Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2004. A
AGENDA.
Arcadia City Council
. and
Redevelopment Agency
Meeting
March 2, 2Q,94
6:0
Council tliwmbifs, oIftfirdltc,e Rod
MEN
M-M19-
WOW
ROLL CALL: City Council/Agdncy Members: Chang, Kovadic, Marshall, Wuoj
and Sdkdl.
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN TIE AUDIENCE WRO WISH TO
ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/RE I DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON-PUBLIC
HEARING/FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON)
1. CLOSED SESSION
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) 6.9(c) to confer with legal
counsel regarding potential litigation one (1) case
7;00 ll�m,:
Council Chambers
INVOCATION
PLEDGE Of ALLEGIANCE
POLL CALL: city Council/Agency Members: Chang, Kovadicj Marshall, Wuol
and Segal
2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING
AGENDA ITEMS
MOTION.' Read all Ordinanc6s and Resolutions by title only and waive reading it
full
3. PRESENTATION of a Citizens of the Month Award to American Legion
Post #247
4. PRESENTATION of a Citizens of the Month Award to the Women's Auxiliary;
American Legion Post #247'
Arcadia I City Council: Dr. Sheng Chang, Gary A. Kovaci6, Gall A. Marshall, MickeY,. Segal, John Wuq
WiMana R. Kelly, City Manager
June D. Alford, City clerk
LASER IMAGED
qp
the Arcadia Chapter of the American Red
5. PRESENTATION of Proclamation to
Cross
6. PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony y the concerning the proposed isms
of the proposed . You are hereby ad, you may be limited to desire legally
those issues end objections which yut or someorl else re respect
to the prapoaed hams 6 e, b, 0. and d, y
at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. ^ ,
a.
0
c.
Recommendation: introauce
Recommendation: Deny.
me U>cv
Recommendation: Direct the County Agricultural Coilimissioner to abate
properties listed on the 2003 -2004 Weed Abatement list
d. Resolution No. 6416 establishin an anplication fee for lot line
adjustments
Recommendation: Adopt
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO
ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC
HI+ARINGMVE- 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 February 17 2004 regular meeting
Recommendation: Approve
CONSENT — CITY COUNCIL
b. Minutes of the February 17 2004 regular meeting
Recommendation: Approve
`a
C.
Recommendation: Adopt
I Resolution No 6417 setting forth prima facie speed limits
Recommendation: Adopt
e.
f. Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Agreement Amendment No. 1
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6418 approving Amendment
No. 1 to the Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Agreement, replacing the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments with the San Bernardino
Associated Governments as an authorized member•ofthe Governing
Board
ME
Mall expansion
Recommendation: Approve
h. Revised job epecifications for Dispatcher I/II
Recommendation: Approve
i. Information Services Management
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an
amendment to an agreement with Knight Communications for information
systems management at the Police Department
j. Change Order - Gravity sewer RULE of Wilderness Park pumoin
station and sewer pipeline connection
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve a Contract
Change. Order for the construction of a gravity sewer from the Icitchen and
restroom facilities to the proposed sewer pump station in the amount of
$39,680.00
3
9. CITY MANAGER
a. Undate the City's sign regulations
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with RBF Consulting in the amount of $29,650.00 for the preparation of a
new sign ordinance, and appropriate an additional $14,900.00 from the
General Fund Reserves into the Contract Services account (4103 -6160) "
ADJOURN the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.,
Council Chambers Conference Room
0
46:0034
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY CLERK
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
March 2, 2004
The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday,
March 2, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
ABSENT: None
None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
CLOSED SESSION
1a Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to confer with legal counsel regarding
potential litigation — one (1) case.
The Closed Session ENDED at 7:00 p.m. The regular Meeting RECONVENED at 7:10 p.m.
in the Council Chambers following a brief recess.
INVOCATION Reverend Jim Conner, Arcadia Presbyterian Church
PLEDGE OF Bob Dale, Executive Director, Arcadia Chapter of the American Red Cross
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
ABSENT: None
2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORD. & RES. It was MOVED by Council /Agency Member Marshall, seconded by Council /Agency Member
READ BY Wuo and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ordinances and resolutions be read by
TITLE ONLY title only and that the.reading in full be WAIVED.
AYES: Council /Agency Members Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES:- None
ABSENT: None
City Attorney Deitsch announced the subject discussed at the Closed Session held earlier
this evening. No reportable action was taken.
1 L A:)in �,d AGE 3/2/04
1vY
46:0035
PRESENTATIONS
3.
CITIZENS OF Mayor Segal presented the March 2004 Citizen of the Month Award to Harold Trepp,
THE MONTH Commander of American Legion Post #247, and acknowledged members patriotism,
AWARD assistance, and advocacy for American military service personnel.
(American
Legion Post
#247)
4.
CITIZENS OF Mayor Segal presented the March 2004 Citizen of the Month Award to Erica Porter,
THE MONTH President of the Women's Auxiliary, American Legion Post #247, stating in part that the
AWARD ladies are never idle in their efforts to fund -raise and identify new and exciting projects to
(Women's involve the membership as well as the community of large. The commitment to their
Auxiliary,, membership, our military personnel, both at home and abroad, and this community is well
American known.
Legion Post.
#247)
5.
AMERICAN Mayor Segal presented a Proclamation to the Arcadia Chapter of the American Red Cross
RED CROSS and proclaimed the month of March 2004 as Red Cross Month.
(March 2004)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6a.
ORDINANCE Zone Change Application No. Z 2004 -001 was submitted by Rich Development Company to
NO. 2191 rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear portion of 245 -253 East
(Rezone the Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay
Rear Portion — to C- 2/General Commercial. This zone change will allow the applicant to construct a
245 -253 East Walgreen's pharmacy at the project site, because new commercial construction is not
Foothill Blvd. allowed within the PR -1 zone. The proposed Walgreen's would be located at 245 to 253
Z2004 -001) East Foothill and all existing buildings on the two properties would be razed for the
(TABLED) subsequent new construction.
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the properties at 245 and 253 East Foothill
Boulevard (including the northerly 155.5 feet) is Commercial. The existing PR -1 zoning of
the site is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed application will bring the zoning
into consistency with the General Plan. Most of the residentially zoned properties with a P
overlay throughout the City are gradually being changed to be consistent with adjacent
zones.
The Planning Commission at its January 27, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend
approval of the requested zone change.
It was noted that the only item before the City Council tonight is the zone change, and if this
Zone Change is approved and the applicant's wish to proceed with a Walgreen's pharmacy,
the Architectural Design Review (ADR 03 -022) and Conditional Use Permit would be subject
to the review and approval of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing.
Jim Shoemaker, Rich Development, 611 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, was present to
answer questions with regard to the proposed zone change.
3/2/04
46:0036
James Wright, 250 East Sycamore Avenue, expressed concerns with regard to the proposed
zone change. He felt if this zone change is approved and once this area is considered
commercial, the area homeowners will have no rights and will be at the mercy of whatever
the developers want to do.
Mark Renfrew, 1126 North Second Avenue, felt that the proposed zone change and a new
business will extend the traffic pattern that already exists due to Ralph's Supermarket
delivery trucks. He also felt if this zone change is approved, the property value will decline in
that area. He urged the City Council to protect the homeowners of the City and the quality of
life.
Sue Mivahara, Coldwell Banker, representing the owners of the property who are in support
of the project. She noted that one of the duplex buildings adjacent to the proposed project
area is vacant due to safety issues and because there is a leakage in the swimming pool
area, the owners need to do something about it if the proposed project is approved or not.
Edward Littv, 236 East Sycamore Avenue, noted that he gets delivery truck traffic for Ralph's
Supermarket everyday and expressed concerns that approval of the proposed project will
double the traffic and will create more problems for the neighboring residential area.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CLOSE the Public Hearing.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Following the close of the public hearing staff responded to questions and concerns
expressed by the Council regarding the proposed Zone Change. It was noted if the existing
PR -1 zoning remains, all of the parking for any new project will be forced to be at the rear,
immediately adjacent to the residential area.
Considerable discussion ensued. Some members would like to table this item at this time
and consider it when the Zoning/General Plan Consistency study to rezone all related PR -1
properties is completed and is before the Council for consideration. They felt it is better
process to look at the matter globally instead of individual cases. Council concurred.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to TABLE a decision until the date the City Council
considers the global situation of the zone change to rezone the PR zoned properties from
PR -1 to C -2; and, DIRECT staff to refund the application fee.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6b.
APPEAL TO Application No. TPM 03 -024 was submitted by David G. Lackyard on behalf of the property
THE PLNG. owners, Mr. And Mrs. Laraway, to subdivide one lot into two lots located at 1725 South
COMSNS. Baldwin Avenue. The application was previously considered by the City Council on
DENIAL — February 3, 2004. However, at that time the public hearing noticing requirements were not
TPM 03 -024 adequately fulfilled. Thus, staff brought the Council's earlier action back for reconsideration.
