA Environmental Document: See the Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration that accompanies this notice. Time of Public Hearing: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Place of Public Hearing: City Council Chambers at Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California W application file for the proposed Zone Change are available for review at the Planning Services ices. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed Zone Change. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the Zone Change, 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. Persons wishing to comment on the proposed application may do so at the Public Hearing or by writing to Planning Services prior to the July 20, 2004 Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter, or to submit comments, please contact Joe Lambert, Associate Planner, at Planning Services: 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066, (626) 574 -5444, e-mail: jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Public Hearing, please contact City Clerk's Office at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. This notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the Public Hearing. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on July 9, 2004. Vida Tolman Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manager Ote Published: June 27, 2004 0 City File No.: Z 2004 -002 CITY OFARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE w A ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5400 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Services of the Community Development Division has completed an Initial Study of the following project: Zone Change Application No. Z 2004 -002: To change the zoning of 650 W. Huntington Drive from C -0 /Professional Office to R -3 /Multiple - Family Residential The Initial Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, Planning Services of th Community Development Division has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The project site is / is not X on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at the City's Planning Services office, located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007, and are available for public review. July 20, 2004. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City by this time and date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., the Arcadia City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. if the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Development Division / Planning Services Joe Lambert, Associate Planner Date Received for Filing By Los Angeles County: (County Clerk Stamp Here) r1 f• J AVERY® 5160 Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 5775 -031 -015 5775- 031 -905 5778 -001 -014 Santa Anita Fashion Park Llc Arcadia City Coast Federal Bank Lessee 7 *Th St 240 W Huntington Dr PO Box 10360 Corp Tax Dept C nnati, OH 45202 Arcadia, CA 91007 Ark Capark, CA 91309 5778 -001 -016 5778- 001 -017 5778 -001 -024 Thomasine W Orsburn Alice Q Gershman Robert M Jones 7475 Shepard Mesa Dr 5253 Bluebell Ave 630 W Huntington Dr 108 Carpinteria, CA 93013 Valley Village, CA 91607 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -025 5778- 001 -026 5778- 001 -027 Calvin & Agnes Lin Howard D Moon Alice A Gedikian 453 Fairview Ave C 630 W Huntington Dr 106 630 W Huntington Dr 105 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -001 -028 5778- 001 -029 5778- 001 -030 Haiyan Chu Robert M & Patricia Mcsweeny Chie S Fong - 630 W Huntington Dr 117 630 W Huntington Dr 122 630 W Huntington Dr 130 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -001 -031 5778- 001 -032 5778- 001 -033 Raoul & Joy Zwick Hossein Taefi Wesley Ferris 8737 Zerelda St 630 W Huntington Dr 133 630 W Huntington Dr 132 Rosemead, CA 91770 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -034 5778- 001 -035 5778- 001 -036 Gordon E & Martha Peterson Warren & Virginia Lockyear Max & Phyllis Polansky 630 W Huntington Dr 131 630 W Huntington Dr 121 630 W Huntington Dr 120 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -037 5778- 001 -038 5778 -001 -039 Leticia Shterenverg *B* Alembi T Themeli Vi Gaudin 630 W Huntington Dr 119 630 W Huntington Dr 118 630 W Huntington Dr 104 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -040 5778- 001 -041 5778 -001 -042 John W Sleeter Jean M Borrelli Rita C Calhoun 630 W Huntington Dr 103 630 W Huntington Dr 102 630 W Huntington Dr 101 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 - 001 -043 5778- 001 -044 5778- 001 -045 Sales Pat S Amir H & Azam Sanepour *M* Edward C & Belma Bosio 620 W Huntington Dr 101 620 W Huntington Dr 102 620 W Huntington Dr 103 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5•- 001 -046 James L Liu 620 W Huntington Dr 104 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -047 Ada M Grillo 620 W Huntington Dr 118 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -048 Orpha E Schoger 620 W Huntington Dr 119 Arcadia, CA 91007 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY (462 -8379) Jam Free Printing o AVERY® . 1 AVERY® 5160 Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 5778 -0 001 -049 5778- 001 -050 5776- 001 -051 Xin Y& Wei Chen Paul V & Grace Verburg Henry K & Marion Smith 6 W Huntington Dr 120 620 W Huntington Dr 121 620 W Huntington Dr 131 A *ia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -052 5778- 001 -053 5778- 001 -054 Betty & Jeau Hwang *M* Frank E Goddard Ingeborg S Griswold 620 W Huntington Dr 132 620 W Huntington Dr 133 620 W Huntington Dr 129 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -001 -055'. 5778- 001 -056 5778- 001 -057 Ronald A & Linda Duchaineau Thomas B Eville *M* R T & Michele Doney *M* 620 W Huntington Dr 130 122 E Huntington Dr 2280 Chaucer Rd Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91006 San Marino, CA 91108 5778- 001 -058 5778- 001 -059 5778- 001 -060 :Earl V & Jean Golden Angelina A Ascasio Kay Merrel 3560 Lashbrook Ave 620 W Huntington Dr 106 620 W Huntington Dr 107 Rosemead, CA 91770 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -061 5778- 001 -062 5778- 001 -063 Arnold & Ruby Busch Tejal Shah Una L Morris 620 W Huntington Dr 108 630 W Huntington Dr 108 630 W Huntington Dr 215 - Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 • 5778- 001 -064 5778- 001 -065 5778- 001 -066 Joann Harp Betty J Kirschner Adel A & Nabila Nashed 630 W Huntington Dr 214 630 W Huntington Dr 213 533 Valido Rd Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -067 5778- 001 -068 5778- 001 -069 David T & Shing Lee Stanley J Borodinsky Nhu U Tran 630 W Huntington Dr 228 630 W Huntington Dr 234 630 W Huntington Dr 237 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -070 5778- 001 -071 5778- 001 -072 Helen M Martinez ! Louis & Amparo Robles David D & MO Hu 630 W Huntington Dr 236 ! 630 W Huntington Dr 235 1212 N Santa Anita Ave Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91006 5778-001 -073 5778- 001 -074 5778- 001 -075 Joy Swift Tr Xia Gretel M Heller 5128 Valley Blvd 218 E Newman Ave 630 W Huntington Dr 224 Los Angeles, CA 90032 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91007 8•- 001 -076 5778- 001 -077 5778 -001 -078 Muriel A Carroll Phyllis L Schenk Annie Iknadossian 630 W Huntington Dr 212 630 W Huntington Dr 211 630 W Huntington Dr 210 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 www.avery.com lam Free Printing `/�� AVERY® 1- 800 -GO -AVERY (462 -8379) V V AVERY® 5160 5778- 001 -079 Marion E Nelson 6 Huntington Dr 209 A lis, CA 91007 5778- 001 -080 Donald M & Doris Belew 620 W Huntington Dr 209 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -082 Margarita E Ogden 620 W Huntington Dr 211 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -085 Marilyn S Conn 620 W Huntington Dr 225 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -088 Angela M Belleni 620 W Huntington Dr 235 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -091 D R Lawson *B* PO Box 80458 San Marino, CA 91118 5778 - 001 -083 Martha V Osko 620 W Huntington Dr 212 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -086 Jie Chen 620 W Huntington Dr 226 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -001 -089 Sales Janet 620 W Huntington Dr 236 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -092 Ronald G Minet 620 W Huntington Dr 228 Arcadia, CA 91007 r� 5778- 001 -094 Roscoe & Blanche Hollinger 620W Huntington Dr 213 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -095 Francis N Lawless 620 W Huntington Dr 214 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -097 Tr Brucker *M* PO Box 589 Alhambra, CA 91802 5778 -001 -102 Elizabeth A De Lacy 1069 Via Verde 184 San Dimas, CA 91773 5778- 001 -106 G Lum 114 Anahola St Honolulu, HI 96825 5778- 001 -098 Monterey Homeowners Assn 630 W Huntington Dr Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -103 Takasakibento 850 S Baldwin Ave Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -107 Tr Mendez 642 W Huntington Dr 3 Arcadia, CA 91007 5 001 -109 5778- 001 -110 Gail L Norman Clare J & Oretha Monson 642 W Huntington Dr 5 642 W Huntington Dr 6 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 www.averycom 1. 800 -GO -AVERY (462 -8379) Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 5778- 001 -061 Joanna R Bruno 2152 Cumberland Rd Glendora, CA 91741 5778- 001 -084 Jin P & Ying Wang 620 W Huntington Dr 224 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -087 Robert & Barbara Ellison 620 W Huntington Dr 227 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -090 Tr Malone 620 W Huntington Dr 237 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -093 Norman & Jean Landesman 620 W Huntington Dr 223 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -096 Dorothy B Harvey *M* 620 W Huntington Dr 215 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -101 Peter M & Shumei Kam 1611 S Garfield Ave Alhambra, CA 91801 5778- 001 -105 David T Ostroff 20024 Valley View Dr Topanga, CA 90290 5778- 001 -108 Anthony P & Orlanda Gregoli 19001 E La Crosse St Glendora, CA 91741 5778- 001 -111 Rudy G & Susana Samkow 642 W Huntington Dr 7 Arcadia, CA 91007 Jam Free Printing S AVERY® D AVERY® 5160 Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 5778- 001 -112 5778- 001 -113 5778- 001 -114 Vicotria L & Jorge Seas King W & Lilan Cheung Arvin J Wenzelberg 6 W Huntington Dr 8 642 W Huntington Dr 9 642 W Huntington Dr 10 A ia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -115 5778- 001 -116 5778- 001 -117 Zhao G & Jiang Chen Chia Y Wang Sam Falzone 642 W Huntington Dr 11 642 W Huntington Or 12 642 W Huntington Dr 13 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -118 5778- 001 -119 5778- 001 -120 Geronimo P Mallari Harish M Manohara Eleanor R Fevog 642 W Huntington Dr 14 642 W,Huntington Dr 15 634 W Huntington Dr 15 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -121 5778- 001 -122 5778- 001 -123 Chang S & Yau Hsu Donald F & Rose Franco Xiaoqin Zhang 634 W Huntington Dr 14 1425 Rancho Rd 634 W Huntington Dr 12 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -124 5778- 001 -125 5778- 001 -126 Stanley A & Frances Mills Keith E Martin Tei T Utsunomiya 634 W Huntington Dr 11 5276 Stardust Rd 634 W Huntington Dr 9 Arcadia, CA 91007 La Canada Fli, CA 91011 Arcadia, CA 91007 • 5778- 001 -127 5778- 001 -128 5778- 001 -129 Jane & Annick Downhower Tr Ho Nancy E Nixon 634 W Huntington Dr 8 - 634 W Huntington Dr 7 634 W Huntington Dr 6 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -130 5778- 001 -131 5778- 001 -132 Hsueh C Lee Wai L & Wen Chew Tr Su 634 W Huntington Dr 5 634 W Huntington Dr 4 634 W Huntington Dr 3 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 001 -133 5778- 001 -134 5778- 001 -135 Lea Susanto Eva C Walker State Farm Mutual Auto Insure 634 W Huntington Dr 2 7502 Greenville Ave 500 One State Farm Plaza Arcadia, CA 91007 Dallas, TX 75231 Bloomington, IL 61701 5778- 002 -001 5778- 002 -002 5778- 002 -003 Chau H Wu Chau H Wu Carols. I Tjaden 134 Point Lobos Ave 134 134 Point Lobos Ave 134 823 Palo Alto Dr San Francisco, CA 94121 San Francisco, CA 94121 Arcadia, CA 91007 4 - 002 -004 5778 -002 -005 5778- 002 -006 Albert W & Luk Lui Albert W & Luk Lui Carols, I & Richard Tjaden 1709 SPalm Ave 1709 S Palm Ave 823 Palo Alto Dr Alhambra, CA 91803 Alhambra, CA 91803 Arcadia, CA 91007 www.avery.com Jam Free Printing Q AVERY® 1- 800 -GO -AVERY (462 -8379) AVERY® 5160 5778 -002 -008 .Ruth A White *M* 8nt Holyoke Dr R o Mirage, CA 92270 5778- 002 -014 Chau H Wu 134 Point Lobos Ave 134 San Francisco, CA 94121 5778- 002 -019 Cindy Tseng 653 Fairview Ave 3 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 002 -022 James M Gruben 321 Meadow Ln Monrovia, CA 91016 5778- 002 -025 Xianfa Zhang 653 Fairview Ave 9 Arcadia, CA 91007 r 1 U 5783- 010 -027 Arthur Andersen 845 S Baldwin Ave Arcadia, CA 91007 5783- 010 -056 Frank B Myers 9200 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA 91311 11 vuww.averycom 1- 800 -GO -AVERY (462 -8379) 5776- 002 -009 Margaret E De Grazio 441 Stanford Dr Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 002 -017 Yuk C Chen 653 Fairview Ave 1 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 002 -020 Timothy S Yoo 653 Fairview Ave 4 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -002 -023 Tar Shen 6114 Golden West Ave Temple City, CA 91780 5778- 002 -026 Noel M Sorensen 653 Fairview Ave 10 Arcadia, CA 91007 5783- 010 -032 Kazi Foods Inc 3671 Sunswept Dr Studio City, CA 91604 * ** 139 Printed * ** Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160 5778- 002 -011 Frank F Shaw 259 E Magna Vista Ave Arcadia, CA 91006 5778- 002 -018 Christopher C Bautista 653 Fairview Ave 2 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778- 002 -021 Gisele Ragusa 653 Fairview Ave 5 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 -002 -024 Bin Duan 653 Fairview Ave 8 Arcadia, CA 91007 5783- 010 -026 Arthur Andersen 845 S Baldwin Ave Arcadia, CA 91007 5783- 010 -049 Frank B Myers 9200 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA 91311 Jam Free Printing * AVERYB 009 IS jasel. 6'50 HUNTINGTON DR LLC 650 W. HUNTINGTON DR #210 ARCADIA CA 91007 CDA ARCHITECTS MR. JIMMY LEE 17528 E. ROWLAND ST INDUSTRY CA 91748 50 UNTINGTON DR C 6 0 W. HUNTINGTON R #201 A ADIA CA 91007 UNTINGTON DR LLC 650 HUNTIN ON DR #201 ARCAD A CA 91 07 650 HUN IN TON DR LLC 650 W. 4UljTINGTON DR #201 ARCADIAICA 91007 CDA AR TECTS MR. JI M LEE 17528 OWLAND ST INDUS Y 91748 CDA RCHITE TS MR. IMMY L E 1752 E. ROW AND ST IND STRY CA 9 748 I ARCHITECTS JIMMY LEE 1 28 E. ROWLAND ST I DUSTRY CA 91748 ®091S jo; a;eldwaa ash slagel ssaippy ®AU3AH wl s;aayS paaJ y;OOWS Notice of Public Hearing Zone Change — Z 2004 -002 Return Mail List 5778 - 001 -014 Coast Federal Bank Lessee PO Box 10360 Corp Tax Dept Ark Capark, CA 91309 5778 - 001 -109 Gail L Norman 642 W. Huntington Dr. 5 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 - 001 -063 Una L Morris 630 W. Huntington dr. 215 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 - 001 -033 Wesley Ferris 630 W. Huntington Dr 132 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 - 001 -059 Angelina A Ascasio 620 W. Huntington Dr 106 Arcadia, CA 91007 5778 - 001 -038 Alembi T Themeli 630 W Huntington Dr 118 Arcadia, CA 91007 *Forwarded From: 5778 - 001 -066 Adel A & Nabila Nashed 533 Valido Rd Arcadia, CA 91007 To: 6277 Pacific Pointe Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92548 -7522 5788 - 001 -098 Monterey Homeowner Assn 630 W. Huntington Dr Arcadia, CA 91007 ARCADIA TRIBUNE affiliated with SGV Newspaper Group 1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road West Covina, CA 91790 R ECEIVED JUN 3 0 1004 CITY OF ARCADIA CI7y CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) was STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of ARCADIA TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the date of May 11, 1931, Case Number 320077. The notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to Wit: 6/27/04 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California this 2 7 day of 6UJJ 20 4-4-- signature 8 iapaca ualuw rur ua� wum a y iurlt uiiip Proof of Publication of sft0u4ii_ . be HPa71ng on r o v:e d.,1 Arcadia, CA' ,nally, approved 1(626) 57a5644, e: mail : lambert( Olon No.:'' (Sarcodla.c°.us.' I , In' compliance I , A zbne lithe Americans' from ; i .Dlsub{lities Act,. feisloncl Office 1 1 '0eed special asst: Multiple - Family to participate , I dial at 650 West Public Hearing, Officer . City don Drive ; nt:.. t . least (626) t thr ee Lee .. CDA . at easee :mental i , ` working days' r, cee,. ,A i�the meeting'. or !antes -i. , this'{ ma k of " Public iiarro 1:' - Tuesday, )J2004: at 7:f0 1 Pray 1,acce f Hearing! CI1; :, Ar Chambers at ropen :'City Hall,; 240 I i-Thu: a.m. Huntington •- rcadia, A .. °p from Ad ,,, ; application' for' P.m. close romsed , zone' Vida ,are available .vlew , at the g' Services �Chle IM, on c van' f you with "Respomuble to the Public are also revue At Its .:men Zfao) m U EV EL'OPMEN E R -V'I C E. , m e v " P : t e i Ld a m unit Ivis ion /P lannir TO runner Received `.for Los Angelis a 7/ot ()/n y &-)eeol Aho fiin4 Chafe l,'tt ` "` °�p08• =$ ° STAFF REPORT Office of the City Clerk DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James Barrows, City Clerk By: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manage SUBJECT: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER /WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ANNUAL WEED ABATEMENT CHARGE LIST PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: Approve 0 SUMMARY: The County of Los Angeles (County) annually abates weeds, rubbish, and refuse upon certain properties located within the City of Arcadia. This public hearing is has been scheduled to provide Arcadia residents, who have been charged inspection and /or abatement service fees by the County, an opportunity to protest the Weed Abatement charge list. DISCUSSION: On July 6, 2004 the Los Angeles County (County) Agricultural Commissioner's Office delivered a list of private properties within Arcadia city limits upon which the County abated weeds and assessed charges (Attachment I). A second list shows the same properties listed by location and owner (Attachment II). Each property listed on the charge list has been posted and noticed of tonight's public hearing. If a property owner lodges an objection to the assessed charges during tonight's public hearing, the City Council may elect to have the matter investigated by the Arcadia Fire Department or overrule the objection. Otherwise, the Council may • elect to approve the charge list as submitted. Page 1 of 2 LASER IMAGED 4 c. Zy f • FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City in regard to the City Council's action on this item. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that the City Council review testimony from listed property owners, if any, and take appropriate action. Otherwise, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached charge list so that the County Auditor may enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. Approved:. � ±'a'1 William R. Kelly, City Manager • /Attachments JB:VT:vt • Page 2 of 2 MG65 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES BY WEED KEY 06/30/04 Attachment I 0 • WEED MAPBOOK PAGE PARCEL ZONE CITY TOTAL KEY CODE CHARGES 7 5383 030 016 06 035 555.28 7 5765 002 012 06 035 29.73 7 5765 002 013 06 035 29.73 7 5765 011 011 06 035 29.73 7 5765 030 010 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 002 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 004 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 007 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 008 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 010 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 011 06 035 29.73 7 5771 032 013 06 035 29.73 7 5771 033 007 06 035 29.73 7 5771 033 015 06 035 29.73 7 5771 033 016 06 035 29.73 7 5771 033 017 06 035 29.73 7 5775 025 025 06 035 29.73 7 5777 036 002 06 035 29.73 7 5779 018 040 06 035 29.73 *7 5780 025 053 06 035 29.73 7 5780 025 054 06 035 29.73 *7 5780 025 055 06 035 29.73 7 5780 025 056 06 035 29.73 *7 5780 025 057 06 035 29.73 7 5780 025 058 06 035 29.73 *7 5780 025 063 06 035 29.73 7 5784 020 014 06 035 29.73 7 5788 014 013 06 035 29.73 7 8532 016 001 06 035 904.80 7 8532 016 003 06 035 29.73 7 8532 016 004' 06 035 29.73 7 8532 016 007 06 035 29.73 7 8532 016 022 06 035 29.73 7 8532 016 023 06 035 29.73 7 8532 017 009 06 035 217.63 7 8532 017 018 06 035 348.46 7 8532 017 057 06 035 414.11 7 8532 018 005 06 035 375.38 7 8532 018 011 06 035 391.18 7 8532 018 021 06 035 29.73 TOTAL PARCELS = 40 /TOTAL CHARGES = 4,187.93 TOTAL IMPROVED PARCELS = /TOTAL CHARGES = TOTAL UNIMPROVED PARCELS = 7 /TOTAL CHARGES = 3,206.84 TOTAL INSPECTION FEE ONLY PCLS= ', 33 /TOTAL CHARGES= 981.09 0 Attachment II WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES BY ADDRESS 0 LOCATION 1725 S. Baldwin Santa Anita Canyon Road Santa Anita Canyon Road Highland Vista Drive Highland Oaks Drive Monterey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive 380 Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Torrey Pines Drive Santa Clara Street 1045 W. Huntington Drive 201 E. Duarte Road 1508S.8 th Avenue 8 th Avenue 1516S.8 th Avenue 8 th Avenue 1432S.8 th Avenue 8 th Avenue 1504S.8 th Avenue LeRoy Avenue Norman Avenue Clark Street Clark Street Clark Street 11908 Clark Street Clark Street Clark Street Goldring Road Goldring Road Goldring Road Goldring Road Goldring Road Goldring Road OWNER TOTAL CHARGES John M. Tsu -Ling Laraway 555.28 William Martin 29.73 William Martin 29.73 Virginia Brown Trust 29.73 Helen Vida Trust 29.73 James Jaska 29.73 David Chao 29.73 Shan C. Hue! H. Ting 29.73 Bao Zheng H. Mei 29.73 Herman Chung 2933 Masahiro Fukuda 29.73 Charles Bluth Trust 29.73 Yaway Enterprises Inc. 29.73 Charles Bluth Trust 29.73 Charles Bluth Trust 29.73 Charles Bluth Trust 29.73 Ellsworth Dahlgren Co. 29.73 Pbr Realty LLC 29.73 Man Cheng 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 Polyco LLC 29.73 George Kolovos Trust 29.73 Louis Nassaney Trust, 29.73 Graham Livingston Inc. 904.80 Graham Livingston Inc. 29.73 Graham Livingston Inc. 29.73 John and Catherine Hartfield 29.73 Graham Livingston Inc. 29.73 Hope Shine Investments Group 29.73 Consolidated Rock Products Inc. 217.63 Clark Street LLC 348.46 Clark Street LLC 414.11 Samuel Kardashian 375.38 Samuel Kardashian 391.18 Wang Association 29.73 • Cato R. Fiksdal Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights and Measures May 13, 2004 The Honorable City Council City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Robert G. Atkins Chief Deputy RECEIVED MAY 17 2004 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK ATTENTION: CITY CLERK Listed below are the proposed dates for the delivery and protest hearing for our annual Weed Abatement Charge List. The hearing dates will appear on our letter, Report on Cost and Confirmation of Posting. Delivery Date: July 6, 2004 Posting Date: July 14, 2004 Protest Hearing Date: July 20, 2004 If you find these dates to be agreeable with your council and calendar, please sign, date and mail or fax (626- 350 -7077) this letter by June 7, 2004. Any consideration in placing -our item early on your agenda would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Corina Monsivaiz or Jo Anne Benavidez at (626) 575 -5487. Very truly yours, c CATO R. FIKSDAL .� Agricul omm' CONFIRMATION - PLEAS SIGN Dir or of e' is and ea s � _'�4 DATE RAYMOND B. - Bureau Chief Weed Hazard and Pest Management Bureau CRF:RBS:cm cywnfNfnalmerge.wpd c: City File, City Manager COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Department of Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures 12300 Lower Azusa Road Arcadia, California 91006 -5872 http✓/acwm.co.la.ca.us Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1881 To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service REPORT ON COST OF ABATING NOXIOUS WEEDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA Council Member: Pursuant to an order heretofore made by your Honorable Body instructing this Department to abate noxious or dangerous weeds and rubbish under the provisions of the Government Code, we respectfully submit the following report on the cost of abating such noxious weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land, showing the cost of removing such weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land, or in front thereof, or both, to -wit: (see attached) July 20, 2004 The foregoing report was submitted to the City Council of the City of Arcadia on the 20th day of July, 2004, for confirmation and was with all objections thereto duly received and considered, and was by said City Council confirmed, and the County Auditor is hereby ordered and instructed to enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ATTEST: B City Clerk Cato R. Fiksdal D ncultural Commissioned or of Weights and Measures June 1, 2004 LuULVl x Ur t.w ra1.v� Department pf Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures 12300 Lower Azusa. Road Arcadia, CallOrnia 91006 -5872 http ✓/acwm.00.la. ca-us RECEPMD _W II IN 10 20041 RoCheflDeputyns CITY OF ARCADIA clry CLERK A PTED BPOA DQ0 ! SUPERVISORS cOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, Califomia 90012 Dear Supervisors: 23 JUN 1 . 2004 vI EXECUT UE OFFICER CER APPROVAL OF WEED ABATEMENT FIVE YEAR RENEWAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITIES OF ARCADIA AND SAN GABRIEL (FIFTH DISTRICT) (3- VOTES) • IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD: 1. Approve Weed Abatement Service Agreements with the Cities of.Arcadia and San Gabriel for weed abatement services for the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009. 2. Instruct the Chairman to sign the Agreements. PURPOSEIJUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the above action is to enable the Agricultural Commissioner/W eights and Measures Department (ACWM) to continue to provide weed abatement services as requested by the Cities of Arcadia and San Gabriel. The ACWM concurs with their request that service be provided pursuant to the terms of the County's Weed Abatement Agreements for a term expiring on June 30, 2009. implementation of Strategic Plan G o a ls Weed Abatement Service Agreements support the County's Strategic Plan Goals of Service Excellence (Goal 1) and Community Services (Goal 6). The Agreements. identify and prioritize services to be delivered in a seamless fashion to a designated category of • property owners. Our county crews, private contract vendors, and parcel owners all participate in clearing vacant lots for fire protection. Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1681 To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service LASER IMAGED o �- , 1 `.Y R YYO Cato R. Fiksdal D ncultural Commissioned or of Weights and Measures June 1, 2004 LuULVl x Ur t.w ra1.v� Department pf Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures 12300 Lower Azusa. Road Arcadia, CallOrnia 91006 -5872 http ✓/acwm.00.la. ca-us RECEPMD _W II IN 10 20041 RoCheflDeputyns CITY OF ARCADIA clry CLERK A PTED BPOA DQ0 ! SUPERVISORS cOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, Califomia 90012 Dear Supervisors: 23 JUN 1 . 2004 vI EXECUT UE OFFICER CER APPROVAL OF WEED ABATEMENT FIVE YEAR RENEWAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITIES OF ARCADIA AND SAN GABRIEL (FIFTH DISTRICT) (3- VOTES) • IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD: 1. Approve Weed Abatement Service Agreements with the Cities of.Arcadia and San Gabriel for weed abatement services for the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009. 2. Instruct the Chairman to sign the Agreements. PURPOSEIJUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the above action is to enable the Agricultural Commissioner/W eights and Measures Department (ACWM) to continue to provide weed abatement services as requested by the Cities of Arcadia and San Gabriel. The ACWM concurs with their request that service be provided pursuant to the terms of the County's Weed Abatement Agreements for a term expiring on June 30, 2009. implementation of Strategic Plan G o a ls Weed Abatement Service Agreements support the County's Strategic Plan Goals of Service Excellence (Goal 1) and Community Services (Goal 6). The Agreements. identify and prioritize services to be delivered in a seamless fashion to a designated category of • property owners. Our county crews, private contract vendors, and parcel owners all participate in clearing vacant lots for fire protection. Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1681 To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service LASER IMAGED 400D 2 AGREEMENT WEED ABATEMENT 5 THIS AGREEMENT, dated for.purposes of reference only July 1, 2004 is made by and between 6 the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the CITY OF ARCADIA hereinafter 7 referred to as "City." 8 RECITALS: 9 (a) The City is desirous of contracting with the County for the performance of weed abatement 10 functions within its boundaries on unimproved properties, by the County of Los Angeles, acting through 11 its Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and Measures. 12 (b) The County is agreeable to rendering such weed abatement services on the terms and conditions 13 hereinafter set forth. (c) Such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provisions of Section 56 1 /2 of the Charter 15 of the County of Los Angeles and Article 1, Chapter 1, Part 2, Division 1, Title 5 of the Government 16 Code. 17 THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 18 1. The County agrees, through the Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and '19 Measures, to provide weed abatement services within the corporate limits of the City in accordance with 20 the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 13, Part 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, being 21 Sections 39560 through 39588 thereof. 22 Such services shall encompass the weed abatement duties and functions of the type coming within 23 1 the jurisdiction of and customarily rendered by the Agricultural Commissioner /Weights and Measures • 1 Department of the County of Los Angeles under the Charter of said County and the statutes of the State 2 of California. 3 The level of service shall be the same basic level of weed abatement service that is and shall be 4 hereinafter during the term of this agreement provided for in the unincorporated areas of the County of 5 Los Angeles by said Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and Measures. 6 The County shall have the discretion to terminate services on tax default parcels. 7 The rendition of such services, the standard of performance, and other matters incidental to the 8 performance of such services, and the control of personnel so employed shall remain in the County. 9 2. To facilitate the performance of said functions, it is hereby agreed that the County shall have 10 full cooperation and assistance from the City Council and other City officer, agents, and employees. 11 3. For the purpose of performing said functions, County shall furnish and supply all necessary • labor, supervision, equipment, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered 13 hereunder. 14 4. The County shall perform the work contemplated with resources available within its own 15 organization and no portion of the work shall be subcontracted with the following exceptions: 16 County may subcontract specialized equipment and /or services pursuant to County procurement 17 procedures using a competitive bidding process. 18 No City Employee as such shall be taken over by said County, and no person employed hereunder shall 19 have any City pension, civil service, or any status or right. 20 For the purpose of performing such services and functions, and for the purpose of giving official 21 status to the performance thereof where necessary, every County officer and employee engaged in the 22 performance of any service hereunder shall be deemed to be an officer or employee of said City while • 2 performing services for said City, which services are within the scope of this agreement and are purely 2 municipal functions. 3 5. City shall not be called upon to, assume any liability for the direct payment of any salaries, 4 wages, or other compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder for said County, 5 or any liability other than that provided for in this agreement. 6 Except as herein otherwise specified, the City shall not be liable for compensation and/or 7 indemnification to any County employee for any injury or sickness arising out of their employment. 8 6. The parties hereto have executed an Assumption of Liability Agreement approved by the Board 9 of Supervisors on December 27, 1977 and /or a Joint Indemnity Agreement approved by the Board of 10 Supervisors on October 8, 1991. Whichever of these documents the City has signed later in time is 11 currently in effect and is hereby made a part of an incorporated into this agreement as if, set out in full i herein. In the event that the Board of Supervisors later approves a revised Joint Indemnity Agreement and 13 the City executes the revised agreement, the subsequent agreement as of its effective date shall supersede 14 the agreement previously in effect between the parties hereto. 15 7. Unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this' agreement shall be effective July 1, 2004 16 and shall extend to June 30. 2009 At the option of the City Council of said City, with.the consent of the 17 Board of Supervisors of said County, this agreement shall be renewable for successive periods not to 18 exceed five (5) years. 19 In the event City desires to renew this agreement for any succeeding five -year period, the City 20 Council, not later than December 30, 2008, shall notify the Board of Supervisors of County that it wishes 21 to renew the same, whereupon said Board of Supervisors, not later than July 1, 2009, shall notify said 22 City Council in writing of its willingness to accept such renewal for an additional five -year period or such • 3 other term as it deems advisable, otherwise such agreement shall finally terminate at the end of such five - 2 year period. 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph hereinbefore set forth, the City may terminate 4 this agreement as of the thirty -first day of December of any year upon notice in writing to the County on 5 or before September 30 of the same year. The County may terminate this agreement at any time upon 6 thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 7 8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, this contract shall be sooner 8 terminated upon the failure of the City to adopt a resolution declaring that weeds upon parcels of property 9 located within said City to be a public nuisance as provided for in Section 39571 of the Government Code. 10 9. It is the intent of this agreement that the Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and I I Measures of the County shall constitute the public officer designated by the city council to perform the • duties imposed by Article 2, Chapter, 13, Part 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, and that 13 the City Council of said City shall perform the duties of the legislative body as set forth in said article. 14 10. For and in consideration of the rendition of the foregoing services by the County, City agrees 15 that the costs of abating such weeds shall be assessed in the manner set forth in Article 2, Chapter 13, 16 Part 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, and that upon collection of such assessment, they will 17 be paid over to the County. 18 11. The parties hereto contemplate that the services of the County are limited to weed abatement 19 work and agree that such services are for no other or additional work. 20 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the CITY OF ARCADIA by motion duly adopted by its City Council, 21 caused this agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and the County of Los Angeles, 4 1 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16_ 17 18 19 20 21 F - 6A 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 • by order of its Board of Supervisors, has caused these presents to be subscribed by the Chair of said Board and seal of said Board to be affixed thereto and attested by the Clerk of the Board. CITY OF ARCADIA By ayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: L Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney, City of Arcadia ATTEST: By City Cle VIOLET VARONA- LUKENS, Executive Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By eputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: LLOYD W. PELLMAN, County Counsel ,�— By Deputy o COUNTY OF I ANGELES A DOP �'ED BOARD OF RVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 23 JUN 1 204 �,,�� OLETVARONA-LUKENS EXECUTIVE OFFICER RNU5YRAG.FRM 5 Chairman', Board of Supervisors W � v . i i 3I e 5 6 THIS AGREEMENT, dated for purposes of reference only 7i 999 is made by and between 7 the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the CITY OF ARCADIA hereinafter 8 referred to as "City." 9 l RECITALS: 11 (a) The City is desirous of contracting with the County for the performance of weed abatement 12 functions within its boundaries on unimproved and improved properties, by the County of Los Angeles, 13 acting through its Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and Measures. (b) The County is agreeable to rendering such weed abatement services on the terms and conditions 15 hereinafter set forth. 16 (c) Such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provisions of Section 56 1/2 of the 17 Charter of the County of Los Angeles and Article 1, Chapter 1, Part 2, Division 1, Title 5 of the 18 II Government Code. 19 20 II THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 21 1. The County agrees, through the Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and 22 Measures, to provide weed abatement services within the corporate limits of the City in accordance with 23 the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 13, Part 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, being 24 Sections 39560 through 39588 thereof. 4 15 /Il . . 2 Such services shall encompass the weed abatement duties and functions of the type coming within • the jurisdiction of and customarily rendered by the Agricultural Commissioner /Weights and Measures 4 Department of the County of Los Angeles under the Charter of said County and the statutes of the State 5 of California. 6 The level of service shall be the same basic level of weed abatement service only that is and shall 7 be hereinafter during the term of this agreement provided for incorporated areas of the County of Los a Angeles by said Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and Measures. 9 The County shall have the discretion to terminate services on tax default parcels. 10 The rendition of such services, the standard of performance, and other matters incidental to the 11 performance of such services, and the control of personnel so employed shall remain in the County. 12 2. To facilitate the performance of said functions, it is hereby agreed that the County shall have 13 full cooperation and assistance from the City Council and other City officer, agents, and employees. to 3. For the purpose of performing said functions, County shall furnish and supply all necessary 15 labor, supervision, equipment, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered 16 hereunder. 17 4. All persons employed in the performance of such services and functions for said City shall be 18 County Employees, and no City Employee as such shall be taken over by said County, and no person 19 employed hereunder shall have any City pension, civil service, or any status or right. 20 For the purpose of performing such services and functions, and for the purpose of giving official 21 status to the performance thereof where necessary, every County officer and employee engaged in the 22 performance of any service hereunder shall be deemed to be an officer or employee of said City while 23 performing services for said City, which services are within the scope of this agreement and are purely municipal functions. 2 1 5. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salaries, 2 wages, or other compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder for said County, 0 or any liability other than that provided for in this agreement. 4 Except as herein otherwise specified, the City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity 5 to any County employee for injury or sickness arising out of his employment. 