(1725 South The project site is a 16,560 square foot lot located at the southwest corner of Baldwin
Baldwin Ave.) Avenue and Sharon Road. The proposed two -lot subdivision does not comply with the
(DENIED) minimum lot dimensions of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
The applicant proposed to create two new lots, one fronting Baldwin Avenue (Parcel 1) and
3
3/2/04
46:0037
one fronting Sharon Road (Parcel 2). Each lot will have a substandard lot dimension. Parcel
one (1) would have a width of 75 feet in lieu of a reverse comer lot requirement of 85 feet
and a lot depth of 122 feet with a total lot area of 9,150 square feet; and, parcel two (2)
would have a depth of 75 feet in lieu of a minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet and a
lot depth of 75 feet with a total lot area of 7,500 square feet.
In addition, the proposed lot configurations are not similar to other lots in the area. In fact,
several of the neighboring R -1 zoned lots along Baldwin Avenue are similar in size and
dimension to the existing lot, according to City staff.
The Planning Commission or the City Council may grant modifications from the Subdivision
Regulations in accordance with Section 9113.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, based on
evidence that the modifications are necessary by reason of the size, shape, topography, or
other conditions of the subject property or adjacent property. Such modifications must be
approved by a majority of the Council or Commission member.
The Planning Commission at its meeting of December 9, 2003 voted 3 -1 with one member
abstaining to deny the lot split. The Development Services Department recommended
denial of the lot split due to the substandard lot width for Parcel 1 and substandard lot depth
for Parcel 2.
Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing.
John Larawav, 1725 South Baldwin Avenue, felt that single sided cul -de -sac is less desirable
than a two sided one. There are other substandard lots in the City and in that area and he
could not understand the reason for the denial. He felt that the church's preferences are
unreasonable. Of course, they would prefer to have a vacant lot than one that is developed
because they will lose their privacy.
Sid Svbenaa, Pastor, Hope International Church, noted that the church owns the lots to the
south of the proposed lot split. This project will have a negative impact on the community. It
is substandard and will have a crowded effect.
Tsu -Lino Larawav, 660 Center Crest Drive, Redlands, owner of the subject property felt that
splitting a big lot into two lots and building two smaller houses is more appropriate for the
community than building a mansion.
It was. MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CLOSE the Public Hearing.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Considerable discussion ensued. Councilmembers did not support the substandard lot
dimensions and found that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
General'and Specific Plans.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to REAFFIRM its February 3, 2004 DENIAL of
Tentative Parcel Map 2003 -024 as proposed.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4 3/2/04
46:0038
6c.
WEED
On February 17, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6414 declaring its intention
ABATEMENT
to provide for the abatement of noxious weeds, rubbish and refuse from various private
PROGRAM
properties within the City. Resolution No. 6414 also set this date, March 2, 2004, as the time
2003 -2004
and place to her objections from the owners of such properties to the proposed removal of
(APPROVED)
such flammable and otherwise noxious material.
As required by the Government Code, the County Agricultural Commissioner has mailed the
appropriate notice to all affected property owners. The property owners were further advised
of the public hearing this date.
Mayor Segal OPENED the public hearing.
John Larawav, 660 Center Crest Drive, Redlands, the owner of property located at 1725
South Baldwin Avenue questioned if the dirt that was deposited on the subject property is
considered noxious?
In response to Mr. Laraway's question, City Attorney Deitsch noted that determination of
noxious weeds, rubbish and refuse is up to the County. It is beyond the City to make that
determination.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CLOSE the Public Hearing.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic,. Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT the County Agricultural Commissioner to
abate the nuisance by having the weeds, rubbish and refuse removed from those properties
set forth on the 2003 -2004 Weed Abatement list.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6d.
RESOLUTION Ordinance No. 2188 amending various sections of Article IX (Division and Use of Land) of
NO. 6416 the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to lot line adjustments, this was adopted by the City
(Application Council on February 17, 2004. The Development Services Department proposed a fee of
Fee — Lot Line $469.00 for the processing of lot line adjustments and recommended adoption of Resolution
Adjustment) No. 6416, establishing an application fee for lot line adjustments (as this term is defined in
(ADOPTED) Section 9132.2) per City Council Ordinance 2188.
Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the City
Council.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CLOSE the Public Hearing.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5 3/2/04
46:0039
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Wuo and CARRIED
on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6416 entitled: "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN
APPLICATION FEE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Archie Miller, 1120 Fallen Leaf Road, expressed concerns with regard to a vicious dog that is
in his neighborhood and attacked and killed his small dog. He asked the City Council to not
let anything like that happen in their neighborhood again, and help to take that dangerous
dog out of the neighborhood.
City Manager Kelly noted that the City modified its code relative to dogs. This specific case
is not closed yet and is under investigation by the Police Chief. After investigation is
completed, the Police Chief will report back to the Council and parties involved of what the
legal issues and the alternatives are.
Further, Dave Hinig, Police Chief, explained in detail the animal impounding process. He
noted that the matter is still under investigation and the dog was not taken into custody
because it did not have a previous reported history of incidents. He encouraged everyone
who was involved in an incident with this dog to make a report to the Police Department and
help with the investigation process.
Brad Koehler, 1120 Singing Wood Drive, lives at the neighboring property where the vicious
dog is, and is concerned for the safety of his family. A chain -link fence is all that separates
his home from the neighbor's property. He asked the City Council and the Police
Department to resolve the problem and impound the animal as soon as.possible.
Peter Godfrev, 1101 Singing Wood Drive, felt that this is a public safety issue, and if the
Police cannot get rid of a dog like that immediately, that is a situation where government is
failing the people. Mr. Godfrey requested the City Council look very carefully at the vicious
and dangerous dog ordinance and make sure that this ordinance is amended, so, if the
same situation happens again, the dog can be immediately removed.
George Faschino, an Arcadia resident, businessman and former Mayor, representing the
Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee, commented on Agenda Item 9a. with regard to
preparation of a new sign ordinance. He spoke in favor of pole signs. Mr. Fasching
recommended that the City save taxpayers money and allow the Chamber of Commerce to
build a system and review the current sign ordinance with City staff, and present their shared
recommendation to the City Council
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
Mayor Segal asked Councilmembers to refrain from making political statements during the
matters from elected official portion of the meeting.
MARSHALL Mayor Pro tem Marshall commended Mayor Segal's choices for the awards this evening and
(Award expressed congratulations to the well deserve recipients.
Recipients)
MARSHALL Mayor Pro tem Marshall requested that staff readjust the order of the agenda and move the
(Agenda) time reserved for the audience to address the City Council before any public hearing item.
3/2/04
(Sanitation
District)
46:0040
She felt that it is agonizing for people to wait through all the public hearings in order to be
able to give five minutes testimony.
City Manager Kelly advised that the matter of the agenda order or set up was set by City
Council resolution many years ago. Staff will look at the alternatives and bring a report back
to the Council at a future date regarding this issue.
Ms. Marshall announced that the Sanitation District will raise its service charge rates
beginning July 1, 2004. A 41a increase per month is below other areas with comparable
services.
(Dog Park)
Ms. Marshall suggested a plan to the Recreation Department to separate small dogs from
large dogs at the dog park. She felt the compeling dog story tonight is a reason enough to
separate small dogs from large and vicious dogs co- mingling at the dog park.
(Street
Ms. Marshall referred to a suggestion that was sent in from an eigth-grade student from
Names)
Arroyo Pacific School to require future developers in Arcadia to name the new streets after
famous Santa Anita racehorses. In addition, she suggested renaming El Monte Avenue to
Seabiscuit Drive.
The City Council asked staff to bring a report back for Council consideration with regard to
changing existing street names and the related cost, consequences and street renaming
process.
(Food for
Ms. Marshall shared a food for thought, "happiness is a byproduct of a balanced and
Thought)
purposeful life ".
WUO
Councilmember Wuo hoped everyone participated in the Primary Election and exercised
(Election)
their voting rights.
(Events)
Mr. Wuo noted some of the activities he attended in the month of February including the
Arcadia High School Music Club Orchestra; Chamber of Commerce Mixture at the Race
Track; and, Little League Baseball opening day at Hugo Reid Primary School. He felt that
Music Club members are exceptional young people and no wonder that the Arcadia School
District is so well known, not only for academics but the music program also.
CHANG
Councilmember Chang expressed congratulations to the Citizen of the Month Award
(Award
recipients: American Legion Post #247, Women's Auxiliary, American Legion Post #247 and
Recipients)
the Arcadia Chapter of the American Red Cross.
(Dog Attack)
With regard to the dog impounding process, Dr. Chang felt that when a dog attacks and kills
another dog it should be enough evidence for being moved and impounded.
(AHS
Dr. Chang echoed Mr. Wuo's comment on the Arcadia High School Music Club Orchestra's
Orchestra)
performance. It was a wonderful event.
(MTA Bus
Dr. Chang suggested designating a place to sell discounted MTA bus tickets for Senior
Tickets)
Citizens. Currently the citizens are traveling to Monterey Park or Alhambra in order to
purchase bus tickets.
KOVACIC
Councilmember Kovacic echoed all the good wishes offered for the honorees and various
(Honorees &
events.
Events)
(Burke)
Mr. Kovacic extended condolences to Talmadge Burke's family. He was a legend in San
Gabriel Valley. Served 52 years on the Alhambra City Council and 15 terms as Mayor.