6 6. The Assumption of Liability agreement executed by the parties to this agreement and approved 7 by the Board of Supervisors on December 27, 1977, currently in effect is hereby made a part of and 8 incorporated into this agreement as if set out in full herein unless said assumption of Liability agreement 9 is expressly superseded by subsequent agreement hereafter entered into between the parties hereto. 10 7. Unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this agreement shall be effective July 1. 1999 11 and shall extend to June 30, 2004 At the option of the City Council of said City, with the consent of the 12 Board of Supervisors of said County, this agreement shall be renewable for successive periods no to exceed five (5) years each. 14 In the event City desires to renew this agreement for any succeeding five -year period, the City 15 Council, not later than December 30 next preceding the expiration date of this agreement, notify the Board 16 of Supervisors of County that it wishes to renew the same, whereupon said Board of Supervisors, not later 17 than the first day of July, shall notify said City Council in writing of its willingness to accept such renewal 18 for an additional five -year period or such other term as it deems advisable, otherwise such agreement shall 19 finally terminate at the end of such five -year period. 20 Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph here inbefore set forth, the City may terminate 21 this agreement as of the thirty-first day of December of any year upon notice in writing to the County on 22 " or before November 30 of the same year. The County may terminate this agreement at any time upon 23 thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 3 1 8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, this contract shall be sooner 2 terminated upon the failure of the City to adopt a resolution declaring that weeds upon parcels of property 0 located within said City to be a public nuisance as provided for in Section 39571 of the Government Code. 4 9. It is the intent of this agreement that the Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and 5 Measures of the County shall constitute the public officer designated by the city council to perform the 6 duties imposed by Article 2, Chapter 13, Part 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, and that 7 the City Council of said City shall perform the duties of the legislative boy as set forth in said article. 8 10. For and in consideration of the rendition of the foregoing services by the County, City agrees 9 that the costs of abating such weeds shall be assessed in the manner set forth in Article 2, Chapter 13, Part 10 2, Division 3, Title 4 of the Government Code, and that upon collection of such assessment, they will be 11 paid over to the County. 12 11. The parties hereto contemplate that the services of the County are limited to weed abatement y3 work and agree that such services are for no other or additional work. 14 17 /lI 18 19 111 20 21 /ll 22 Ill 23 oil /// 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 rl 23 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 • IN WITNESS HEREOF, the CITY OF ARCADIA by motion duly adopted by its City Council, caused this agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and the County of Los Angeles, by order of its Board of Supervisors, has caused these presents to be subscribed by the Chairman of said Board and seal of said Board to be affixed thereto and attested by the Clerk of the Board. CITY OF ARCADIA ATTEST: City C1 k JOANNE STURGES, Executive Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors NINE 1 . APPROVED AS TO FORM: LLOYD W. PELLMAN, County Counsel Deputy I.7 B Mayor COUNTY OF LOA ANGELES Un Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO.FOPM: 4,� // A `� Michael H. Miller, City Attornev Citv of Arcadia ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CCOMI CF LM Maws s 1 7 FEB JOANNE STURGES V EXECUTIVE OFFICER RNUSYRAG.FRM - 1 nor for ow �tl t Cato R. Ftksdal Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights and Measures January 20, 1999 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Department of Agricultural Commissioner and Weights and Measures 3400 La Madera Avenue El Monte, California 91732 -2620 ADOPTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOWry c: LW ANMES The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear. Supervisors: r , a t APPROVAL OF WEED ABATEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ARCADIA • IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD: 1. Approve Agreement with the City of Arcadia, for Weed Abatement services for the period of July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004. 2. Instruct the Chair to sign. ,B .... • . 6 uWt 11 1 The purpose of the above action is to enable the Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures Department ( "the Department) to continue to provide weed abatement services to the City of Arcadia. The Department has provided the City of Arcadia with weed abatement services since July 1, 1984. 31i TIFI ATIONS: The Department concurs, that the service provided pursuant to the terms of the County's Weed Abatement Agreement for a term expiring June 30, 2004. The contract specifies that the County will provide weed abatement services in the City Arcadia. nrnfurfinn r onsumers and the Environment since 1881 The Honorable Board .upervisors January 20, 1999 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Services provided by the Department of Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and Measures are 100% recoverable though property tax liens and direct billings. Lz The County will be reimbursed for its expenditures at rates developed and adjusted annually by the Department and reviewed by the Auditor - Controller pursuant to statutory limitations. The terms of the Agreement shall be for a period of (5) five years commencing from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004. The agreements have been reviewed by County Counsel and are approved as to form. 1 0 , KIWIN Not applicable. Not applicable. Not Applicable. rI L The Honorable Board o: ipervisors January 20, 1999 Page 3 • Three copies of the agreement are being submitted to your Board for signature. When approved, this Department requires one (1) signed copy of the Board's action. The City Arcadia requires one (1) signed copy of the Board's action as well. Respectfully submitted. CATO R. FIKSDAL Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights & Measures • CRF:mI SYREHVBD.L7A Attachments c: Chief Administrative Officer Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors Auditor - Controller County Counsel Cities of Azusa and Montebello • ©1 /ai�ov - / b &'( gear A STAFF REPORT July 20, 2004 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direc or Prepared -by: Thomas W. Tait, Field Services Manager Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer: SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA'S WATER SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC'COMMENTS SB 1307 (Calderone -Sher; effective 1/1/97) added new provisions to the California • Health and Safety Code which mandates that the City prepare a report once every three (3) years to inform the public about any Public Health Goal (PHG) which was exceeded during the previous three.(3) years. This bill also states:that the public water system hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. On July 8, 2004, a notice was published advising the public that the report was available for public review and a public hearing would be conducted at tonight's meeting. Attached is the 2004 City of Arcadia's Public Health Goals Report. It should be pointed out that the City of Arcadia's water system is in compliance with all federal and state health -based drinking water standards.. It is also important to note that PHGs are not enforceable and no action to meet them is mandated. However, the City is committed to providing the safest and highest quality of drinking water to its residents:• Therefore, although PHG's are:not mandated, the City is cognizant and is resolute in finding ways to consistently maintain the City's public health and safety. In the instance of possible identification of any constituent that may adversely affect the public's health, the City'is determined to find ways to eliminate this potential risk. When calculating a PHG, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses all the information it has compiled to identify the level of the chemical in drinking water that would not .cause significant adverse health effects in people who drink that water every day for 70 years. It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing regarding the 2004 City of • Arcadia Public Health Goals Report, and receive any public comment regarding this report and respond to the public. LASER IMAGED 6 d' ilP Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND • Public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections fall under the requirements of, SB .1307 and must. prepare a written report on "Public Health Goals" once every three (3) years. The first report was presented to the City Council on August 4, 1998 and subsequently on July 3, 2001. Public hearings were had in both years, with motions made and carried - resulting in Council's vote to receive and file these reports. For the past six (6) years, there were no significant changes or reasons for concern outlined in the report, which signifies the City's constant maintenance of a good healthy product. Public Health Goals, developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the U. S. Environmental Protection! Agency (USEPA), represent non - mandatory goals'.based solely on public health considerations, and the best available data in the scientific literature. DISCUSSION The Public Health Goals Report, prepared by the City of Arcadia, is' in conformance with the law, and the data contained in this report reflect water quality during the 2001 -2003 calendar years. The purpose of the legislative requirement is to give water system customers access to information on levels of chemicals that exceed the PHG levels.. PHGs.are recommended targets and are not required to be met by any public water. system. Maximum ` contaminant level goals (MCLGs) are the federal equivalent of • PHGs and Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are the enforceable safe drinking water standards, established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by the California Department of Health Services, that water systems must meet. The City of Arcadia's water system meets and /or surpasses these regulatory standards. Our report compares Public Health Goals to Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), even though the Public Health Goals may be lower than the enforceable mandatory MCLs. It is also required that the report contain the- estimated cost and technology needed to reduce the contaminate to the PHG level. The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) establishes MCLs at very conservative levels to provide protection to consumers. In other words, MCLs are the regulatory definition of what is "safe." Therefore, as long as the. City's drinking water complies with all MCLs, it is considered safe to drink, even if some chemicals exceed PHG levels. Thus a PHG represents a health — protective level fora chemical that CDHS and public water systems should strive to achieve if it is feasible to do so. In all cases, the -City of Arcadia's water system. complies with al of the drinking water standards and MCLs -required by the CDHS and USEPA. • grnrt y � {r.� Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 3 • Both the USEPA and CDHS adopt what are known as the best available technologies, which are the best -known methods of reducing contaminant levels to the MCL. Costs can be estimated for such technologies. However, since many PHGs and all MCLGs are set much lower than the MCL, it is not always possible or feasible to determine what treatment is needed to further reduce a contaminant downward to or near the PHG or MCLG, many of which are set at zero. The chart contained in the PHGs report estimates total annual costs for the best available technologies, including both capital costs spread over 20 years and annual operation and maintenance costs. Environmental Impact None. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: • • City Council to conduct a public hearing. • If there is any public comment, direct staff to respond to the public. • Receive and file the 2004 City of Arcadia Public Health Goals Report. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:ST:dw Attachments • 2004 Public Health Goals Report City of Arcadia 1.0 Introduction Senate Bill 1307 added Section 116470 to the California Health and Safety Code, and requires larger water utilities to prepare special reports to inform the public about the safety of their drinking water. A written report discussing public health goals, which have been established for drinking water, must be made available to the public every three years. The initial report was provided prior to July 1, 1998. This report has been prepared to address the requirements set forth in Section 116470 of the California Health and Safety Code. It is based on water quality analyses during calendar years 2001, 2 and 2003 or, if certain analyses were not performed during those years, the most recent data available. The..report has been designed to be as informative as possible, without unnecessary duplication of information contained in the Consumer Confidence Reports, which are mailed to customers by July 1 each year. 0 This report fulfills the requirements outlined in Section 116470 of the California Health • and Safety Code. The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup that prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing these reports. The ACWA guidelines were used in the preparation of our report. No guidance was available from state regulatory agencies. 2.0 Identification of Contaminants Public Health Goals (PHGs) are water quality goals set by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). PHGs are recommended targets and are not required to be met by any public water system. Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) are the federal equivalent of PHGs. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are the enforceable safe drinking water standards that water systems must meet. An action level (AL) is the concentration of a contaminant, which if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. MCLs and ALs are established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 'State of California Department of Health Services (DHS) at very conservative levels that protect human health. The City of Arcadia water system meets and/or surpasses these regulatory standards. 11 1 Section 116470(b)(1). of the Health and Safety Code requires public water systems • serving more than 10,000 service connections to identify each contaminant detected' in drinking water that exceeded the applicable PHG. Section 116470(f) requires MCI-Gs to be used for comparison if there is no applicable PHG. The City of Arcadia water system has approximately 13,800 service connections. The following constituents were detected at one or more locations within the drinking water system at levels that sometimes exceeded the applicable goals (PHGs or MCI-Gs) but did not exceed any regulated chemical safe drinking water standards: • total coliform bacteria • .copper • uranium • tetrachloroethylene (PCE) • trichloroethylene (TCE) Coliform bacteria are I .: aturally present in the environment. The major sources of copper in tap water are the pipe and fixtures in the customer's own plumbing. The major source of PCE and TCE in drinking water is discharge from industrial activities. Uranium occurs naturally in the environment. These are discussed further in the report. The accompanying chart shows the applicable PHG or MCLG and MCL or AL for each . contaminant identified above. It compares these to the maximum, minimum, and average levels of each contaminant in drinking water supplied by the City of Arcadia in calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. 3.0 Numerical Public Health Risks Section 116470(b)(2) of the Health and Safety Code requires disclosure of the numerical public health risk, determined by OEHHA, associated with the MCLs or ALs and PHGs or MCI-Gs. Because coliform is only an ,indicator.of the potential presence of pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific numerical .health risk. Numerical health risk data on copper have not been provided by OEHHA' . For uranium, OEHHA has determined that the health risk associated with the PHG is one excess case of cancer in a million and the risk associated with the MCL is five excess cases of cancer in 100,000 over a long period. For PCE, OEHHA has determined that the cancer risk associated with the PHG is one excess case of cancer in a million and the risk associated with the MCL is eight excess cases of cancer in 100,000 over a long period. OEHHA has determined that the cancer risk associated with the PHG for TCE is one excess case of cancer in a million and the risk associated with the MCL is six excess cases of,cancer in a million over a long period. �J 2 4.0 Identification of Risk Categories • Section 116470(b)(3) of the Health and Safety Code requires identification of the category of risk to public health associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, including a brief, plainly worded description of those terms. The risk categories and definitions for the contaminants identified above are shown on the accompanying chart. 5.0 Description of Best Available Technology Section 116470(b)(4) of the Health and Safety Code requires a description of the best available technology .(BAT), if any is available on a commercial basis, to remove or reduce the concentrations of the contaminants identified above. The SATs are shown on the accompanying chart. 