7 312104
46:0041
(Interfaith Mr. Kovacic expressed congratulations to the Arcadia Interfaith Action Group and many
Action Group) volunteers that make the Annual Crop -Walk such a success. It was a great gathering of
Arcadians.
SEGAL Mayor Segal expressed appreciation to tonight's speakers for expressing their opinions.
(Speaker)
CONSENT ITEM — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
8a.
MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the February 17, 2004 Regular Meeting.
(Feb. 17, 2004)
CONSENT ITEMS — CITY COUNCIL
8b.
MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the February 17, 2004 Regular Meeting.
(Feb.17,2004)
80.
ORDINANCE ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 2190 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
NO. 2190
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE
(Prima Facie
REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS."
Speed Limits)
8d.
RESOLUTON
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6417entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
NO. 6417
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS OTHER
(Prima Facie
THAN THOSE SET FORTH BY STATE LAW.."
Speed Limits)
8e.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6415 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 6415 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
(Tran. Dev. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FORM TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE
Act. Claim OPERATIONS OF ARCADIA TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 - 2004."
Form)
8f.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6418 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 6418 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENT ONE TO THE
(Amendment GOLD LINE PHASE II CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT,
One — Gold REPLACING THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WITH THE
Line Phase II SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AS AN AUTHORIZED MEMBER OF
JPA) THE GOVERNING BOARD:'
8g.
APRRORIATE APPROPRIATED $32,500 from the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance for
FUNDS additional inspection services for the Westfield Shopingtown Mall expansion.
(Westfield
Shoppingtown
Expansion)
8 312104
8h:
NEW JOB
SPECIFICATION
(Dispatcher 1 /11)
8i.
PROF. SVCS.
AGREEMENT
(Information
System Mgt. —
PD)
8j.
CONTRACT
CHANGE
ORDER
(Gravity Sewer -
Wilderness
Park)
1
tiF�
46:0042
APPROVED the new job specifications for Dispatcher 1 /11.
AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into Amendment No. 1 to a Professional Services
Agreement with Knight Communications in the amount of $15,600.00 for information
systems management at the Police Department until June 30, 2004.
APPROVED a contract change order to Denboer Engineering & Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $39,680 for the Gravity Sewer Portion of the Wilderness Park Pumping Station
and Sewer Pipeline Connection.
THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 8a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i and j APPROVED ON MOTION
BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER MARSHALL, SECONDED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY
MEMBER CHANG, AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Council /Agency Members Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, W uo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY MANAGER
SIGN The City Council conducted a study session to address potential changes to the sign
REGULATIONS regulations and directed staff to proceed with a request for proposal (RFP) for consultant
services. Request For Proposals were sent to eight companies of which three responded.
Staff evaluated the proposals based on experience, references, comprehensiveness, costs
and responsiveness to the scope of work as set forth in the RFP. In reviewing the proposals,
the Development Services Department believes that RBF /UDS (Urban Design Studios)
Consulting has the most experience in the preparation of sign ordinances and provides a
very comprehensive and thorough proposal addressing the City's needs and requirements.
RBF consulting's base fee is $28,650. This includes a public hearing before both the
Planning Commission and the City Council. An additional task would include a Community
Workshop for $1,000. The total cost for RBF /UDS would be $29,650. The approximate time
frame is six (6) to eight (8) months.
Following the staff presentation considerable discussion ensued. Some members
questioned the expenditure and felt that work could be done by City staff with the help of the
Chamber of Commerce and business community in order to create regulations that are
business friendly. Others were in favor of retaining a professional consulting firm to review
the existing sign ordinance and develop new sign regulations for the City. The Council also
wanted to be sure enough meetings are held to get both businesses and general public
members point of view.
Staff recommended adding a $5000 contingency fee for additional meetings and workshops
if needed. Council concurred.
3/2/04
46:0043
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Wuo and CARRIED
on roli call vote as follows to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to enter into a contract with RBF
Consulting in the amount of $29,650 for the preparation of a new sign ordinance; and,
APPROPRIATE an additional $14,900 from the General Fund Reserves into the Contract
Services account (4103 -6160; and, ADDED $5,000 contingency for purpose of holding
additional public comment events.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT At 10:47 p.m. the City Council Regular Meeting ADJOURNED in memory of Talmadge
(March 16, 2004)Burke, Council Member for 52 years for the City of Alhambra, serving 15 terms as Mayor,
making him the longest running City Council Member in the State of California, to March 16,
2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room for a Regular Meeting to
conduct the business of the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and any
Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of
properties.
h ci
June D. Alford, Ci lerk
10 3/2/04
.,
s
March 2, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Dir
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
Prepared by: Joseph M. Lambert, Associate PlannerJt
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2191 AMENDING THE
ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO REZONE THE REAR
PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 245 -253 E. FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD.
RECOMMENDATION: INTRODUCE
SUMMARY
Zone Change Application No. Z.04.01 was submitted by Rich Development Company to
rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear portion of 245 -253
East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile
Parking Overlay to C -2 /General Commercial. Rich Development is proposing a
Walgreen's drug store at this location.
The Planning Commission at its January 27, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend
approval of the requested Zone Change. The Development Services Department is
recommending approval of Zone Change Application No. Z.04.01 and introduction of
Ordinance No. 2191 amending the zoning code of the City of Arcadia to rezone the
approximate 155.5 foot wide rear portion of the properties located at 245 -253 East
Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C -2 /General Commercial, Zone Change case Z.04.01.
BACKGROUND
The rear portions of the properties at 234 through 317 East Foothill Boulevard (north
side of Foothill) are zoned PR -1 (Single - family residential with a parking overlay) and
the southerly portions of the properties are zoned C -2 (General Commercial). The C -2
zone allows retail, office and other commercial uses. The PR -1 zone allows single -
family residential uses or parking for adjacent commercial uses. The parking overlay
LASER IMAGED
Z.04.01 /Ord. No. 2191
March 2, 2004
Page 1
> t/. 6 ,a_ -;I-(# i
(P) zones were added to many of the residential zones in the late 1950's and early
1960's to provide a buffer between commercial properties and adjacent residentially
zoned properties. A noted above, the parking overlay zone allowed for parking
adjacent to the commercial, but prohibited construction of commercial buildings within
the area.
Most of the residentially zoned properties with a P overlay throughout the City are
gradually being changed to be consistent with adjacent zones.
In 1977 a zone variance was granted to allow Shakey's Pizza at 245 E. Foothill
Boulevard to construct their building within a portion of the existing PR -1 zone, resulting
in the building being constructed across two zones (C -2 and PR -1). The adjoining
property at 251 -253 E. Foothill is improved with a commercial building along Foothill
Boulevard and a duplex in the rear portion of'the property. Both were constructed in
1957.
DISCUSSION
This Zone Change application is to rezone the PR -1 portion of the subject lots to C -2.
This will allow the applicant to construct a Walgreen's pharmacy at the project site,
because new commercial construction is not allowed within the PR -1 zone. The
proposed Walgreen's would be located at 245 to 253 E. Foothill and all existing
buildings on the two properties would be razed for the subsequent new construction.
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the properties at 245 and 253 E. Foothill
Boulevard (including the northerly 155.5 feet) is Commercial. The existing PR -1 zoning
of the site is inconsistent with the General Plan. This application will bring the zoning
into consistency with the General Plan.
If this Zone Change is approved and the applicant's wish to proceed with a Walgreen's
pharmacy, the Architectural Design Review (ADR 03 -022) and Conditional Use Permit
would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
The subject properties are included in the Zoning /General Plan Consistency study.
Eventually these properties would be included in a zone change to rezone the PR
zoned properties from PR -1 to C -2. However, the applicant needs this zone change to
proceed with the Walgreen's development, thus prompting this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission at its January 27, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend
approval of the requested zone change. The Planning Commission concurred with
staffs recommendation and felt that this was an appropriate change to the site.
Z.04.01 10rd. No. 2191
March 2, 2004
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department has 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 wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
drafted for this Zone Change.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approves the Negative Declaration and Introduce Ordinance
No. 2191:
ORDINANCE NO. 2191: AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA TO REZONE THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 245 -253 E. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
Approved: -Df .!G ? � A!:i
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachments: 1) Ordinance No. 2191
2) January 24, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes
3) Vicinity Maps
4) Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Z.04.01 /Ord. No. 2191
March 2, 2004
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2191
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA TO REZONE THE REAR PORTION OF THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 245 -253 E. FOOTHILL BOUL VARD
WHEREAS this zone change was initiated by Rich Develo ment Company to
rezone (the "Zone Change ") an approximate 155.5 -foot wide rear /ortion of the two lots
located at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an
Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 /General Commercial/(Community Development
Division Case No. Z 2004 -001); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004 a public he7ri'ng was held before the Planning
Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence /nd
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissioq /t said meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend
approval of the Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004,
Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, as part of the r or
considered:
City Council held a public hearing on the
of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and
1. All staff reports nd related attachments and exhibits, environmental
documents (including the egative Declaration) submitted by the Community
Development Division of th Development Services Department to the City Council;
2. The record/Of the Planning Commission hearing regarding the Zone
Change; and
3. All letters, documents, information and material presented as part of the
public hearing at the City Council meeting on March 2, 2004; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 2, 2004, the City Council adopted a
Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act concerning
the Zone Change; and
R,IED3.R-181D.oR-I &D 1
Ix
:..:'O
VIRGINIA • • • •
W..........
� .............. AVE.
• "GHLAMD• OaK'S•
. • • .::sc'rbBC : '
•••••• R -181D�
A
FOOTHILL
R I
AN
C-2i
C -2 x
:R -:l &D
`._ R-M
• °r
I
�l
u� >
4
N
J ,0
i+ IV
O 1y
J (�
If
IN
R -I °
/ R- M
Project Site
I
CR— R -I
FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
4'I2W.8 LTt 11 It = -
4 rwi.zz
C- I & D
olo C-2 a D ?/f/� -I
A
1A1
�Y
6
a
�z
m
Ir
IJ
iQ
,o
la
J
a
a
i
BLVD.
--1 r
R I/
WR—
F
z
Q
Svc
R -I
a
z
R -I -.
N
Lu
A
FOOTHILL
R I
AN
C-2i
C -2 x
:R -:l &D
`._ R-M
• °r
I
�l
u� >
4
N
J ,0
i+ IV
O 1y
J (�
If
IN
R -I °
/ R- M
Project Site
I
CR— R -I
FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
4'I2W.8 LTt 11 It = -
4 rwi.zz
C- I & D
olo C-2 a D ?/f/� -I
A
1A1
�Y
6
a
�z
m
Ir
IJ
iQ
,o
la
J
a
a
i
BLVD.
--1 r
R I/
F
z
Q
Svc
R -I
a
z
N
A
FOOTHILL
R I
AN
C-2i
C -2 x
:R -:l &D
`._ R-M
• °r
I
�l
u� >
4
N
J ,0
i+ IV
O 1y
J (�
If
IN
R -I °
/ R- M
Project Site
I
CR— R -I
FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
4'I2W.8 LTt 11 It = -
4 rwi.zz
C- I & D
olo C-2 a D ?/f/� -I
A
1A1
�Y
6
a
�z
m
Ir
IJ
iQ
,o
la
J
a
a
i
BLVD.
--1 r
3. PUBLIC HEARING Z 2004 -001
245 -253 E. Foothill
Rich Development Co.
Consideration of a zone change to rezone the rear 155.5' of property fronting on Foothill Blvd.
from PR -1 /Second One - Family with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 /General
Commercial.
The staff report was presented.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert indicated that there are other similar type
properties in the City. Ms. Butler further explained that there are some along First Ave., Baldwin Ave.
and all of these will eventually be rezoned. Staff is currently working on bringing these types of
inconsistencies into compliance, which should be forthcoming to the Planning Commission in the future.
These inconsistencies will be brought to the Planning Commission in groups rather than individually.
In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. Lambert explained the rear setback requirements.
The public hearing was opened.
Jim Shoemaker, Rich Development, 611 W. Sixth St., Los Angeles, thanked staff for all their hard work
and said that the rear setback is 35.5 from the residential properties.
Sue Miyahara, Coldwell Banker, was there representing the owners who are in support of the project.
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert indicated that Walgreen's has submitted
an architectural design review and they would also need a CUP, which would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The only item before the Planning Commission tonight is the zone change.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Olson to recommend
approval of Z 2004 -001 to the City Council.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Arcadia City Planning Conratission 4 1/27/4
;r �' 1 �n iii• r :+�}
;1
1YCAMORE
^ f1
1
r,
pk
53 r I
Y8i 41 } 1. w
4 '
Ina eam Ng q
If f
Voiirv'N
'
t�p�: 0
I t
I 1 !. If r' d
I
sl?
rit 1.
�uj,�+..} t e J I If I I all ir-i.
:r1�L
.:�.wr n '� r *t� �a xl {t'•t ya !. "� yh � 1E 4 ? t
if ".� i I` 1 1111 1114 tl 1 f 1 '14
All 1
LU
11 k r
�.
Yid
r"
I 1 1
Y 1 i I J s
+ e' 1 ,r ,. Y} kv 1.': K� 1'✓1` § i ' 1,�
it
A
N
100 0 100 200
1 (1125)
"'i I'm
(221)
(227)
I�1
1ril
(3991 1 (319
(30M) I I I (3070)
(W7A) I I I (3074)
(120(1
(1209
(1145)
(1143)
(1179)
(1 +201
( +171)
(1127)
(1+23)
(1119)
(11+5)
(1111)
FOOTHILL BLVD F00
LAUREL AVE
1299) (20Q ) m21 m9 1229) 1229 P
S
Development Services Department
Engineering Division ,
Repaedby. R.S GMZabz, Jmm" 2004 cO�+ossrsa.
rM 1 (232) 1 CM) 1 1245)
v
z
(319) (712i 1 12+9 112 21) I P") II
245 E Foothill Boulevard
Z 2004001
•.••
.....C..... .....
•V III RGINIA • • • �; • '
4VE.
... .. .. ....
• 'H10HL ANO• • OAWS' - • • .. .
............. ....
PIIK
R -I
i�
' -i
M�lffllm
R -i
R-1 BID
R- M
• 4�
}FI
6
v
w
J �
Jrl-
R-l/ � R-M
Project Site
n
n1
N
3 � �
R -I
1 Y� R— I FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
Q\IDM a
R -I
R
R -I "
>
�-
a'
R -1\
R -i
R-1 BID
R- M
• 4�
}FI
6
v
w
J �
Jrl-
R-l/ � R-M
Project Site
n
n1
N
3 � �
R -I
1 Y� R— I FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
Q\IDM a
R -I
R -I "
a'
"-
/SYCAI
2
a
-
C -211 I 2, 53
R -1 C
a
C
=
Y
ya.0
-2
FOOTHILL
R -i
R-1 BID
R- M
• 4�
}FI
6
v
w
J �
Jrl-
R-l/ � R-M
Project Site
n
n1
N
3 � �
R -I
1 Y� R— I FOOTHILLS JR. HI H SCHOOL
C -1 a D
2
C-2 a D
C -2
BLVD.
IY
Q
a
z.
�O
CD
Ir
U
,a
,o
la
u
a
a
i
T
t
Ir
Q\IDM a
R -I
a'
C -2
x
C -211 I 2, 53
C -1 a D
2
C-2 a D
C -2
BLVD.
IY
Q
a
z.
�O
CD
Ir
U
,a
,o
la
u
a
a
i
T
t
Ir
File No. Z 2004 -001
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
J ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Application No. Z 2004 -001
2. Project Address (Location)
245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Rich Development Company
1000 N. Western Avenue, Suite 200
San Pedro, CA 90732
(310) 547 -3326
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia — Development Services Department
Community Development Division — Planning Services
240 W Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial (C)
7. Zoning Classification:
PR -1/C -2
8. Description of Project:
-1- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02
File No. Z 2004 -001
Proposed Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of
property at the rear portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR-
1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C-
2/General Commercial.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's
surroundings.)
Properties to the north are zoned R -1 and are improved with single - family
residences. Properties to the south, west, and east are zoned C -2 and are
improved with commercial land uses.
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
Biological Resources
Geology /Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Population & Housing
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Transportation / Circulation
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
-2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1. 7/02
File No. Z 2004 -001
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.
[ ] 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
Signature
December 31, 2003
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.
-3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02
File No. Z 2004 -001
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).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
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.
7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
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.
-4- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102
1
File No.: Z 2004 -001
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?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. 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 the 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
7102
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less 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 ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
El
El
MEME-0i
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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
CEQA Checklist
6
7102
61
File No.: Z 2004 -001
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed and are subject to the
provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological
resources.
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?
CEQA Checklist
7
7102
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 other means?
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed and are subject to the
provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological
resources.
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?
CEQA Checklist
7
7102
6.
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
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 cultural resources. As such, no adverse
impacts on cultural resources are anticipated.
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?
CEQA Checklist
8
7/02
7.
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
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 geology and soils. As such, no adverse impacts on geology and soils are anticipated.
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?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
E
E
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ E
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ E
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ E
CEQA Checklist
9
7/02
EM
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 213eneral Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
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.
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)?
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
10
7/02
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation -
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑
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?
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
9.
i 163
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
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 hydrology and water quality. As such, no
adverse impacts are anticipated.
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ID
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IE
community conservation plan?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact
is anticipated due to the Zone Change.
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
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 sites, which are 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? .
❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
12
7/02
12.
13.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
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
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 adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
❑ ❑
No
Impact
Z
Z
Z
Z
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
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.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ . Z
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Only the project site shall be affected, which includes two properties that include various commercial uses and
one residential duplex. It is anticipated that due to this Zone Change and subsequent projects, the residential
duplex will be razed. Losing two residential units is not considered significant. As such, no adverse impacts to
population growth or housing are anticipated.
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
CEQA Checklist
13
7/02
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
-
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
❑ ❑
No
Impact
Z
Z
Z
Z
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
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.
POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ . Z
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Only the project site shall be affected, which includes two properties that include various commercial uses and
one residential duplex. It is anticipated that due to this Zone Change and subsequent projects, the residential
duplex will be razed. Losing two residential units is not considered significant. As such, no adverse impacts to
population growth or housing are anticipated.