6.0 Costs of Using Best Available Technologies and Intended Actions Section 116470(b)(5) of the Health and Safety Code requires an estimate of the aggregate cost and cost per customer of utilizing the BATs previously identified to reduce the concentration of a contaminant to a level at or below the PHG or MCLG. In addition, Section 116470(b)(6) requires a brief description of any actions the water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant and the basis for that decision. • Total Coliform Bacteria- The BAT for treating coliform organisms in drinking water has been determined by EPA to be disinfection. The City of Arcadia already disinfects all the water that is served to the public. Chlorine is used to treat the water because it is an effective disinfectant and residual concentrations can be maintained to guard against biological contamination in the water distribution system. Coliform bacteria are indicator organisms that are everywhere in nature and are not generally considered harmful. They are a useful tool because of the ease in monitoring and analysis. If a positive drinking water sample is' found, it indicates 'a potential problem that needs to be investigated and followed up with additional sampling. It is not at all unusual for a system to have an occasional positive sample, but it is extremely rare that the .follow -up sample is positive. Although EPA set the MCLG for total coliforms at zero percent positive, there is no commercially available technology that will guarantee zero percent,positive every single month. Therefore, the cost of achieving the PHG cannot be estimated. The City of Arcadia collects approximately 20 samples every week at points throughout the water, distribution system that are analyzed for total coliforms. During one week in 2001, a single sample collected by the City of Arcadia was positive for total coliforms. The results were checked by taking additional samples at the same location. The additional samples were all negative for total coliforms. • 3 • The City, of Arcadia will continue several programs that are now in place to prevent contamination of the water supply with microorganisms. These include: • disinfection using chlorine and maintenance of a chlorine residual at every point in the distribution system • monitoring throughout the distribution system to verify the absence of total coliforms and the presence of a protective chlorine residual • continue to implement a cross - connection control program that prevents the accidental entry of non - disinfected water into the drinking water system. Copper- EPA has determined the BAT to reduce copper in drinking water to be corrosion control optimization. This method is capable of bringing a water system into compliance with the AL of copper at 1,300 micrograms per liter (ug /l). The City of Arcadia water system is already in compliance with the copper AL, meets all state and federal requirements, and is therefore deemed by DHS to have optimized corrosion control. Further corrosion control optimization would be incapable of achieving the PHG. Therefore, the cost of reducing copper to the PHG level cannot be estimated. The principal reason for this is that the largest source of copper in tap water is the pipe • and fixtures in the customer's own household plumbing. Copper has not been detected in the City of Arcadia's source waters. Factors that increase the amount of copper in the water include: • household faucets or fittings made of brass; • copper plumbing materials; • homes less than five years old; . • soft or corrosive water; or • static water in household plumbing. The City of Arcadia collected 30 lead and copper tap samples in August and September 2001. The copper levels at the 90th percentile were below federal and state ALs. The City of Arcadia will continue to monitor the water quality parameters that relate to corrosivity, such as pH, hardness, alkalinity and total dissolved solids, and will take action if necessary to maintain the water system in an optimized corrosion control condition Uranium- The BATS for removal of uranium in water for large water systems are: coagulation /filtration, lime softening, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis. Uranium was • detected above the PHG in groundwater at two wells, as well as in the surface water received from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) in 2001 and 19 2002. The City of Arcadia is already in compliance with the MCL for uranium. The cost • of providing treatment using, ion exchange' was estimated to determine the potential cost to reduce uranium levels in groundwater to. the PHG of 0.43 picoCuries per liter (pCi /1). There are numerous factors that may influence the actual cost of reducing uranium levels to the PHG. Achieving the water quality goal for uranium could range from $279,000 to $360,000 per year, or between $20 and $26 per household per year. The average concentration of uranium in the MWD water during the latest year of monitoring (2003) was non- detect and therefore treatment cost for uranium in the MWD water is neither feasible nor required for the purposes of this report. PCE and TCE- The SATs for removing PCE and .TCE have been determined by EPA to be granular activated carbon and packed tower aeration. The City of Arcadia already uses a combination of packed tower aeration and blending to ensure that PCE and TCE levels in the water served to the public are well below - the MCLs. The cost of providing additional treatment using packed tower aeration on all wells with PCE or TCE in the untreated water was estimated in an `attempt to. determine what it may cost to reduce these contaminants to the PHG level. It should be pointed out that these are theoretical calculations and rough cost estimates. Achieving the water quality goals for PCE and TCE was estimated at $531,000 per year, or approximately $38 per household per year. K k In order to comply with safe drinking water standards, the City of Arcadia will continue to use the best available treatment technologies for removing PCE and TCE where • appropriate and necessary and /or to blend water from wells with PCE and TCE with uncontaminated water from other wells. Packed tower aeration treatment facilities have been installed on wells Longden 1 and Longden 2, and blending facilities are used for wells Orange Grove 1 and 5, because PCE and TCE levels are at or near the MCLs. The City of Arcadia is not considering in additional treatment at this time, beyond continuing to operate the existing packed tower aeration and blending facilities, as the water quality from other active sources currently meets or surpasses the regulatory standards that have been established to protect public health. However, future •plans are subject to change as more information becomes available and /or conditions change. For additional information, please contact Ms. Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer, at (626) 256 -6551, or write to the City of Arcadia, P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021. 5 • O CL re I � g V W 0 0 U V J m a. a 0 0 N • � c W O W_ N t O C U=G o m N C C1 N N 2 N L tt55 Q m U c f Z w L^ @@ � d V . r �+> a a ai O rut ! $g 3 y O �S Q Q W M N LU J a WSO� O f .? :UV in a u Q� O LL p Y RiUU ��C W O n � C ci W a U D z 00 '�zz LU o z Z U V Q ij ui: Z 2 g ^ at yOE N o: 04 2 W c LL z 7 W 9 .- a N �o FD W C .m m o U n 9 � C d c W z N 0 c� v U W r � C 1 0 � f I a i n m a 8' m ' 1 � r C y o e typ � I 1 A g I rh ] a V U < c 0 g 0 s m w � Q J J L E a w B E m ` € 3 r d a4 E E v U H II n O Q rl rr n m N m 5 C CC N a m m y � E s" m � � F m c ilf 4 ` m S m n9 T N v v t 1 4 g f b � Q T a � C � g C � 1 O � u F E � C u C e � 0 LD E s: �1 I�� c W_ N t O J N o m C O N 2 N L tt55 Q m U c N Z w L^ @@ � d ° 6 VQ rl a z O rut U' W �S � C d c W z N 0 c� v U W r � C 1 0 � f I a i n m a 8' m ' 1 � r C y o e typ � I 1 A g I rh ] a V U < c 0 g 0 s m w � Q J J L E a w B E m ` € 3 r d a4 E E v U H II n O Q rl rr n m N m 5 C CC N a m m y � E s" m � � F m c ilf 4 ` m S m n9 T N v v t 1 4 g f b � Q T a � C � g C � 1 O � u F E � C u C e � 0 LD E s: �1 I�� • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY given that on July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Chambers, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, the City Council will hold a public hearing to receive public comments and subsequently file the City of Arcadia's 2004 Public Health Goals (PHG) Report. The Report is available for public review on July 8, 2004. Persons challenging any action taken after the public hearing may be limited to raising only those matters raised by them or others at the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office • at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. For further information or to request a copy of the PHG Report, please contact Tom Tait, Field Services Manager, City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department at (626) 256 -6554 Monday through Thursday between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or alternate Fridays between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pat Malloy Public Works Services Director • Today's Date: June 22, 2004 Publish Date: July 8, 2004 PROOF OF PUBLICPf ON (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Arcadia Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudged as a newspaper of general circulation by - ttie - superior court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on- the date of October 3, 1997, Case Number GS004333; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed smaller than nonpareil ) each regular and newspaper and not in on the following dates, copy (set in type not , has been published in entire issue of said any supplement thereof to -3wit: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, This 5 day of CTQ .2004 Mgtt f1 17541 W 0 Signature CORE IODIA GROUP, INC. Arcadia Weekly /Monrovia Weekly r Sierra Madre Weekly /Pasadena Independent r ws 34 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 294 -1090 (This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp only) Proof of Publication of "NOTICE AF,iPUBLIC- HEARING'"- BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY! COUNCIL ^. NOTICE IS HEREBY, given, j�' lthaton _July20;2004,at7:00p.m.In - the Arcadia City Counal Chsmbem j - 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia. r: Cellfomla, the,Clty Council will hold 'r a public,headrig to receive public ' commente ena subsequently file me I ,•Clty,of Arcadia's 2004 Public Health 4 Goele(PHG) Raport. Tlie Report b, '`available for publimrevie'w on July B, 2004.. Persons challenging any _ action taken after the publlc hearing may be limited to raising only those ! matters mised by them or others at i the public headng, In compliance with the re e Ad.' I carrswith Disabilities Act: Ifyou need I c` special assistance fo; In, j a City Council meeting, - please con .'I tact the,City Clenfs office at (826) 574-5455 At least three (3) working._! 'day' before, the Meeting or:.time=: when. special' servioss are needed: i This notification will help Cily staff r making reasonable arrangements + to provide you with access to-the meehnii vices Manager City of; Arcadia Pub- Iic Works Services.Deparlment at t (626) 256 -6554 Monday through Thursday between the hours'of 6:45 a:m. - and 5:00 p.m.. orAltemate,Fri;,- deys between the hours of 6:45-. M. PatMalloy Public' Works Servlose Director Today's Date:'.Jime j ish Date July 5;"2004 „ 1 ^Arcatlia Weekly - 011d olo ORDINANCE NO. 2191 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 6611 THROUGH SECTION 6614.4, DIVISIONS 1 THROUGH 5, CHAPTER 6, PART 1, ARTICLE VI OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DOOR -TO -DOOR PEDDLING, SOLICITING AND CANVASSING WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia, consistent with First Amendment principles, wishes to fashion a regulation of door-to-door peddling and soliciting in order to protect residents from fraud and crime and to preserve residents' privacy in their homes; and WHEREAS, unregulated door -to -door peddling and soliciting constitutes a serious concern for many modern municipalities, including the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, the goal of protecting residents from fraud and crime and thereby promoting the safety and privacy of residences within the City is a legitimate, urgent, and substantial governmental objective; and WHEREAS, the City has a legitimate interest in preventing fraudulent or criminal activities which may result from unregulated peddling and soliciting; and WHEREAS, the City has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals' privacy by preventing peddling, soliciting and canvassing which they do not desire forced upon them; and LASER IMAGED b' c r91,4 WHEREAS, the City has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals' safety and privacy by'reasonably limiting the hours of soliciting, peddling and canvassing in a content neutral manner; and WHEREAS, all of these goals may properly be served by a narrowly tailored. and less restrictive regulation which requires peddlers and solicitors to obtain a permit prior to engaging in any peddling or soliciting within the City, reasonably limits the hours of activities and restricts peddling, soliciting and canvassing of occupants where residents have posted a "No Solicitation", "No Peddling" or "No Canvassing" sign; and WHEREAS, the United, States Supreme Court, in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 306, recognized the right to protect citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring a solicitor to establish his identity and purpose before engaging in solicitation of funds; and WHEREAS, placing the initial burden of obtaining a license will not destroy. First Amendment rights; and WHEREAS, the City may properly punish those who call at a location in defiance of the previously expressed will of the occupant. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 4 SECTION 1. Sections 6611 through 6614.4, Divisions 1 through 4, Chapter 6, Part 1, Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: DIVISION 1. DEFINITIONS 6611. Definitions. Unless it is apparent from the context that another meaning is intended, the following words, when used in this Part, shall have the meaning ascribed to them by the following subsections. 6611.1 Peddling. The word "peddling," as used in this chapter includes the acts of any person, whether a resident of the city or not, traveling by foot, wagon, automotive vehicle, or any other type of conveyance, from place to place, from house to house, or from street to street, carrying, conveying, or transporting goods, wares, merchandise, meats, fish, vegetables, faits, garden truck, farm products or provisions offering and exposing the same for present sale, or making sales and delivering articles to purchasers or offering services to be performed immediately. 6611.2 Soliciting. As used in this chapter, "soliciting includes the act of any person, whether a resident of the city or not, traveling either by foot, wagon, automotive vehicle, or ki any other type of conveyance, from place to place, from house to house, or from street to street, requesting money or personal property, or taking or attempting to take orders for sale of goods, wares and merchandise, personal property of any nature whatsoever for future delivery, or for services to be performed in the future, whether or not such person has, carries, or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of such sale, or whether such person is collecting advance payment on such sale or not. 6611.3 Canvassing. As used in this chapter, "canvassing" includes the act of any person, whether a resident of the city or, not, traveling either by foot, wagon, automotive vehicle, or any other type of conveyance, from place to place, from house to house, or from street to street, advocating or proselytizing on behalf of a religious, charitable, social or political cause. 6611.4 Person. Person shall mean any individual, group, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, church, sect, denomination, society, organization or league. M DIVISION 2, CITY MANAGER'S DUTIES 6612. Duties. It shall be the duty of the City Manager or designee to investigate each application for a permit as hereinafter provided by the provisions of this Chapter. He or she shall maintain each application on file, together with his or her decision thereon, all of which shall be subject to public inspection at any reasonable time. 6612.1 Powers. The City Manager or designee shall have the power to issue and deny permits as hereinafter provided; to summon witnesses; to demand production of documents and things; to take testimony and to direct investigations as hereinafter provided; and to do and to perform all other acts that may be necessary or proper within the scope of his or her duties and functions. DIVISION 3 REGULATION OF SOLICITING AND PEDDLING 6613. Permit -- Required. No person shall exercise, practice or engage in any activity as described in Sections 6611.1 or 6611.2 unless such person obtains a permit, as provided in this chapter, and pays the application and permit fees required by this chapter. W 6613.1 Permit -- Application -- Contents. Each and every person desiring to practice, exercise or engage in any of the activities described in Sections 6611.1 or 6611.2 shall personally appear before the City Manager or designee and file. with him or her a written, signed and acknowledged application, showing: A. The true and fictitious names, aliases and residences of the applicant if an individual; the true and fictitious names, aliases and residences of all members of the applicant if applicant is a firm, association or partnership; the true and fictitious names, aliases and residences of the principal officers of the applicant if the applicant is a corporation; B. The length of service of the applicant with such firm, association, partnership, corporation or organization. C. The place of birth, birth date and social security number of each and every person enumerated in subsection A; D. The city, county and state where the persons, enumerated in subsection A, practiced or conducted any of the activities described in Sections 6611.1 and 6611.2, or any business or practice kindred thereto within twelve (12) months previous to the date of said application, and the name under which the same was conducted; E. The length of residence of the persons enumerated in subsection A within the City, if applicable; F. A statement of the nature and character of applicant's proposed practice or activity; G. The nature and character of the goods, wares, merchandise or services to be offered by the applicant; H. Whether the persons enumerated in subsection A have ever been convicted of a felony involving murder, manslaughter, fraud, burglary, or any sex crime as defined by California Penal Code 11105.2; if so, applicant shall state the nature of each offense, date of conviction, the sentence received therefore, and the court in which each conviction and sentence was entered; I. Such other reasonable information as to the identity and background of the persons, enumerated in subsection A as the chief of police may require, including but not limited to a photograph or photographs of said persons. 0 6613:2. Permit -- Application - -Fee. The fee that may be established by resolution of the City Council shall be paid simultaneously with the filing of each application for a permit required under this chapter, for the purpose of defraying the expenses incidental to processing said application, including the expenses of investigating applicant's character and background. 6613.3 Form of Permit. Permits issued under this chapter shall bear the name and address of the person to whom it is issued, the number of the certificate, the date issued, the certificate's expiration date, and the City Manager's or designee's signature. 6613.4 Time of Issuance. The City Manager or designee shall either grant or deny the requested certificate within ten (10) days of the date the application is made. If the City Manager or designee fails to act within the time prescribed, the permit shall be deemed granted. 6613.5. Permit -- Granting -- Denial. A. After the receipt of a properly completed and filed application, the City Manager or designee shall issue a permit, numbered and in due form, allowing the applicant to practice the activities proposed in said application VIA upon payment of the prescribed permit fee, unless the applicant has been convicted of one of the crimes enumerated in Section 6613.1(H). B. The application may. be rejected if the activities sought to be permitted do t not comply in every way with the rules, regulations and laws applicable thereto, or if the City Manager or - designee determines, after investigation, that the applicant's character or background is unsatisfactory. If the application is rejected, the City ' Manager or designee will notify the applicant in writing, giving the reason for the same and shall refund all the fee made with the application, save and except for costs incurred by the city in investigating the same. 6613.6. Permit -- Transfer. No permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be transferable to any person. 6613.7 Term of Permit. Certificates issued hereunder shall be valid for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days unless revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. A new application must be made for each certificate. 6613.8 Permit -- Cancellation. Upon the discovery of any false or misleading statements. in the application or any misrepresentation by the applicant in procuring said permit, the City Council may, 8 upon five (5) days' notice to said applicant, cancel and annul said permit; whereupon the applicant shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in this code from and after the date of the cancellation as though the permit had never been granted. 