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
CEQA Checklist
13
7/02
14.
15.
File No.: Z 2004 -001
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested to construct a proposed Walgreen's drug
store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and
when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed
development will most likely be less dense than the existing development on the site and will comply withh all
applicable building and fire codes, potentially decreasing the need for public safety protection. Therefore,
impacts to public services are anticipated to be less than significant.
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
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. This will not result in
increased population, as the Zone Change will prohibit construction of new residential units at the project site.
As such, the project will not create a significant impact upon recreational services.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
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
CEQA Checklist
14
7/02
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
Incorporation
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
Parks?
❑
❑
®
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
®
❑
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested to construct a proposed Walgreen's drug
store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and
when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed
development will most likely be less dense than the existing development on the site and will comply withh all
applicable building and fire codes, potentially decreasing the need for public safety protection. Therefore,
impacts to public services are anticipated to be less than significant.
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
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. This will not result in
increased population, as the Zone Change will prohibit construction of new residential units at the project site.
As such, the project will not create a significant impact upon recreational services.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
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
CEQA Checklist
14
7/02
16.
File No.: Z 2004 -001
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) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Parking for these types of
projects will be located onsite unless special approval is granted through the conditional use permit process.
As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
CEQA Checklist
15
7/02
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact Impact
Incorporation
a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
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) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Parking for these types of
projects will be located onsite unless special approval is granted through the conditional use permit process.
As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
CEQA Checklist
15
7/02
17
File No.: Z 2004 -001
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, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?,
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
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, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
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 an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?,
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
CEQA Checklist
16
7102
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
File No.: Z 2004 -001
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone an approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the rear
portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking
Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store
project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when
received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
CEQA Checklist
17
7/02
ARCADIA TRIBUNE
affiliated with
SGV Newspaper Group
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790
PROOF OF Pi
( 2015.!
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:
2/8/04
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California
this 8 day of FERRUaRY 20 04
signature
1
icipace ueiuw Our us O ,,.Gunny 6 Iurn untyl
/o If
To:
j and
i..c and it.(
cancer
RECEIVED
FEB 11 2004
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY CLERK
' Disabilities. Act, if You
egat(ve Dec
-.' need special assistance
to on file at if
. to Participate, in the
'',Plonnino S
{_Public Hearing, Please
contact Planning
^office, locate(
pM, Huntinvtor
� a, I..Se
Services at,' (626)
`-
i'.`Arcadia,- Co
574.5423 iat feast. three
.tl �•'(3)
—;,91007, 1 and
.
noel opment
npany
working days
clivailable for
tY I before
the .meeting or
review. Col
time when such
IC
will be roC81V
1. special services are
rid
kppnd during the
needed.. + Thls
he
,,tearing; whlcI
notification will help
at P.
.1l city staff In making
er
.7:00 .
T04.'I.
or, e a s o n a b'. I
10 " to
Any
`wishi An r..
i.larrangemenis
Provide- you with
d'
wishing to cam
this matter
Y
—gtteg5 to the Publics
subm.(l
DECLARATION Preparation- of, an
Hearing:
comments, in'
Notice Is hereby given Environmental' impact
- Arcadia City Hall Is
tnd City bv.1
that the Plann ing I..i Report.
'open Monday through
'anE tlateR
. Services', of the DEVELOPMENT
Thursday, from 7:70
etc
to
to 5:30 P.m., antl
Agencies
fe
on
on alternate Fridays
to
reauaste
of
.from 7:70 a.m: to
-.
sr
I
P.m: City Hall will be
At Its meat
5tlclosed-
closed
Tuesday, Mc
General Plan Change ;J oe Lambert,
and, February .20th, 1
2004 at_7i00 p
>Itile.PCrkina
CITY CLERK Iprolect arirl'The Druf�.
I C- 2/General
t (ITV OF ARCADIA p)Negative Declaration
nercial.
240 WEST : '
` Ifi the City C
1CANT:
'• NUNTINOTON '.' finds that the protect
roles
.
noel opment
npany
DRIVE will, not. hove c
'ARCADIA, CA 91007 ifignificantTeffect —,or
NMENTAL
(626) $74 -5400 the environment, it
IMENT:
Notice
of
ALIFORNIA may -atlopt - the
ENVIRONMENTAL Negative Declaration,
QUALITY ACT
I adopt
a
IThls means that the
Declaration.
'NOTICE OF INTENT .City Council may
npanlas this
?� TOADOPT 1fproceed to .consider
Mice.
ANEGATIVE the proiectwithout the
ND DATE
DECLARATION Preparation- of, an
PUBLIC
Notice Is hereby given Environmental' impact
RING;
that the Plann ing I..i Report.
-March 2,;
. Services', of the DEVELOPMENT
OFPUBLIC
Development on ] ( SERVICES
IF PUBLIC
. DEPARTMENT
RING:
%Ins Community
Chambers
l Study he
Initial Stutly of the Development Division/
3 City Hall,
following Prolect: _ Planning Services ..
Huntington
General Plan Change ;J oe Lambert,
Arcadia,
'Zone - L Change Associate Planner
fornia
Appplication No. Date Received. for
licatlon file
22004 -001: Filing.
,To
oposed Zone
change the zoning By Los Angeles '
'e available
of an approximate '' County:
�w' at the
'155.5 foot wide strip of (County'Clerk Stamp
Services
Property -at the rear Here)
ices.
`_-Portion of245. and -253 Publish: 7/0-04
Interested
"E: Foothill Boulevard Arcadln Tribune
,e invited to
from PR -1 /Second e1S608B./172520 t
the Public
'One - Family Zone with
dto provide
an Automobile Parking
r testimony'
Overlay to C- 2/Generol
no r the
Commercial, in the
one Change.
City of Arcadia,
'County
e hereby
of Los Angeles.
hht. should
The Initial Study was
to legally
i;-completed
' - in
any•action
- accordance with the
the City
Cifte's Guidelines for
r, a
rvices
o in m
March 2, 2004
66.
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator,
Prepared By: Joseph Lambert, Associate PlannerJL_
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF APPLICATION NO. TPM 03-
024: A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO
LOTS AT 1725 S. BALDWIN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION: DENY
SUMMARY
The Public Hearing tonight concerns Application No. TPM 03 -024, which was previously
considered by the City Council on February 3, 2004. The Public Hearing noticing
requirements were not adequately fulfilled. Thus, staff is bringing the Council's earlier
action back before the City Council for reconsideration after a public hearing. While the
legal notice of the February 3 public hearing was published in the newspaper, the
individual notices to property owners were not mailed. After the public hearing on
February 3, 2004, the City Council unanimously (5 -0) voted to deny the appeal and
deny the Tentative Parcel Map.
This application was submitted by David G. Lackyard on behalf of the property owners,
Mr. And Mrs. Laraway, to subdivide one lot into two lots located at 1725 S. Baldwin
Avenue. The project site is a 16,560 square foot lot located on the southwest corner of
Baldwin Avenue and Sharon Road. The proposed two -lot subdivision does not comply
with the minimum lot dimensions of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
The Planning Commission at its meeting of December 9, 2003 voted 3 -1 with one
member abstaining to deny the lot split. On December 18, 2003, the applicant, David
G. Lackyard, submitted an appeal of TPM 03 -024.
The Development Services Department continues to recommend denial of the lot split
because of the substandard lot width for Parcel 1 and the substandard lot depth for
Parcel 2.
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
March 2, 2004
LASER IMAGED Page 1
M
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 1989, the City Council approved Tentative Map 47234 for an eight -lot
subdivision directly north of the project site. That subdivision resulted in the Sharon
Road cul -de -sac that is adjacent to the subject lot. The subject lot has 222 feet of
frontage adjacent to Sharon Road.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to split the lot on the southwest comer of Baldwin Avenue
and Sharon Road that is approximately 75 -feet wide by 222 -feet in depth. The applicant
is proposing to create two new lots, one fronting on Baldwin Avenue (Parcel 1) and one
fronting on Sharon Road. (Parcel 2) The lots will have the following characteristics:
Subdivision Characteristics
Parcel No. Width
Depth
Area
1
75 feet*
122 feet
9,150 square feet
2
100 feet
75 feet
7,500 square feet
Code Minimums
75 feet
100 feet
7,500 square feet
*85 feet (corner lot)
ANALYSIS
As noted above, each lot will have a substandard lot dimension. Parcel 1 would have a
width of 75 feet in lieu of a reverse corner lot requirement of 85 feet; and Parcel 2 would
have a depth of 75 feet in lieu of a minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet. (See
Exhibits 1 and 2)
The Planning Commission (or City Council) may grant modifications from the
Subdivision Regulations in accordance with Section 9113.6 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code, based on evidence that the modifications are necessary by reason of the size,
shape, topography, or other conditions of the subject property or adjacent property.
Such modifications must be approved by a majority of the Council or Commission
members.
Staff does not support the substandard lot dimensions as proposed. Parcel 2 (the
interior lot) has a significantly limited building envelope, an area only 25 feet deep and
80 feet wide. The building envelope of Parcel 1 is slightly less restricted. Although it
may be possible to develop Parcel 2 without modifications, staff cannot justify the
creation of substandard parcels. Another concern of staff is that approval of a 75 -foot
deep lot could potentially set a precedent for corner lots of similar dimensions
throughout the City.
Furthermore, the proposed lot configurations are not similar to other lots in the area. In
fact, several of the neighboring R -1 zoned lots along Baldwin Avenue are similar in size
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
A1 March 2, 2004
U fA%P1� ��' Page
and dimension to the existing lot. (See Exhibit 2) Based on the above citations, staff is
not recommending approval of any modifications to the minimum lot dimension
requirements because there are no special circumstances to justify the modifications.
If the City Council concurs with staff, they should consider findings of denial D1, D2 and
D3. The proposed map and subdivision design is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans (Arcadia Municipal Code), and the site is not physically suitable for
the typical development prevalent in the R -1 zone.
Regardless of the design of the subdivision and any modifications from the Subdivision
Regulations, the applicant is required to comply with all other code requirements and
development policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, City
Engineer, Fire Marshall, Public Works Services Director, and Community Development
Administrator.
PLANNING COMMISSI.ON ACTION
The Planning Commission at its December 9, 2003 meeting voted 3 -1 and one member
abstained, to deny the lot split. The Planning Commission concurred with staffs
analysis and denied the project based on findings D1, D2 and D3 contained in the staff
report. The Commission found that the proposed map and subdivision design are not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans (Arcadia Municipal Code), and that
the site is not physically suitable for the typical development prevalent in the R -1 zone.
The Commissioner in favor of the parcel map noted that there are several lots in the
vicinity that are substandard. Also, if the map were approved, it would not be
completely out of keeping with the existing lot sizes in the area. Sharon Road is a
single -sided cul -de -sac, which is less desirable than a two -sided cul -de -sac. He felt that
the circumstances in this case are unique and it calls for creative activity to allow the
development.
Several property owners in the vicinity of the subject site spoke in opposition to the lot
split. Opponents voiced concerns about the potential for a loss of privacy if two homes
are built. Others thought that the lot split might set a precedent for subdivisions in the
neighborhood, which would result in a denser neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department has determined that the proposed use will not have a potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from CEQA pursuant to Section 15315.
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
March 2, 2004
Page 3
The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council
reaffirm its February 3, 2004 denial of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM
03 -024 as proposed.
If the City Council wishes to consider approving the proposed subdivision, staff
recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. That after issuance of a building permit a Rough Grading Certificate shall be
required prior to the placing of any concrete on the site and a final Grading
Certificate shall be required prior to the final building inspection. Said certificates
shall certify that all grading operations have been completed in substantial
compliance with the final grading plan approved by the City Engineer and shall be
filed with and approved by the Development Services Department.
2. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 03 -024 shall not take effect
until the property owner, applicant and civil engineer have executed and filed the
Acceptance Form available from the Community Development Division to indicate
acceptance of the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning
this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or
condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which
action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section
66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City
shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the
project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney
to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the
matter.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Denial
If the City Council takes action to deny Tentative Parcel Map 03 -024, the Council
should make specific findings based on the evidence presented and move to
deny the subdivision. The Council may wish to consider one, all, or any
combination of the following findings, and must expand upon them with specific
reasons for denial:
D.I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in the Subdivision Map Act.
D.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
March 2, 2004
Page 4
D.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
DA. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development.
D.5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage.
D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause
serious public health problems.
D.8. That the proposed subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein said
property is located.
D.9. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision. In connection with this, the legislative body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use, will be
provided and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This provision shall apply only to easements of record or
to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at
large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
Approval
If the City Council takes action to approve the proposed subdivision, the Council
should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map 03 -024 based on the following
findings and directions:
A.1. Find that the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are
consistent with the General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage from the
project into the public sewer system will not violate any requirements of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region.
A.2. Find that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and that
this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315.
A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director (or designee) to approve
and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project.
A.4. Approve this project subject to any revisions required by the Planning
Commission, and any conditions of approval set forth in the staff report or as
added to, or modified by the Planning Commission.
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
March 2, 2004
Page 5
Attachments: Exhibit 1:
TPM 2003 -024
Exhibit 2:
Aerial Photo & Zoning Map
Exhibit 3:
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 4:
Assessor's Parcel Map of Project Site
Exhibit 5:
Assessor's Parcel Map of Properties Directly to the East
PC December 9, 2003 Minutes
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Approved by:.��M^� •-
William R. Kelly, Cify Manager
TPM 03 -024 CC Report
March 2, 2004
Page 6
4
DD
yI
3fW3Atl NIM�ltl6
WO 'A
NMR3R '15YX3 A F2 .iZ .W N — --
co I ~
LOU Z
Y � ,
O2.
gu
a
Z ZQ
m
a,OS
QcJ yy2
`W
O�
mo
�W
W�
ode
U ~a�
ova
^Q 04V
it ❑QO
�$W
W
o
o >�
mx�
z ~
20
W
FU
m�0
I I
I
I
I
I
I I�
I
I At
I
I I
oII��
Icy
I GG
z R ZI
O �I ZI
"I
I
I,
II
I
1
I I
I
I
I
I
hl I
� I
II
I
«I
.9Z I .9Z
��
I � I
I \R�
Nib G I
�y
3
m
psi
e
b ° s' p =EXHIBIT
u.
o�
F�
5�
b
m �tlF
Ur m
Lr z n
Yw
�J ❑
z o=
z
Zi C z
w Z m
r� a
v a
Ja
C
} Pcm
it
i II,
p� Ilu
If� 2,11 III
s� Yu
II t r
m
Wro, 1725 S Baldwin Ave i
Arcadia
0 ;,
ti11111
I rF '
i II';Ix I
t i'AA
III
I
lu
biv
I
v �` , Pt¢R,r'�
Zi�j�ith isihi
^V
r
wr
f
Ai
�yli++lf
�T J4
4jry�fi
��I✓{
s f71r
t Il}i FlrK {A•
., tN�U5f is
al
I I"
r
yl�
I Fli YI�
G I Is
Ii"Ht Gh r^" s re; I n r
I
((5 LEMON AVE '
.MrP715wi
(1608)
L (1616)
N (1617) (1821)
ioo 0 100 200 feet (1627) (669) (665) (69)
(711) NORMAN AVE
(745) ..' (7n) n7„ nn, 021) S
T
(,7a
(664) 668) (6
(741) (716) (712) (1761)
v pL LI TA (724) (728) (1765)
(734) 07
(1711)
nub
(n,6)
(703) (1716)
(709)
�3) (717)
17M m ,) (7 zeJ (723)
RD „776) R
RIO) SHARON vw X55,
(1771) JIM)
v rs=•,
C
(1735) (1738)
C
z
1� (1742)
(1741) J/�
rn
035) 027
�5,) - n6) 1 03,1 LEMON AVE
4n 04,1. (1860
(720) (714) (1868)
(7J6J (7m (728) (724) rlaan (657) (653)
(742) 0381 (1B09)
(1eoa) LEMON AVE
1615)
(1813) (662) (6567
(721) (1810)
(7271
WISTARIA AVE (1614
(724) 006)
Development Services Department n33cnnrnA 1725 S Baldwin Avenue
Engineering Division TPM 03=024
a
Reperetl Oy R,S.GOmR1ez,De rnber2003 APORATE�
SIT 3
9242
N 9248 i w� Z
m 9248 � b
9247
1 1 ,
1 RAP 22.07
23.36 36.66 7 92 B 84
55.06 m N
19681 — ,
OLn
R,c�CLITA wAO >�, p 140 ti
Byvz 55.06 . Og .N in ^^ _
51.55 a Oro rn U/ T Z
rn _{M °s V
A T
w Z �° O SOT N 6 5s ;' Bzn34� 1
j to N N O OI v N T 2 42 A 47 L w l
75 m
TO T 511 O
to
NO ® O
O
55 75 ;D N > w O
o
55.25 p
55
9.43 T�Rn 0 ��Z - � _ �w 11
_ N 54 I 7a.es 1p
Ln
mo m m �� 1 A grsF
r 1y�,4- �y ' � 1177 - 7s 4 �` ss75 �A� RD
71 Ol m cO 'I.i ��
O TOn 0 m� 133.49 ONom ro � Lot
N�
oN
.0 Om Pb ��SHAR " w subj�ctL
N MBA ti °� & 72
m
N 140 . p 1
z 65 �A ANIT8(0 11 O N
1
SAN I 1 N 0 222
s.
'�
of pCO
' 1 0UpOWI I z T O C
rl OIQ N10 fJ 0
1 O II °1 NI� r m
I w a 72_ CO rn
1 v � 1:
�
� zg7
o O I 23a $
11 1 1� 1 6 72 ° 69 _ p,VE
II 1
72
MB 66 Bi °10 E .EXHIBIT 4
I I 1 I N
I ` 65 9251
SCALE
IC 1 = 100' 15
OFFICE OF ASSESSOR
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PG
°NORMAN
LtTA 5
51 F� — zzs r o
�n TR NO e1
eu of
m 20.030!•'
Q/zn
38
1�- -- - - - - -- —i
O
16,600!•'
1- 178.90 • ae 90
AV E
q
65.)05
65.69
5640
�'
4889
Q
— 40 n.>ac.•.