6613.9 Permit -- Revocation,. Suspension. A. Any permittee who commits any of the crimes specified in Section 6613.1(H) is liable to have his or-its permit suspended or revoked by the City Council. The City Council shall also have the right to suspend or revoke such permit'whenever it is shown to the satisfaction of the City Council that the activities`so licensed are being conducted in a manner that is I detrimental to the public health, morals, peace, welfare or safety of the community. However, no suspension or revocation shall be ordered until the City Council has, upon its own motion, served or caused to be served upon the permittee a written notice specifying the grounds for said proposed suspension or revocation and fixing a time, date and place at which the City Council shall hear and determine the factual basis for the grounds of the proposed suspension and revocation, which time and date shall not be less than three (3) days from the date of the service of the notice, at which time, date and place the permittee shall have the opportunity to be heard and to make his or her defense against any complaints and allegations made as to 9 his or her activities pursuant to this chapter; and provided, further, however, that when such permit is suspended or revoked, the City Council shall notify the permittee in writing and give the reason for such suspension and revocation. Such written notice shall be served in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. B. When a permit has been revoked, no other permit shall be issued under the provisions of this chapter to the same permittee within one calendar year of the date of revocation. 6613.10 Compliance Required. No person shall commence, engage in, carry on, exercise, practice or advertise that he will engage in, carry on, exercise or practice any activity, as described in Sections 6611.1 or 6611.2, without first having procured a permit as required by the permit provision, of this chapter, or without complying with any and all regulations of such activity contained in this or any other provisions of this code, or any city ordinance. Engaging in or practicing any activity described in Sections 6611.1 or 6611.2 without first having procured such a permit when required to do so, or without complying with any and all regulations of such activity contained in this chapter, this code, or the city's ordinances, constitutes a nuisance and a separate violation of this chapter for each and every day that such activity is so advertised, engaged in or carried on. 10 6613.11 Appeals to City Council. Any applicant for a permit may appeal the City Manager's or designee's refusal thereof to the City Council by filing with the City Clerk a written statement of such appeal. Such appeal must be filed within twenty. (20) days after the City Manager's or designee's denial of the permit and the City-Council shall hear the appeal at its next regular meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after any such appeal is filed. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the City Council shall hear all relevant evidence pertaining to the specific issues raised by the appeal and shall determine whether the permit shall be denied and shall render a written decision within three (3) days of said hearing. Such written decision shall be served in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. The City Manager or designee shall have the burden of proof on any appeal. The decision of the City Council may be final upon all parties concerned. 6613.12 Permit -- Exemptions. The provisions of Sections 6613 through 6613.10 shall not apply to any person having an established route in the city, to solicitation at wholesale on business premises within the city, or to charitable or religious solicitations that are conducted solely by members of said charity or religion, at regular assemblies, meetings, services or otherwise. I1 6613.13 Peddler and Solicitor- Permit and Badge to be Carried on Person. Each applicant for a permit must at all times keep on his person the permit issued by the City Manager or designee. 'No person shall fail to wear a badge (as described herein) on his/her chest over the heart that indicates the number of the solicitation permit, its expiration date and the name of the permit holder; all badges to be white with black lettering that is legible at a distance of five feet (5') and to contain a photograph of the individual wearing each badge that has been taken within the previous six (6) months of the date of solicitation. 6613.14 Prohibited Acts While Soliciting, Peddling or Canvassing. For the purposes of Section 6613.14, the performance of one solicitation of any person by one individual contrary to any, subsection of this section shall constitute a separate violation. (a) No person shall represent in any manner that the City, its departments or officers have endorsed the permit holder or the products, services or causes on behalf of which individuals are being solicited, peddled or canvassed. (b) No person shall affix any object to, or place any object on, the body of any person to whom any solicitation, peddling or canvassing is directed without that person's express consent. (c) No person shall touch, brush up against, or otherwise voluntarily come into physical contact with any person without that person's express consent. 12 (d) No person shall willfully obstruct the movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place. (e) No person shall solicit, peddle 'or, canvass any person that has objected, by words or conduct, to such soliciting, canvassing or peddling. (f) No person shall represent in any, manner that the soliciting or peddling is conducted for anyone other than the permit holder. (g) No person shall refuse to identify, the permit holder on whose behalf the soliciting or peddling is being conducted when requested to do so by any person contacted by the solicitor or peddler, or fail to truthfully state the uses any solicited items will be put to, when requested to do so by any person being solicited. (h) No person shall threaten any injury or damage to any person who declines to be subject to any soliciting; peddling or canvassing or who declines to make a purchase, donation or contribution. (i) No person shall accept food stamps as a contribution. (j) No person shall misrepresent one's physical or mental health while soliciting, peddling, or canvassing. 6613.15 Sign posting. A. No peddler shall ring the bell of, or knock on the door of, or attempt to gain admittance to any residence, dwelling, or apartment whereon a sign bearing the words "No Peddlers" is painted, affixed or exposed to public view. 13 B. No solicitor shall ring the bell of, or knock on the door of, or attempt to gain admittance to any residence, dwelling, flat or apartment whereon a sign bearing the words "No Solicitors" is painted, affixed or exposed to public view. C. No canvasser shall ring the bell of, or knock on the door of, or attempt to gain admittance to any residence, dwelling, flat or apartment whereon a sign bearing the words "No Canvassers" is painted, affixed or exposed to public W KWAY D. No peddler or solicitor shall ring the bell of, or knock on the door of, or attempt to gain admittance to any residence, dwelling, flat or apartment whereon a.sign bearing the words "No Peddlers or Solicitors" or words of similar import indicating that peddlers or solicitors are not wanted on said premises is painted, affixed or exposed to public view. E. This section shall not apply to any peddler, solicitor or canvasser who rings the bell of, or knocks on the door of any residence, dwelling, flat or apartment at the invitation of or with the consent of some adult member of the household of any such residence, dwelling, flat or apartment. 6613.16 Hours. No person shall practice or engage in peddling, soliciting or canvassing, as described in Sections 6611.1, 6611.2 and 6611.3, whether for profit or for a non- 14 profit purpose, by traveling from place to place, or from street to street, between the hours of dusk and eight a.m. of any day. 6613.17 Distribution of Handbills- Excluded. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit persons from distributing handbills door -to- door within the City without a permit. Distribution of handbills is subject to the requirements of Section 6421, Division 1, Chapter 4, Part 2, Article VI, of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 6613.18 Charitable, Religious and Political Canvassing Excluded. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit persons from canvassing door -to -door within the City without a permit, subject to the regulations set forth in this chapter. Additionally, solicitation of donations made incidental to such canvassing is excluded from the permit requirements of this section, but not the provisions of Section 6613.14. 6613.19 Use of sound- making, sound - amplifying devices. No person shall peddle, solicit or canvass by driving, operating, propelling, stopping or parking any wagon, cart, automotive vehicle or any other type of conveyance with a sound - making device, sound- amplifying device, or loudspeaker thereof in use or operation or by malting any outcry, blowing a horn, ringing a bell or using any sound device or musical instrument upon any of the streets, alleys, parks or other public places of the city: 15 A. Whenever any such sound can be heard for a distance greater than three hundred feet; B. When passing a hospital at any time or a place of worship during the hour services are being held therein; C. Within five hundred feet of the nearest property line of any property on which a school building is located during the hours school is in session; D. Between the hours of dusk and eight a.m. of any day. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all persons who are permitted by the city to sell goods, wares, merchandise, meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, garden truck, farm products or provisions, candy, ice cream, popcorn, peanuts, or any other edibles from a wagon, cart, automotive vehicle or any other type of conveyance, and whose conveyances are equipped with sound apparatus emitting sounds and amplifying sounds, including but not limited to music, shall not operate or use said apparatus unless such sounds, including but not limited to music, emitted therefrom do not exceed ninety decibels measured at a distance of ten feet from the speaker of said apparatus. 7, DIVISION 4 GENERAL REGULATION 6614 Permit Holder's Books and Records. Every person who engages in soliciting or peddling as permitted, shall maintain a system of accounting whereby all monies collected by such person are entered upon the books or records of such person. 6614.1 Investigation of Solicitors and Peddlers. The City Manager or designee is authorized to investigate the affairs of any person engaged in soliciting or peddling under a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter. 6614.2 Misrepresentation Prohibited No person shall, directly or indirectly, solicit, peddle or canvass for any purpose by misrepresentation of his name, occupation, financial condition, social condition or residence, and no person shall make or perpetrate any misstatement, deception or fraud in connection with any soliciting, peddling or canvassing for any purpose in the City. 6614.3 False Application. No person'shall file or cause to be filed an application for a permit containing false or fraudulent statements. 17 6614.4 Separate Violations. _ Each separate act of soliciting or peddling for any purpose without a permit shall constitute a nuisance and a separate offense for each day such act is committed. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after it adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty-first (31 days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of July, 2004. ji IN Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: / S/ JAMES Ha R City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: a City Attorney 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUN'T'Y OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2191 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of July, 2004 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia [K i a l STAFF REPORT Development Services Department July 20, 2004 TO. Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler; Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: • BACK_ GROUND The City Council at its July 6, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to introduce Ordinance' No. 2196 amending the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to advertising sign. boards (billboards). Attached is City Council Ordinance No. 2196: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, deleting Section 9275.1.37 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to advertising sign boards and adding new Sections prohibiting advertising sign boards; adding a definition for advertising sign boards and adding a message substitution clause to the commercial i zoning regulations RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2196. APPROVED BY: W m K City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2196 LASER {{yi►1\7GL . m Recommendation: HaoPti UIUIIIQIIV� '— ory a 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2196 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTION 9275.1.37 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ADVERTISING SIGN BOARDS AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS PROHIBITING ADVERTISING SIGN BOARDS; ADDING A DEFINITION FOR ADVERTISING SIGN BOARDS AND ADDING A MESSAGE SUBSTITUTION CLAUSE TO THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings The City Council of the City of Arcadia finds that freestanding advertising sign boards and billboards create a deleterious visual and aesthetic intrusion upon the streets and highways of the City of Arcadia due to their obtrusive size and appearance. Moreover, due to their obtrusive nature, they create competition for the attention of motorists and distract motorists traveling the streets and highways of the City causing dangerous traffic and pedestrian safety conditions. Therefore the City Council enacts the amendments contained in this ordinance to further its interests in the visual and aesthetic condition of its streetscape and to promote traffic and pedestrian safety in the City. SECTION 2. Section 9275.1.37 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby deleted. SECTION 3. Section 9260.3.3.2. is hereby added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read: 9260.3.3.2. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS. Signs of the type listed below which advertise a business conducted on the premises on which the sign is located are permitted: 1. Wall Sign 2. Freestanding Sign 3. Marquee Sign 4. Portable Signs Signs of the type listed below shall be prohibited: Advertising sign boards as defined in Section 9220.2.2." LASER IMIAGED e d. q� SECTION 4. Sections 9261.4.1.4 and 9266.2.8.12 are hereby added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read: (Code Section). PROHIBITED SIGNS. Signs of the type listed below shall be prohibited: Advertising sign boards as defined in Section 9220.2.2. SECTION 5. Subsection 5 is hereby added to Section 9262.4.3.C. of the Arcadia Municipal Code to read:. 5. Advertising sign boards as defined in Section 9220.2.2. SECTION 6. Subsection 3 is hereby added to Section 9260.3.5B of the Arcadia Municipal Code to read: 3. Free- standing signs shall be located on lots containing one or more business enterprises. SECTION 7. Sections 9260.3.3.8, 9261.4.1.3, 9262.4.21 and 9266.2.8.13 are added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read: (Code Section). MESSAGE SUBSTITUTION. In each instance and under the same conditions under which this chapter permits any sign or commercial message, copy containing a noncommercial message or characters may be substituted on such sign provided the sign remains otherwise lawful. SECTION S. Section 9220.2.2 is added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read: 9220.2.2. ADVERTISING SIGNBOARD. Advertising sign board is a freestanding billboard, off - premise advertising sign or outdoor advertising structure that has a flat surface sign space upon which advertising may be posting, painted or affixed and that is primarily designed for the rental or lease of such sign space for advertising not relating to the use of the property upon which the sign is placed. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 2 2196 SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy or summary of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days of its adoption. This ordinance shall take effect thirty -one (31) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of July 2004. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: 18 JAMES He BAR ROWS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 3 2196 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2196 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of July, 2004 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None IS/ JAMES Hs SA R OWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 0 o��a 0/o ` ARCAD A STAFF REPORT \ AT 0 Development Services Department DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council n FROM: ' Don Penman, Deputy City Manager /Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator ESL' By: Dan A. Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6426 APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. M005 TO ADMINISTRATING AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07 -5131 TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUNSET BOULEVARD, AND DUARTE ROAD PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY . MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. SUMMARY In December 1997; the City Council of the City of Arcadia by adoption of Resolution No. 6014 entered into Master Agreement No. 07 -5131 entitled "Master Agreement Administrating Agency - State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects" with the State of California. The Master Agreement requires that for every Federally funded project a Supplemental Agreement to the Master Agreement be executed by the City and approved by the State. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6426 approving Program Supplement Agreement No. M005 to encumber Federal Aid Funds for the pavement rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue, Sunset Boulevard and Duarte Road Project and authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute this agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION The FY 2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program includes a project to rehabilitate the pavement on Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, Sunset Boulevard between Michillinda Avenue and the south city—Vim it__and Duarte Road between Holly Avenue and El Monte Avenue. This project consists of asphalt pavement cold milling, asphalt overlay, removal and replacement of curb and gutter and LASER IMAGED 2c, NI Staff Report Resolution No. 6426 July 20, 2004 Page Two installation of traffic striping and markings. The project is funded by Federal Aid Funds as part of State Transportation Program -Local (STP -L). Resolution No. 6426 approves Program Supplement Agreement No. M005 to Master Agreement No. 07 -5131 with the State. This program Supplement Agreement will encumber the Federal funding share of 88.53% of the total project costs from Federal Aid Funds. FISCAL IMPACT The total estimated cost of this project is $885,264. State approval of the Program Supplement Agreement No. M005 allows reimbursement to the City up to $783,724 or 88.53% of the total project costs. The balance of the project costs, $101,540 or 11.47% will be financed With Gas Tax Funds that have been approved in 2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopts Resolution No. 6426 approving the Program • Supplement Agreement No. M005 to Administrating Agency -State Agreement No. 07 -5131 to encumber Federal Aid Funds for the pavement rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, Sunset Boulevard between Michillinda Avenue and the south city limit and Duarte Road between Holly Avenue and El Monte Avenue Project and authorize the City Manager and.the City Clerk to execute this agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney: Approved By: WILLIAM R. KELLY City Manager DP:PW:dl Attachments: Resolution No. 6426 Map of Project Area 0 V313h Bi1V /� RESOLUTION NO. 6426 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. M005 TO AGREEMENT NO. 07 -5131 TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUNSET BOULEVARD, AND DUARTE ROAD PROJECT d '?/ aV /d S P 6W46 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Supplement No. M005 to Agreement No. 07 -5131, Program of Local Agency, Federal Aid System Projects, to encumber Federal Aid funds for the pavement rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, Sunset Boulevard between Michillinda Avenue and the south city limit and Duarte Road between Holly Avenue and El Monte Avenue Project is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to sign such Supplement Agreement. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved, and adopted this ATTEST: IS/ JAINES We BARROWS City Clerk of the.City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: I �� 0 4� Step neh Deitsch, City Attorney 20th day of July 1 2004. IS/ GARY Mayor of the City of Arcadia - 1 - LASER IMAGED t , I •- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6426 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of July, 2004 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council.Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None ! S! JAMES o BARRO City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 2 ARCADI STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Deputy City Manager /Development Services Director`; Philip A., Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator By: Dan A. Lazo, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6427 APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. M006 TO ADMINISTRATE AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07 -5131 TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE SANTA ANITA CORRIDOR ITS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT IN A FORM • APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. SUMMARY In December 1997, the City Council of the City of Arcadia by adoption of Resolution No. 6014 entered into Master Agreement No. 07 -5131 entitled "Master Agreement Administrating Agency - State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects" with the State of California. The Master Agreement requires that for every Federally funded project a Supplemental Agreement to the Master Agreement be executed by the City and approved by the State. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6427 approving Program Supplement Agreement No. M006 to encumber Federal Aid Funds for the Santa Anita Corridor ITS Project and authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute this agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION The City has developed a master plan for the management of traffic. The plan, titled the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) master plan, proposes the establishment of a traffic operations center at the City's Civic Center and connection with traffic signals, CCTV cameras, and other field technology to manage traffic signal operations, traffic flow during peak congestion periods, emergencies, and events and interface with is neighboring cities, Caltrans and Los Angeles County. The plan separates the work into short and long term needs and details the short term needs as Phase I utilizing the LASER IMAGED p q Staff Report Resolution No. 6427 July 20, 2004 Page Two grant funding from the Federal Highway Administration ITS grant. More specifically, Phase I of the master plan proposes the purchase of Traffic Control System (TCS) software, computer hardware, a large video screen and office improvements to create the traffic operations center, installation of underground conduit and fiber optics lines to connect 26 traffic signals to Civic Center, two (2) free standing CCTV cameras, two (2) traffic signal video detection systems and system deployment. In order to obtain the funding, the City Council must adopt Resolution 6427 approving Program Supplement Agreement No. M006 to Master Agreement No. 07 -5131 with the State. This program Supplement Agreement will encumber the Federal funding share of 100% of the total project costs from Federal Aid Funds. FISCAL IMPACT J The total estimated cost of this project is $500,000 budgeted in the .FY 2002/03 CIP Budget. The Federal funding share is $248,195. The balance of the funding in the amount of $251,805 will come from the:City's Proposition C Funds. State approval of the Program Supplement Agreement No. M006 allows reimbursement to the City for the entire amount of the Federal funding share. • RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopts Resolution No. 6427 approving the Program Supplement Agreement No.. M006 to Administrating Agency State Agreement No. 07 -5131 to encumber Federal Aid Funds for the Santa Anita Corridor ITS Project and authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute this agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved By: WILLIAM R. KELLY City Manager DP:PW :dl Attachments: Resolution No. 6427 • 61 14 q o � 244 b y4 RESOLUTION NO. 6427 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. M006 TO AGREEMENT NO. 07 -5131 TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE SANTA ANITA CORRIDOR ITS PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Supplement No. M006 to Agreement No. 07 -5131, Program of Local Agency Federal Aid System Projects, to encumber Federal Aid funds for the Santa Anita Corridor ITS Project is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to sign such Supplement Agreement. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved, and adopted this 20th day of July ' 2004. IS/ GARY X K®YACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: I S1 JAMES H. BARROWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen Deitsch, City Attorney LUSER INIArGED STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6427 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of July, 2004 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None IS JAMES Ho BARROW City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 2 0Vc2/ /o ff 64, fo,epl. 2� . Con ORATS 9 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services M nager Ken Herman, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance— Construction of St. Joseph Reservoir Recommendation: Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56 SUMMARY On January 21, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation in the amount of $3,056,100 for the construction of the St. Joseph Reservoir No.3 (location map and site photos attached). The terms and conditions of this project have been complied and the work has been performed to staffs satisfaction for a total project cost of $3,090,261.77. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $3,056,100 plus four (4) contract change orders for additional work, totaling $34,161.77 or 1.12% of the original contract price. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56. BACKGROUND The St. Joseph Reservoir No.3 is a new 4.8 million gallon concrete reservoir, replacing a 3 million gallon concrete reservoir, built in 1928. The new Reservoir No.3 has been designed to the latest seismic codes. In addition, the new reservoir makes better use of the available land area and provides 60% more storage capacity. The St. Joseph facility is a critical link in the City's water system. Water is pumped to the St. Joseph facility from wells in the lower part of town and from a well on the St. Joseph site. From the • reservoirs at St. Joseph, water either flows back to the southern part of the City and is used by the residents and businesses in that area, or is pumped to higher - pressure zones to be used in the upper part of the City. LA0 f,�vs, iu � g �P Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 • The design of Reservoir No.3 is unique to other reservoirs within the City because it has been designed to blend in with the commercial buildings in the surrounding area. Architectural features such as masonry and stucco archways and, a second story tower accent the front of the reservoir facing Second Ave. The front and south sides of the property are beautifully landscaped, including the addition of 55 trees and 5,000 square feet of ground cover and shrubs. DISCUSSION The final construction cost of the St. Joseph Reservoir No.3 is $3,090,261.77. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $3,056,100 plus four (4) contract change orders for additional work, totaling $34,161.77 or 1.12% of the original contract price. A summary of the items included in the change orders is as follows: Change Order Description of Extra Work Cost ($1 1 Additional forming cost to alternate concrete placement 6,251.19 of,roof panel sections 2 Additional grading and site improvements including 4,068.73 addition of asphalt parking area, replacement of additional curb and gutter on Second Ave, and grading • around balance line valves following valve repair 3 Piping modifications to existing 30" intake pipe joint for 6,740.50 Reservoir No.2 and intake flap gate for,Reservoir No.3 4 Addition of painting scope to include painting of north 17,101.35 reservoir wall, graffiti coating on reservoir walls facing Second Ave., and metal trim on existing booster pump building and well building Total Cost $ 34,161.77 The terms and conditions of this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). n U 1 Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 3 • FISCAL IMPACT $4,725,000 is budgeted in the 2002/03. Capital Improvement Program for this project. The budget provides $4,200,000 for the construction of the reservoir and $525,000 for inspection and contingencies. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the Construction of St. Joseph Reservoir No.3 as complete. 2. Authorize final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to a retention of $153,401.56. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GL:KH:dw Attachment • 0 0 0 I ' I 6 r 1 L 0 ail r t r r a � 1 r r� - ' t � F I' I 44 � �e2s e �Pur cva-( cJq�er storQL_p S�q? f " ° °RA °BAYID� ° STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council / FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct rb ►' / Prepared by: Tom Tait, Field Services Manager Susannah Turney, Environmental Services Officer SUBJECT: ANNUAL LEASE /PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT WATER AND AVAILABLE STORAGE SPACE IN THE RAYMOND AND MAIN SAN GABRIEL GROUNDWATER BASINS RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT WATER AND /OR AVAILABLE STORAGE SPACE SUMMARY • Periodically during the year, the City has opportunities to lease /purchase groundwater pumping rights from other water purveyors in either the Raymond Basin or Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. These purchases are made at a reduced price from the standard Replacement Water Cost offered directly from the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. Each year, the City is also approached by neighboring water purveyors to lease unused storage space in the Raymond Basin for surplus groundwater rights that they may have. Generally, water sale offers are made and consummated quickly with interested agencies. Many producers, similar to the City of Arcadia over produce their water rights each year and are looking for less expensive water to replace over produced water. To take advantage of less expensive water purchases, staff recommends that the City Council grant authority to the City Manager to approve lease /purchase agreements for groundwater pumping rights and lease storage space in the Raymond and Main San Gabriel Ground Water Basins: DISCUSSION In fiscal year 2002 -2003, the City of Arcadia budgeted and spent over one million dollars in replacement water costs to the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster ( Watermaster) for water that is produced over our annual allotment of water from our water basins. Each year the Watermaster determines the Basin's "Operating Safe Yield." This is the quantity of water that may be safely pumped out of the Basin, as determined by the Watermaster. As set forth in the Water Basin Judgment, the City of • Arcadia has 4.23 percent of the total "Operating Safe Yield" each fiscal year and each year Arcadia's water system demands require that we produce more water than allowed. L I ;�, ak, P it EMAGE -D Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 • Page 2 A cost - effective way of replacing over produced water is to take advantage of additional groundwater pumping rights from individuals or other water purveyors who are willing to lease their surplus water rights in either the Raymond or San Gabriel Basins. Traditionally, staff has purchased water in this manner at significant savings to the City. However, a review of the City's Municipal Code, Charter and Policy's and Procedures found that staff does not have the authority to make these purchases without prior approval of the City Council. To take advantage of the less expensive water, it is necessary to act quickly, before another agency makes the purchase ahead of the City.' Opportunities often arise randomly, and are usually negotiated on.a first -come, first - serve basis. By authorizing the City Manager to approve water purchase agreements on behalf of the City; we will ultimately save thousands of dollars that otherwise will be spent on purchasing Replacement Water at a higher cost from the Main. San Gabriel Watermaster. The following is an example /comparison of water rights purchased from Southern California Water Company (SCWC) a private water agency and the Main. San Gabriel Watermaster ( Watermaster): Agency Amount Cost/a.f Total Cost Watermaster 700 a.f. $246.65 $172,655 • SCOW 700 a.f. $221.00 $154,700 Net Savings $ 25.65 $ 17,955 Given the opportunity to purchase all 5 -acre feet (a.f.) of water over produced by the City each year, the net savings to the water fund could be as much as $125,000 per year. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT None FISCAL IMPACT Decreased annual expenses for Replacement Water costs and increased revenues by way of leasing surplus pumping rights and storage space to other water purveyors. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to approve water lease agreements for replacement water and /or available storage space. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:TT:ST:dw a 714 ofo q L+'h' �a �t jand sca� 0 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department • July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat.Malloy, Public Works Services Director l Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Manager Rafael Fajardo, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Contract— Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Proiect Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Nativ Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $104,717.00 for Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project SUMMARY The City of Arcadia Median Island-Master Plan (Plan) provides the City of Arcadia with an analysis of.existing landscaped median conditions throughout the.City and sets the guidelines and recommendations that can be followed in` the future to improve- and standardize median landscapes. In accordance with the Plan, rehabilitation of the Live Oak Avenue landscape is planned to repair damage at the medians that was sustained over the years along Live Oak Avenue between Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly city limits. The 2002 Windstorm added to the decline of the medians, which included deterioration of plants, and concrete improvements were left in disrepair. The existing medians along Live Oak Avenue are no longer thriving and maintenance is becoming increasingly difficult. This project will rehabilitate the damaged medians consistent with the City's Median Master Plan. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $104,717 to ' Nativ Engineering, Inc. for the rehabilitation of the median along Live Oak Avenue from Santa Anita Avenue to the easterly city limits, DISCUSSION Over the years, the medians along Live Oak Avenue between Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly City limits had.deteriorated. The City's Median Island Master Plan provides guidelines and directions for the restoration of existing landscaped median conditions • while taking into account the development of a consistent appearance, safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, maintenance concerns, natural preservation and cost. LASER IMAGED ► . Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 Consistent with the City's Median Island Master Plan, this Project would improve the medians_ through the removal of all ground cover and shrubs, replacement of all irrigation heads, addition of new vales and irrigation lines to properly irrigate the new landscaping installation of new turf in the central medians, and restoration of median aesthetics through landscape renovation. Moreover, this project will repair the remainder of the damages at the medians along Live Oak Avenue as a result of the 2002 windstorm. Notice inviting bids was published in the papers and bid packages were made available to contractors. As advertised by the City Clerk, three (3) sealed bids were received and publicly opened on June 24, 2004. Bidder Location Bid Amount Nativ Engineering Inc. Reseda, CA $104,717.00 Blaire -West Landscape, Inc. Buena Park,'CA $121,850.00 American West Landscape, Inc, Bellflower, CA $213,215.94 Staff has reviewed.the bid documents for content, and has investigated the contractor's background and recent project history for competency. Nativ Engineering, Inc. is properly licensed and competent to perform the work: Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the Contractor's background and their recent projects for competency. It is the staffs opinion that Nativ • Engineering Inc: can satisfactorily perform the work required and recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $104,717. to Nativ Engineering Inc. for the Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Replacement of existing facilities is categorically exempted per 15301 (b) of CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $110,500.00 are budgeted in the. 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Project for Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project. RECOMMENDATION 1. 'Award a contract in the amount of $104,717 to Nativ Engineering, Inc. for the 2003 -2004 Live Oak Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation Project. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by: U a William R. Kelly, City Manager . PM:GL:dw Attachment G .. i , te r' d :. 0 • 0 7 1.2 0/0 V GJlr Nekr 60)e 424 °RP °RAT STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: . Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy: Public Works Services Direct Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Man ger Jim Brophy, Warehouse Manager SUBJECT: Purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories Recommendation: Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000 to Armacast Products Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories • SUMMARY On October 7, 2003 the City Council approved a one (1) year Agreement with optional contract extensions to Armacast Products Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. Armacast Products is reaching the end of their first year of the contract agreement and has submitted a written offer to extend the existing contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the existing agreement. Armacast Products has agreed to hold firm the current prices for fiscal year 2004 -2005. Based on the excellent service provided by Armacast Products Inc. during the last year, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000.00 to Armacast Products Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. DISCUSSION The warehouse is responsible for purchasing and distributing all water meter boxes and accessories. to the Water Services Section and developers for water meter repairs and installations. It is critical that the warehouse maintain proper on -hand inventory levels to prevent an interruption to these important services. Most items used in conjunction with water service needs are considered a revolving inventory item, and must be replenished to continue smooth day -to -day operations of the Water Services Section. • LASER IMAGED � Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 • On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved a one (1) year Agreement with optional contract extensions to Armacast Products Inc. in the amount of $54,451.20 for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. During the past year, the City spent approximately $54,270 for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories and it is anticipated that the City will maintain the same level of activity. Armacast has agreed to hold firm the current prices during fiscal year 2004 -2005. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000 to Armacast Products Inc for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funding is available in the 2004 7 2005 budget to cover the cost of this acquisition. RECOMMENDATION Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $55,000 to Armacast Products Inc. for the purchase of Water Meter Boxes and Accessories. Approved by: A 1 • William R. Kelly, City Manager PM: GFL:JB:dw • �_ r —'%1 0 ?pyoq E/et fr r'c 0� 1'cl • A rN��RP ATS9 : , a�� STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director /,21 y�J Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Jim Brophy, Warehouse Manager SUBJECT: Purchase of Electrical Lighting and Accessories . Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with West -Lite Supply Co., Inc. in the amount of $102,418.00 for the purchase of electrical lighting and accessories • Summary To ensure electrical street lighting parts are purchased at the best price and delivered in a timely manner, staff conducted a competitive bid process for the day -to -day purchase of electrical lighting and accessories. The City Clerk opened sealed bids on July 6, 2004. Staff has evaluated the bid documents and found the most responsive /responsible bidder to be West -Lite Supply Co., Inc. Staff recommends that the City Council award a purchase agreement with optional annual extensions to West -Lite Supply Co., Inc. in the amount of $102,418.00 for the purchase of electrical lighting and accessories for City facilities and street lights. Discussion: The Warehouse maintains ballasts, lamps, fixtures and other related lighting accessories that are essential for the daily maintenance of City -owned street Lighting requirements. Most items used in conjunction with lighting needs are considered a revolving inventory item', and must be replaced to continue the smooth day -to -day operations of the street lighting section r 1 LJ LASER IMAGED 9 k. Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 • The City Clerk opened sealed bids , on July 6, 2004. Staff has evaluated all bid documents ;and found I the most responsive /responsible bidder to be West -Lite Supply Co., Inc: Staff recommends that the City Council award a purchase agreement to West- Lite Supply Co. Inc. in the amount of $102,418.00 for the purchase of electrical lighting and accessories for City facilities and street lights. Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper. As advertised, the City Clerk publicly opened the sealed bids on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 with the following results. BIDDER LOCATION BID AMOUNT West -Lite Supply -Co,. Inc. Cerritos, CA $102,418.00 Rayvern Lighting Paramount, CA $199;858.76 Metro Lighting Burlingame, CA NO:RESPONSE Upland Lighting Upland, CA NO RESPONSE Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract to West -Lite • Supply Co,. Inc.,.the.lowest bidder, for electrical lighting and accessories in the amount of $102,418.00. Fiscal Impact: Sufficient funding is available in the 2004 -2005 budgets to cover the cost of this acquisition. RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the City manager to approve the purchase of electrical lighting and accessories in the amount of $102,418.00. 2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GFL:JB:dw CJ ?/a 0/0 r • Ste! IN W STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department Date: July 20, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direc r� By: Jan Steese, Purchasing Officer Subject: Change Order — Motor Vehicle Fuel Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve a change order for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel from Southern Counties Oil SUMMARY On November 19, 2002, the Council approved the award of a three (3) year • contract to Southern Counties Oil for a not to exceed amount of $150,000.00 per year for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel. The costs of fuel have increased substantially over the last year and as a result the costs are being passed onto the cities. Staff is recommending the City Council approve a contract change order in the amount of $90,000.00 per year. BACKGROUND Staff determined that the City of Arcadia could obtain the best prices available for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel by participating in a multi- agency cooperative bid process with several other public agencies. A multi- agency joint bid is common among public agencies that wish to combine their requirements in order to maximize buying power and receive, in some cases, tremendous bulk discounts not normally available to smaller public agencies. Consequently, a multi- agency joint bid was developed with the following sixteen (16) agencies: 1. City of Arcadia 6. City of Culver City 2. City of Azusa 7. City of Downey 3. City of Buena Park 8. City of El Segundo 4. City of Carson 9. City of Fullerton • 5. City of Commerce 10. City of Garden Grove 11. City of Inglewood 12. City of Lakewood 13. City of Manhattan Beach 14. City of Monterey Park 15. City of Norwalk 16. City of Pasadena LASER IMAGED L, 3f Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 • Page 2 The City of Manhattan Beach prepared the bid documents incorporating the requirements from all agencies wishing to participate. The combined fuel consumption required for all participating agencies was in excess of 1.65 million gallons of fuel, substantially more than the City of Arcadia's annual usage of approximately 130,000 gallons per year. The City of Manhattan Beach solicited competitive bids from ten (10) motor fuel suppliers. Three (3) responses were received. Bidders were ranked based on the lowest total cost to the participating agencies using the annual estimated usages and the corresponding discounts or add -ons for the various grades of fuel. Southern Counties Oil offered the lowest prices for tank wagon loads for 91 Octane and diesel fuel based on our estimated annual usage. DISCUSSION Staff estimates the City's annual fuel usage is approximately 130,000 gallons a year. The pricing mechanism used to price fuel is the Oil Price Information Service (OPTS) weekly newsletter. This newsletter is an industry standard for reporting average fuel prices on a per gallon basis nationally. Prices quoted • were either as a discount or an add -on to the weekly OPIS average. This report has indicated a significant increase in the costs of fuel in the past several months due to the economic changes this country is experiencing. As a result, the increased cost of fuel is being passed on to the consumers. Although there has been little change in the number of gallons estimated annually, costs have almost doubled. Staff anticipates that an increase of $90,000.00 per year will be sufficient to cover the increased costs we are experiencing. If approved, the contract would increase from $150,000.00 to $240,000.00 a year. Although this may seem like a significant increase, the costs would be the same if we chose to competitively bid the fuel because it is an industry wide increase. For the above reasons, it would not be cost effective to purchase fuel locally. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract change order to the current vendor, Southern Counties Oil, in the amount of $90,000.00 per year. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are appropriated each year in the' operating budget and fuel purchases are not anticipated to exceed $240,000.00 per year. • r... � 9 2 • Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to approve a contract change order to Southern Counties Oil in the amount of $90,000.00 for the purchase of motor vehicle fuel. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager • o?1ao% • � le,i , t1 0 i e,Q M eti S�st, STAFF RE PORT RT r " °�Rpo = �9•�``° O Development Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Man. ager /Develo ent Services Director Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Direct SUBJECT: Telephone Voice Mail System Recommendation: Award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corp. for the installation of a telephone voice mail system in the amount not-to- exceed $32,244.75 SUMMARY • As part of the Police Facility Project, a new telephone system and related telephone components were needed for the new building. To properly analyze all the implications and options available, the City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with L.S. Lichty and Associates on May 7, 2002. The scope of work in the PSA included a needs assessment of both the Police Department and citywide needs to determine if there were other areas that should be addressed at the same time. As a result of the study, staff recommended the purchase of new Nortel telephone equipment and voice mail system for the City through SBC in an amount not -to- exceed $342,251 on April 1, 2003. Recently, SBC notified the City that the manufacturer of the voice mail system they proposed to install was experiencing software failures and SBC would not be able to install the system as promised. As such, staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corp. for the installation of a telephone voice mail system in the amount not -to- exceed $32,244.75. BACKGROUND The construction of the new Police facility required the purchase and installation of new telephone equipment to ensure the seamless transition of communication services from the old facility to the new building. However, as part of this transition a number of other • LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 issues and opportunities arose that needed to be addressed before the new facility was completed and operational. Acquisition and installation 'of proper telecommunications equipment was critical to the efficient operation of the City. Because of the expertise required to study this critical area staff recommended, and the City Council approved, a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with L.S. Lichty and Associates on May 7, 2002. The scope of work included an analysis of not just the Police Department needs but telecommunications needs for all City facilities. The study concluded the following: Aging Eguioment The-majority of equipment was installed seven (7) or more years ago. While age alone is not always a determining factor in whether to retain,equipment, most of the software, processors and telephones are three or more generations behind manufacturers' upgrades in technology. Serviceability of this aging equipment is becoming problematic. Also, this older equipment doesn't have many of the common user - friendly and caller - friendly features available on new systems. Growth in City Usage ' When the City Hall system reached capacity several years ago, it was necessary to add a second Norstar system, though it doesn't have the ability to intercommunicate between systems. The Library and Public Works Services Departments are also near capacity. The new Police facility will require more telephone lines than the old facility • and will also be beyond the capacity of a single system: System 'Issues The current citywide system is fragmented and does not provide seamless call processing of public calls. This is , especially acute' with the Public Works Service Center. This facility is in the Verizon service area and under the current configuration the transfer of calls from other City facilities to this location is more difficult and the failure rate is high. Based on, these and other issues, staff recommended remaining with the Centrex system the City currently uses and expand the Centrex network to include the Public Works Service Center, upgrade some existing telephone equipment and provide a new voice mail system. This was accomplished by the City "piggyback" onto the bids received from the State of California and a contract was awarded to SBC totaling a not - to- exceed amount of $342,251. DISCUSSION SBC has completed the installation of the new Centrex telephone network system citywide. However, SBC recently notified the City that the manufacturer of the voice mail system was experiencing software failures SBC originally proposed to install and • the software manufacturer cannot release the voice mail system to SBC as promised. Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 3 • The City's current voice mail system has recently failed on two separate occasions. Although these interruptions in service have been brief, the age of the equipment and serviceability are of concern. As such, staff and Mr. Lichty, obtained new proposals from SBC, Avaya and Digital Telecommunications for a voice mail system that would be compatible with our recently installed telephone system and which included all the specifications originally requested /proposed from SBC. Staff has reviewed all of the proposals and found Digital Telecommunications Corp. to be the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder to provide this service. The new voice mail system proposed by Digital Telecommunications Corp. is currently utilized by the cities of Morro Bay, Moorpark and Agoura Hills, all of which are satisfied with the system. The total system cost is $32,244.75 including.tax, installation, and training and will allow for future growth capabilities for approximately 7 -10 years. This cost is an approximate savings of $35,500 savings from the original system proposed by SBC. Pending City Council approval, staff will decrease the original purchase order to SBC in the amount of $67,820.20, which was the amount of the original voice mail system. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are currently budgeted for the new telephone and voice mail systems in • the amount not -to- exceed $342,251. Purchasing the voicemail system from Digital Telecommunications Corp. will decrease the overall telephone and voice mail project budget approximately $35,500. RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a contract to Digital Telecommunications Corp. for the installation of a telephone voice mail system In the amount not -to- exceed $32,244.75. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract agreement In a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager 40 o ?1 JOB cC H- - 01 k �v &.6 a4t RATS STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager Ww 1�A By: Linda Garcia, Communic ions, arketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: Cable telecast of City Council meetings Recommendation: Authorize the retention of Studio Spectrum, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, to film, program and provide other ancillary services related to the live broadcast of City Council meetings during fiscal year 2004 -2005 SUMMARY ' • Since the City of Arcadia began filming. and televising City Council meetings we have used the firm of Studio Spectrum, Inc. for these services due to their experience with and knowledge of our system, as well as their competitive fee. This staff report requests City Council approval to continue using Studio Spectrum in fiscal year 2004- 2005 to produce a live broadcast of City Council meetings. DISCUSSION Studio Spectrum, Inc. designed and installed the City's original audio -video system in the Council Chambers, as well as the upgrades that were made as part of last year's Council Chambers Renovation Project. Moreover, the City has used Studio Spectrum to film City Council meetings since we first began providing this service. Their work, both in terms of product knowledge and application, as well as their services with regard to the live broadcast, has been excellent. They are familiar with the City's needs and expectations and have been responsive to issues and concerns staff has raised with them. In addition, Studio Spectrum is able to meet the City's insurance requirements. For fiscal year 2004 -2005, the fee to broadcast live City Council meetings held in the Council Chambers remains the same as last year -. $750.00 per meeting /$18,000.00 annually. For this fee, Studio Spectrum, provides a two- person crew for up to five hours to perform the following services: • Arrive two hours prior to the meeting to check the equipment and perform any necessary control room maintenance. (In the past, this two hour period has not been considered part of the above referenced "five hours" and Studio Spectrum has agreed to continue with this policy.) LASER IMAGED g Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 • Page 2 • Maintain equipment service. records and coordinate required manufacturer service. • Create graphics for display before, during and after the meeting. • Prepare the, City Clerk's area for audio and video recording. • Provide support to staff with regard to any additional audio or video needs they may have for presentations. • Control the lighting during City Council meetings. • Provide a live broadcast of the City Council meeting and additional videotape copies of the meeting for the Library and City Clerk. • Program meetings for future broadcast. . • Provide on -call technical support (ata separate cost). - Because' there are a limited - number of companies that have the amount of experience Studio Spectrum does in providing this type of service to local government, as well as the fact that their service record with Arcadia is quite good, staff is recommending that we continue to use Studio Spectrum to film City Council meetings in the coming year. They produce .a quality product, are of considerable value to the City in terms of our • cable equipment/system; and they endeavor to keep the cost as low as possible. FISCAL IMPACT At $750.00 per meeting the annual cost to.film City Council meetings is $18,000.00. On occasion, there are meetings that go extraordinarily long resulting in additional cost. The remaining $7,000,is to pay for extended City Council meetings, any maintenance or service that heeds to be done to the cameras, microphones, lights, computers and playback decks, as well as supplies such as "videotapes and batteries. Only the services and materials- necessary will be purchased;`if the money is not used it will go back to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. Sufficient funds are included in the fiscal year 2004 -2005 operating budget. RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the retention of Studio Spectrum, Inc., ° In an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, to film, program and provide other ancillary services.. related to the live broadcast of City Council meetings during fiscal year 2004 -2005. • G II l -32,AJ f• a 2� E # s i Or fe�Q�¢ty rn01+e.* 1 Qj S STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy: Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Ma ager Jim Brophy, Warehouse Manager SUBJECT: SUMMARY Recommendation: Reject bid submitted by National Water Works and direct staff to re -bid the contract • The City warehouse maintains an inventory of brass valves and fittings to supply the water services section with needed repair parts. Bids were solicited in June 2004 for the purchase of copper pipe, brass valves and fittings, and other related parts stocked by the warehouse. Based on last year's usage and pricing, it is estimated that the warehouse will process orders totaling approximately $150,000.00 for fiscal year 2004- 05. Notices Inviting Bids were published in local newspapers for the purchase of valves, brass fittings, and water - related materials for the Public Works Services Department's warehouse. On July 6, 2004, the City received three (3) bids with only one (1) qualified bidder from National Water Works for $253,518.72. Based on the single bid and an extremely high bid amount, it is recommended that City Council reject the bid and instruct staff to re -bid the contract. The warehouse is responsible for purchasing and distributing all water valves, brass fittings, and other related parts used for water meter service repairs /installations. It is essential that the warehouse maintain the proper on -hand inventory levels to prevent an interruption to these important services. Most items used in conjunction with water service needs are considered a revolving inventory item, and should be replenished to continue a smooth day -to -day operation of the water services section. • LASER 1"VACF0 �o . Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 Bids were solicited and bid packages were distributed to interested vendors. Three (3) bid packages were received on July 06, 2004 with the following results: BIDDER LOCATION BID AMOUNT National Water Works Corona $253,518.72 S & J Supply Santa Fe Springs No Bid Western Water Works Chino No Bid National Water Works was the only qualified bidder but their bid amount was exceedingly high. Western Water Works, who is last year's successful bidder, and S &J Supply declined to bid due to the price fluctuations of the current brass and copper market. Based on the limited amount of bids received and one (1) exceedingly high amount bid, staff is recommending that the City Council reject the bid and instruct staff to re -bid the contract for the purchase of brass valves, fittings, and water related materials for the Public Works Services Department's warehouse. FISCAL IMPACT • $200,000 is budgeted in the 2004 -05 operating budget for the Valve Replacement Program and Annual Meter Replacement Program. RECOMMENDATION Reject bid submitted by National Water Works for the purchase of valves, brass fittings; and water related materials for the Public Works Services Department's warehouse and direct staff to re -bid the contract Approved by: UOM William R. Kelly, City Manager PM: GFL:JB:dw • c.e Proh) l g '���$�o..TS9 •�' STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager" . By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special Projects Manage SUBJECT: REVISED STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY At its meeting of July 1, 2004, the City C Statement of Policy concerning City Council to amend the policy and bring it to the Cit y The attached document reflects the Co recommends adoption of the new policy. ouncil suggested, a change to the existing Protocol and Procedures and directed staff Council for adoption at a future meeting. uncil's direction on this matter. Staff DISCUSSION At its meeting of July 1, 2004, the City Council suggested a change to the existing Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol and Procedures so as to no longer require that the City Manager review and approve all requests for certificates. As presented, the revised policy will allow Council Members to request and obtain a certificate without _going through the City Manager, as long as said request meets the guidelines noted in the policy. Further, given the Council's desire to, on occasion, give a certificate to a "non- Arcadia" person, business or organization as a gesture of goodwill, staff clarified and added to the language in the certificate section so as to clearly allow this as an acceptable use of a City certificate. FISCAL IMPACT Other than the cost of certificates and proclamations, there is no fiscal impact associated with this change in policy. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Statement of Policy concerning City Council Protocol 'and Procedures, dated July 20, 2004. Attachment LASE IMAGED a , P J * CITY OF ARCADIA STATEMENT OF POLICY CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES July 20, 2004 CONTACT WITH CITY - STAFF On matters relating to, certificates, proclamations, information about community events, mail and Council meeting adjournments, please contact the Executive Assistant for the City Council (Lynda Cudlip). For all other matters, please contact Bill Kelly, Linda Garcia or the appropriate department head. There will be instances when it is necessary for you to work with, a particular member of the .City Manager's office besides Bill or Linda (e.g. a special event, quote for a press release, etc.). For purposes of efficiency, direct contact with this person,is expected and encouraged. However, it is appreciated if you would refrain from giving staff direction outside of the issue at hand CORRESPONDENCE • City Council mail is opened by the City Manager's staff daily and delivered to Council Members on a weekly basis (usually Thursday evening). - Time sensitive mail is faxed upon receipt. Unless there is a request for a personal opinion or personal action, or the subject matter is such that there is a difference of opinion among Council Members, letters addressed to the "City: Council" (or,the same -letter is sent to the entire City Council) will be responded,to by a letter from the'sitting Mayor, on behalf of the City Council. City staff will prepare,a response for the Mayor's signature. Upon completion, a copy 'of the incoming letter and response will be distributed to all Council Members. Letters addressed to individual Council Members will be given to the Member only and responded to by said Member. If asked, staff will prepare a response for the Council Member's review. Details about events to which the City Council.is invited will be placed on the calendar included in the Weekly Report (assuming the invitation is mailed to City Hall). In addition, staff will note on the invitation the names of the Council Members to whom it was mailed. If a certificate or proclamation is requested, or appropriate from past practice, staff will prepare such .and provide it to the, Council Member that is going to • attend the event. Not all events require a certificate. In most cases, when a certificate or proclamation is not asked for it is because the event organizers do not want one nor do they want to.add time for a City presentation to their program. f r7 4 A City Council Protocol and Procedures July 20, 2004 • Page 2 City staff may provide administrative and clerical support to Council Members with regard to correspondence as long as the issue at hand is directly related to City business. Should a Council Member respond to or initiate a letter on their own, he /she is to use City stationery that contains their name only. If the subject matter is one of opinion rather than policy, it should be made clear that the Council Member is speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the City or his /her colleagues on the Council. All letters (except for personal letters of recommendation) sent on City stationery, and all a -mails regarding City business, are to be copied to the City Manager so that staff can accurately respond to a resident's inquiry about the status of their request and/or answer follow -up questions. The City, or individual Council Members, will not issue letters of invitation to foreign countries, agencies or businesses. LEGISLATIVE CORRESPONDENCE When legislation is proposed that will affect the City of Arcadia, the City Manager will • prepare letters for the Mayor's signature to the appropriate officials, be they Federal, State or County legislators, informing them of the City's support or opposition. These letters may specifically request that the legislator vote in a particular manner. In determining the City's position on a piece of legislation, the City Manager shall review the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association positions and the recommendation of our lobbyist. The Manager will consult with the City Attorney as necessary. CITY STATIONERY The use of City stationery should be kept to matters directly relating to City of Arcadia business. All letters (except for personal letters of recommendation) on any type of City stationery are to be copied to the City Manager. ATTENDANCE AT COMMUNITY EVENTS Unless a certain Council.Member is requested, when staff.receives a request for the City Council to attend a community event Council Members will be contacted in the following order: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members. CERTIFICATES • In general, certificates of achievement, commendation and /or service are to be signed by the sitting Mayor. These certificates may be given to residents, businesses and groups that have achieved something significant or have given exceptional service to the community. The Mayor will handle all presentations made at City Council meetings. City Council Protocol and Procedures July 20, 2004 Page 3 • Certificates given at a community event may be presented by the Mayor or another Council Member if the Mayor is not in attendance. On unique occasions, Council Members may request a certificate be prepared for their signature rather than the Mayor's. Said certificate will be titled a "Certificate of Commendation" rather than a "Mayor's Certificate of Commendation." Certificates may be given to Arcadia residents, Arcadia businesses, or to an individual, business or organization that has provided service directly to the City. of Arcadia. Further, certificates may also be, presented as a "gesture of goodwill" to anon- Arcadia person or organization that is celebrating a milestone or has achieved something significant. .Blank certificates will not be given to Council Members. Staff needs advancer notice from' Council Members requesting a certificate. PROCLAMATIONS A Proclamation may be tprepared for a special occasion or commemorative event and • may be presented at a` City Council meeting or a specific event. Reasons for issuing a proclamation are wide ranging; however, they should always have some connection to the City of Arcadia. Proclamations are always signed by the sitting Mayor. The City Council does not issue proclamations fornon -City activities, for mass "national week/month "'campaigns or for legislative matters. Staff needs advance notice from Council Members requesting a proclamation. CITY PINS City pins may be obtained from the City Manager's office. They are free to the City Council provided they are used for purposes directly related to the City.. PROMOTION OF INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS When "promoting or advertising" a City service, program or event; it is the City's policy to promote the activity as a whole and the City as a whole. From time to time we .will include a quote from an elected official in "a press. release and the quote is usually from the Mayor, who speaks on behalf of the City /City Council. The City is not legally able to promote individual Council Members. In fact,'there are restrictions on how we may use the name and /or likeness of elected officials in City publications. To avoid problems, • Arcadia takes a conservative approach to this issue and focuses on the .City and activity rather than a particular person. • o ? C L'a i.S0\1 ro If STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager • • DATE: July 20, 3004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager By: Linda Garcia, Communicati ns, arketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: REVISED STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING THE ROLE OF CITY COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMISSION LIAISONS Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY At its meeting of July 1, 2004, the City Council suggested changes to the existing Statement of Policy concerning City Council Board and Commission Liaisons and directed staff to amend the policy and bring it to the City Council for adoption at a future meeting. The attached document reflects the Council's direction on this matter. Staff recommends adoption of the new policy. DISCUSSION At its meeting of July 1, 2004, the City Council suggested changes to the existing Statement of Policy concerning City Council Board and Commission Liaisons. Specifically, staff was directed to change the language so as to require the Council Member's attendance at the first commission meeting after he /she is appointed (absent an emergency or other unavoidable conflict). Further attendance at board and commission meetings by the Council Liaison is on an "as necessary basis" with no expectation that the Liaison will attend every meeting. In keeping with the new policy, when preparing the meeting agenda, staff is to confirm whether or not the Council Member plans to attend the meeting and, if so, will include a section in the beginning of the agenda for "Reports /Matters From Elected Officials." LAGER IMAGED �$. 3( Mayor and City Council _ City Council Board and Commission Liaisons July 20, 2004 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this change in policy_ RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Statement of Policy concerning Board and Commission Liaisons, dated July 20, 2004. Attachment • CJ T 31 1 1 ! ° .kkkk \� * * i • CITY OF ARCADIA STATEMENT OF POLICY CITY COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMISSION LIAISONS July 20, 2004 The City of Arcadia has a number of Boards and Commissions that were created: 1. To advise the City Council and the City Manager on matters within their area of interest as prescribed by the City Charter and /or the City Council. 2. To enable more attention to be given to specific issues and problems. 3. To act as a channel of communication between municipal government and the public by presenting City proposals to the public, and in turn transmitting to City officials the reactions, opinions and proposals of citizens. In this respect their role is one of reducing misunderstandings concerning City policies and programs, reconciling contradictory viewpoints and aiding the development of common goals and objectives. 4. To provide a greater opportunity for citizen participation in the affairs of City government. Every year, the Mayor appoints a Council Member to each of the City's Boards and Commissions to act as a Liaison representative. The Liaison is expected to attend the first Commission meeting that takes place after he /she is appointed (absent an emergency or other unavoidable conflict) and will attend future meetings as needed. It should be noted that when Council Members attend Commission meetings, they are not voting members and are not supposed to actively participate in discussions or deliberations. Further, Council Liaisons are not expected to express an opinion as to how the City Council may act on a matter that is before the Commission or Board. All Board and Commissions are subject to the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law), which precludes discussion of any matter not on the agenda. Accordingly, other than a request for information, a Council Liaison cannot bring up for discussion issues that are not a part of the official meeting agenda. • 1.40 10q Tu� 4 "GJeh�q�'� 7 s rIM .. O ffice STAFF REPORT DATE: July 20, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Managedrq l li By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: Conversion of the Lucky Baldwin Day Community Picnic to a July 4th Celebration Recommendation: Provide direction SUMMARY At its July 1, 2004 meeting, the City Council directed staff to move forward with plans for a 2005 July 4 celebration that, for funding reasons, will be held in lieu of the 2004 and 2005 Lucky Baldwin Day Community Picnic. Subsequent to that meeting, a member of the City Council asked to have the matter brought up for discussion again and as such, it is on tonight's agenda for consideration. DISCUSSION Since inception, the Lucky Baldwin Picnic has been a huge success and neither the City Council nor staff wants to lose the camaraderie and outreach possibilities that it provides. Both the July 4 celebration and the Lucky Baldwin Picnic have basically the same goal, which is to provide an opportunity for the community to get together for an afternoon of fun and friendship. They are designed to be family- oriented and have somewhat of an old- fashioned, "down- home" theme. The primary difference between the two is that the'July 4 event, because of its connection to a national holiday, offers unique opportunities that are not currently available with the picnic. In addition, moving the event to the summer creates a more balanced schedule of "major" City events, especially considering that the Holiday Snow Festival is held in early December, one month after the Lucky Baldwin Picnic. By way of background, it should be noted that the only reason the Lucky Baldwin Picnic is held in the fall is because a certain amount of time is needed to organize and generate interest in the event, and when the idea was first approved, the fall date was the earliest we could use and still have time for adequate planning and promotion. In fact, when first discussed, there was actually some thought given to building the picnic around the July 4 holiday; however there just was not enough time to pull it together. LASER IMAGED qq, 3f Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 2 • Briefly, the concept for the July 4` celebration is as follows: The Lucky Baldwin Fourth of July Spectacular (the working name) will take place on Monday, July 5, 2005, tentatively from 5:00- 9:00pm at the high school athletic field. • A 15 -20 minute fireworks show would take place at the end of the day, most likely with the fireworks being launched at a site other than the high school. • A variety of entertainment would be offered including live music, demonstrations, dancing; karaoke, contests, games, etc. • Schools and local service and civic groups would be offered the opportunity to participate in some fashion. In addition, we would expect there to be a considerable amount of volunteer involvement. (Note: we do not plan to allow fund - raising /solicitation by any group or informational booths for religious organizations.) • Food would be offered for sale. • • There would be a $5 entrance fee for everyone five years of age and older. Attendance will be capped at maximum occupancy. To be sure, the July 4"' event is quite similar to the Lucky Baldwin Picnic only on a larger scope and with more entertainment, including the fireworks display. Staff hopes that attendance would at least match that of the picnic, which is currently at capacity of what the City can logistically accommodate. Three special notes: A highlight of the Lucky Baldwin Picnic is the Mayor's Spelling Bee. To ensure that this new tradition is not eliminated with the move of the picnic, staff proposes to hold the Spelling Bee as a stand -alone event at the Community Center. This would actually have some, positive benefits in that it would give the schools more time to hold the preliminary competition; we could allow more youngsters to participate in the final round; and it could be filmed for broadcast on our cable channel with a better result than can be achieved at an outdoor venue. As a replacement for the picnic in 2004, we have scheduled the Lucky Baldwin Treasure Trail, which was held for the first time last year with good success, for August 14 and have enhanced the program by adding a "wild west jamboree" and teen treasure • hunt. The expanded Treasure Tail now becomes a new activity for families in place of the picnic, which would have been held on Halloween this year. Mayor and City Council July 20, 2004 Page 3 Based on the direction given to staff on July 1, we went ahead and released the reservation for the County Park. Further, at this point, staff believes we have missed the window of opportunity to efficiently and effectively plan and promote a Lucky Baldwin Picnic and Spelling Bee for this fall. As such, if the City Council decides to not move forward with the change to Independence Day, staff recommends postponing the Lucky Baldwin Picnic to 2005, at a date of your choosing, keeping in mind that the time of year selected should be one where there is a relatively low chance of rain. FISCAL IMPACT The City Council and staff, while very supportive of special events and what they bring to the community, are also sensitive to financial considerations and we recognize that these large -scale activities are not inexpensive, especially when done to Arcadia standards. In order to keep the costs as low as possible and still provide an exceptional celebration, it is recommended that the July 4 th activity become what is currently the fall picnic rather than something done in addition to the picnic, and that the money that would have been spent on a fall event be used for July 4 Further, staff would like approval to solicit sponsorships and sell entry tickets for a small fee. Because there are so many unknowns at this stage of the game, staff is unable to provide a strong estimate of costs or revenue. However, our ballpark estimate at this point is $75- $85,000 (excluding staff time and resources), with $50,000 of that coming from the existing budget and hopefully another $20430,000 in revenue from sponsorships, ticket sales and related. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction with regard to the Lucky Baldwin Day Community Picnic and the Lucky Baldwin Fourth of July Spectacular. 40