_l,.11
d
a•
�
U7
a 60
J
20
29610! °'
23
O 20
N� a
P
N I—
22 18.59
m 1 m
2a,�
QN
�
30
31
33
O -
32 3 (O
37 d 13.11 00
.705 •r 65.705 71.40 1l3
Z
PG
9
o
h O
n
v
65.70
27
0` °
!9 N c
Q
— 40 n.>ac.•.
d
a•
M
O 24
J
20
29610! °'
23
O 20
l0,clot••
aa0_•
W
22 18.59
:I 39
37x2:
If)e.a)a'•'
m
''
�9,
u 18 a
1,640.••
65
PO/
�. - - - -- —
?10.79
N b
V Yf
m
EO
m 19
r
\
N
- m 9
b`
35
O
Ij4�vpAAO.
LEMON -
9O'•
m
¢x.13 4r.v
9
RD
Project Site 39.11
.;0
4�3
Plor
— J6.0
41
ti"�: \ Por 15
'°
2 m N
a6
SNPRO�y.�
2j5031117a5
^` 14 Iz.19jn n
' u, 12.21x'•'
'
O
9.440!°
_
Z
8 `l7
h M 2 13
'O
N
9s 49,99
13
m m
1 PK
1 14
EXHIBIT 5
PG
11
m
9.30 N
m
23
h
— 40 n.>ac.•.
d
a•
22
O 24
20
21
23
�lo,lai
e:
12 m
m
m 21
22 18.59
e4 e•
�°5
37x2:
Ia 9YO!•
F-loazot••
1,640.••
65
66.41
?10.79
75
$6.42m
I
I
65.11
65.7/
13
VO
34
35
O
1
m
LEMON -
15,3act•,
m
1
o
z 199.47
AVE �99ao�a _
NI
.;0
4�3
Plor
m
N
41
ti"�: \ Por 15
•` 1
co
2 m N
J m
^` 14 Iz.19jn n
r'
'
9.440!°
8 `l7
h M 2 13
d
MB
521-
13
�.• �-- 115.50 83.48
65.71
- 65.72
65 I
66.41
s �
eLEMON� .
AVE
e
1 PK
1 14
EXHIBIT 5
PG
11
4. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 2003 -024
1725 S. Baldwin Ave.
David Lackyard
Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one.
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
David Lackyard, 1501 Sequoia Dr., Beaumont, said that the proposed lot split complies with code.
He noted that there are some lots in the City that are smaller than 7,500 sq. ft. and he could not
understand the reason for the denial recommendation. Both lots meet or exceed minimum lot
requirements. The 85' lot width is not specified in the R -1 zoning regulations. This lot is not
substandard based on the R -1 regulations. This would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
He realized that the property was not deep enough but it meets all code requirements.
Sid Sybenga, 1735 S. Baldwin, Pastor of the church next to the subject lot, said that the church
owns the lots to the south of the proposed lot split. He thought they would construct large homes
on these lots. They would lose their privacy and the view of the mountains. The lot is currently
vacant and has been so for a few years. He thought they would lose their visibility because the
houses would be constructed very close to Baldwin and that would obstruct view.
David Ma, 1741 S. Baldwin, Pastor for the past 7 years. The church anticipates building on this
site within a couple of years. Any construction at this site would infringe on their visibility. Their
church is in transition now.
Leo Wu, 9712 Ardendale, said that he is a member of this church as well as an architect who has
worked in the City. This project will have a negative impact on the community. It is substandard
and will set a precedent. The parcels are much too small for development. The homes would have
to be pushed in one direction just to meet the setbacks. The neighbors will lose their privacy and it
will be a nuisance to the neighbors. He realized that the owners have a right to develop their
property but this is not the right approach. He hoped that the City would ask the developer to try
another alternative. This property is unique and this is a valuable location. If developed as
proposed, it will have a crowded affect and will not fit in with the City's image.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Wu felt that they should not be allowed to
subdivide and the lot should be developed with one single - family house.
Fung Chan, 727 W. Lemon, felt this subdivision would result in the construction of two homes
which would be inappropriate for the lots. Baldwin Ave. is busy. There is not enough room on
this lot for two homes.
David Ma, 1741 S. Baldwin, said he is the deacon of the church. He objected to the proposed lot
split. The church is in transition and is developing rapidly. They are trying to create a Chinese
and English language school. They plan on developing their lots.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Ma indicated that they were not informed of
the development of the property to the west and they would have also objected to that.
In rebuttal, Mr. Lackyard explained that the property owners approached the church in an attempt
to purchase the property to the south but the church wanted to sell that piece of property for twice
the appraised value. Again, he indicated that he could not see any problems with subdividing this
lot. He wondered if the church should be looking at relocating, if the size of their congregation is
growing.
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Olson to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
Commissioner Olson inquired about the setbacks for the new homes and Ms. Butler explained the
setback requirements.
Ms. Butler indicated that there are no special setbacks on Baldwin. She corrected Mr. Lackyard's
comment the fact that the width on a corner lot was only 75' -0 ". Ms. Butler cited code Section
9113.4 which discusses the lot width requirement of 85' -0" for a reverse corner lot.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert indicated that the property to the
south is zoned R -1.
Ms. Butler indicated that the property to the west which is under construction required minor lot
width modifications.
Commissioner Lucas remarked that he looked at the aerial and noticed that there are several lots
that are substandard. If this was approved, it would not be completely out of keeping with the
existing lot sizes in the area. Sharon Rd. is a single -sided cul -de -sac which is less desirable than a
two -sided one. He felt that the church's preferences are unreasonable. Of course, they would
prefer to have a vacant lot than one that is developed because they will lose their privacy. The
circumstances in this case are unique and it calls for creative activity to allow the development.
Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Lucas regarding the neighbor's feelings. The lot
has been vacant for years. He discussed the size of the homes and how close they would be to the
property lines due to the required setbacks and the lot size. He was concerned about the size of
parcel 2 because it is so small. Based on his calculation, they could only construct a 2,500 sq. ft.
home on parcel 2 which is a small house based on today's standards and what is being constructed.
If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve this, he recommended reducing parcel 1 and
adding that portion to parcel 2 to provide a little bit larger parcel.
Commissioner Wen agreed with Commissioner Olson. He also liked the shifting of the property
line to increase the size of parcel 2.
Ms. Butler replied that the property line could be shifted, however, one major concern is that this
could set a precedent because there are other similar sized comer lots along Baldwin that could be
subdivided in a similar manner. This is not a unique situation. The lot could be developed without
being subdivided.
Commissioner Lucas wondered if they should ask the applicant to redesign the project based upon
comments by the Planning Commission. He thought the applicant should withdraw this and
redesign to something that would be more acceptable.
Commissioner Olson replied that the lot is too small to develop. He could not see any advantages
of redesigning the parcel map. If this is approved, there will be two homes adjacent to the church
but if it is denied they would probably have one very large home as their neighbor. He had a hard
time with supporting this request due to the setback requirements and substandard lot depth of
parcel.
Commissioner Lucas made a motion to approve the application but the motion died due to lack of
a second.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, no seconded by Commissioner Wen to deny TPM
2003 -024 based on findings Dl -D9.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
Commissioners Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES:
Commissioner Lucas
Abstain:
Commissioner Hsu
Chairman Baderian noted that there is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by
December 19a'.
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
° + +onsrmo"
(Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: Tentative Parcel Map 2003 -024 — A Tentative
Parcel Map for a two lot from one lot subdivision The proposed project is within
the R-1 zones and the Single Family Residential land use designation of the
General Plan.
2. Location: 1725 S. Baldwin Avenue Arcadia CA 91007
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
X B. Other (Private)
(1) Name: David G Lackvard
(2) Address: 1964E Cooley Avenue Unit D San Bernardino,
CA 92408
Staff Determination:
The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require
further environmental assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
C. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. x The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15315
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the
T Lead Agency: Name of Lead Agency
Date: November 7, 2003 Joe Lambert
Staff
7/02
APPEAL OF TPM 03 -024
SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS
1725 S.,BALDWIN AVENUE
(ONE LARGE MAP UNSCANNED
IN FOLDER)
OWNER /DEVELOPER: JOHN M. LARAWAY
660 CENTER CREST DRIVE
REDLANDS, CA. 92373
(909) 913 -5881
ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: HENRY C. POOUIZ, L.S. 6048
HP ENGINEERING, INC
1465 CRESTWEW ROAu
REDLANDS, CA. 92374
(909) 799 -6797
A.P.N. 5383- 030 -016
DATE PREPARED:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
R -1
R -1
VACANT
PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL GROSS AREA: 16,650 S.F.
TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS: 2 PARCELS
J
CALLlTA ST.
W
e
SHARON RD.
SITE
z
LEMON AVE.
q
J
m
VAL ST.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
OWNER /DEVELOPER: JOHN M. LARAWAY
660 CENTER CREST DRIVE
REDLANDS, CA. 92373
(909) 913 -5881
ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: HENRY C. POOUIZ, L.S. 6048
HP ENGINEERING, INC
1465 CRESTWEW ROAu
REDLANDS, CA. 92374
(909) 799 -6797
A.P.N. 5383- 030 -016
DATE PREPARED:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
R -1
R -1
VACANT
PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL GROSS AREA: 16,650 S.F.
TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS: 2 PARCELS
�I
v
0
A.P.N.
DATE PREPARED:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
(909) 799 -6797-
5383- 030 -016
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
R -1
R -1
VACANT
PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL GROSS AREA: 16,650 S.F.
TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS: 2 PARCELS
LEGEND:
TC = TOP OF CURB ELEVATION
FL = FLOWLINE ELEVATION
SMH = SEWER MANHOLE
FG = FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
HP = HIGH POINT ELEVATION
B.S.L. = BUILDING SETBACK LINE
0.
* � ap. yao /05
7
LEGAI
THE A
IN TM
IN BO
EKCEF
DEED
CIF' ENGINEERING, IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYI:
1465 CRESTVIEW ROAD, REDLANDS, CA. 92
Tel. (909) 799 -6797
Fax (909) 799 —
MWAY
? CREST DRIVE
CA. 92373
-5881
:104UIZ, L.S 6048
:RING INC
(VIEW ROAL
CA. 92374
-6797
-016
23, 2003
]ILY RESIDENTIAL
ELS
TENTATIVE P
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTI(
TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, f
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS, STATE G
L
EX. BLOCK WALL
PARC_ 2
e y AREA -7,500 S.F.
/ 80, ------- `,'
BUILDING ,L' �ENVELOPE
N
PAD -18.5 N N
N
1% SWALE
LEGAL DESCIRPTION:
THE NORTH 75 FEET OF THE EAST 234 OF LOT 8 IN BLOCK "G" OF SANTA ANITA LAND COM
IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER Mf
IN BOOK 8, PAGE 137 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNT
EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 12 FEET OF SAID LAND AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF AF
DEED RECORDED MARCH 12, 1968, AS INSTRUMENT NO, 321,
G, INC.
SURVEYING BENCH MARK:
CITY OF ARCADIA BENCH MARK NO. 136, ELEVATION = 456.04
DS, CA. 92374 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND CALLITA
STREET, 5 FEET SOUTH.
ax (909) 799 -1508
kTIVE PARCEL MAP NCB. 6053;
/1SION OF A PORTION OF LOT 8, IN BLOCK "G" OF SANTA ANITA LAND COMPM
CITY OF ARCADIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 8, PAGE 137 IN THE
ANGELS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHARON STREET_
N 80' 30' 50" E
_ -- -- - - - - -_ EX. SEWER LINE
0.8- Oq m M
EXIST. CURB AND GUTTER
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
:EX BLOCK WALL -
100' A 122'
kRC� 2 N -_- — — YX SWALE
I- 7,500 S.F. PARCEL 1
25 S.L. S��P AREA =9,150 S.F.
G /ENVELOPE
=65,5 y N N BUILDING ENVELOPE NIA
J % 10' 10' `� PAD -54.0 I N
so' � 67'
N ! I% SWALE
fX SWALE
I
I
SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY TRACT,
' CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
CORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
EYED TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA BY
7N = 456.04
ILUTA
I
�!
EX. BLOCK
WALL
yq
122'
'
I
I
1 L
51 6
u
N M SWALE -
I
�
G
$ `
y
PARCEL 1
j�P
AREA =9,150 S, F.
- -
87 �'
W
EXIST.
PAL"EE
N
" N
BUILDING ENVELOPE
NIh
u
10'
10'
PAD-54.0
�
O
H
W
87'
N
IX SWALE
I
EXIST.
PALM TREE
a
122'
I
42
SANTA ANITA LAND COMPANY TRACT,
' CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
CORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
EYED TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA BY
7N = 456.04
ILUTA
I
)8 60537
NITA LAND COMPANY
PAGE 137 IN THE
I
xU
W
W
D
Z
Z
0 ;
J
Q
m
SCALE. 1 ' =20'
4
WAS
PALM
o'
5y126F� c y
/
I
W W
� I �
�
I
� N
W i Q
� J z
FPO
m
%1(Alo
LWW
foc,
J'ig —
` r
STAFF REPORT
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 2, 2004
TO: MAYOR SEGAL AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JUNE D. ALFORD, CITY CLERKf `t
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — 2003 -2004 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
On February 17, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6414 declaring its intention to
provide for the abatement of noxious weeds, rubbish and refuse from various private properties
within the City. Resolution No. 6414 also set this date, March 2, 2004, as the time and place to
hear objections from the owners of such properties to the proposed removal of such flammable
and otherwise noxious material.
As required by the Government Code, the County Agricultural Commissioner has mailed the
appropriate notice to all affected property owners. The attached list identifies the properties
requiring weed abatement by parcel number and street address, or the general location if a street
number has not been assigned.
A representative of the City Fire Department will be present on March 2nd to answer questions,
if any.
RECOMMENDATION:
FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL MOVE TO DIRECT THE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
COMMISSIONER TO ABATE THE NUISANCE BY HAVING THE WEEDS, RUBBISH
AND REFUSE REMOVED FROM THOSE PROPERTIES SETFORTH ON THE 2003 -2004
WEED ABATEMENT LIST.
LASER IMAGED
5(
LW13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DECLARATION LIST PAGE 541 DATE 12 15 03
IN SEQUENCE BY WEED -KEY, THEN PARCEL UNIMPROVED
ZONE CODE STREET ADDRESS PARCEL N0. KEY
035
1725 S. BALDWIN - JOHN M LARAWAY
5383 030 016
5
7
035
SANTA ANITA CYN RD. -WILLIAM MARTIN
5765 002 012
6
7
035
SANTA ANITA CYN RD. - WILLIAM MARTIN
5765 002 013
5
7
035
HIGHLAND VISTA DR. - BROWN TRUST
5765 011 011
8
7
035
HIGHLAND OAKS DR. - VIDA TRUST
5765 030 010
9
7
035
MONTEREY PINES DR. - J JASKA & B KILBOURNE
5771 032 002
7
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - DAVID CHAO
5771 032 004
5
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - BLUTH TRUST & C BLUTH
5771 032 007
2
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - ZHENG BAO H & MEI L
5771 032 008
1
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - HERMAN CHUNG AND VICKY M
5771 032 010
7
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - FUKUDA MASAHIRO MINFANG
5771 032 011
6
7
035
WHISPERING PINES DR. - BLUTH TRUST
5771 032 013
4
7
035
380 TORREY PINES DR. - YAWAY ENTERPRISES & C BLUTH
5771 033 007
0
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - BLUTH TRUST
5771 033 015
0
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - BLUTH TRUST
5771 033 016
9
7
035
TORREY PINES DR. - BLUTH TRUST
5771 033 017
8
7
035
SANTA CLARA ST. - DAHLGREN TRUST
5775 025 025
0
7
035
1045 W. HUNTINGTON DR. - PBR REALTY LLC
5777 036 002
2
7
035
201 E. DUARTE RD. - CHENG MAN C
5779 018 040
2
7
035
LEROY AVENUE - KOLOVOS TRUST
5784 020 014
3
7
035
NORMAN AVE. - L E NASSANEY & J SUMMERS
5788 014 013
3
7
035
CLARK ST. - LIVINGSTON GRAHAM INC
8532 016 001
5
7
035
CLARK ST. - LIVINGSTON GRAHAM INC
8532 016 003
3
7
035
CLARK ST. - LIVINGSTON GRAHAM INC
8532 016 004
2
7
035
11826 THE WYE ST. - J HATFIELD
8532 016 007
9
7
035
CLARK STREET- LIVINGSTON GRAHAM INC
8532 016 022
0
7
035
CLARK ST. - HOPE SHINE INVESTMENTS GRP LLC
8532 016 023
9
7
035
GOLDRING RD. - CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO
8532 017 009
5
7
035
GOLDRING RD. - PAUL GARRETT TRUST
8532 017 018
4
7
035
GOLDRING RD. - PAUL GARRETT TRUST
8532 017 057
6
7
035
GOLDRING RD. - SAMUEL KARDASHIAN
8532 018 005
7
7
035
GOLDRING RD. - SAMUEL KARDASHIAN
8532 018 011
9
7
035
OL G RD ? !^ Wi I
8532018021
7
7
4DF1N
APPENDIX "A"
NOTICE TO DESTROY WEEDS,
REMOVE BRUSH, RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT
Notice is hereby given that on February 17, 2004, the City Council of the City of Arcadia
passed or will pass a resolution declaring noxious or dangerous weeds, brush, tumbleweeds,
sagebrush, chaparral, rubbish, refuse, and dirt were growing or occurring upon or in front of said
property of certain streets in said city or unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles, and more
particularly described in the resolution, and that they constitute a fire hazard or public nuisance
which must be abated by the removal of said weeds, brush, tumbleweeds, sagebrush, chaparral,
rubbish, refuse and dirt, otherwise they may be removed and the nuisance abated by County
authorities and the cost of removal assessed upon the land from or in front of which the weeds,
brush, tumbleweeds, sagebrush, chaparral, rubbish, refuse and dirt are removed, and such cost will
constitute a special assessment against such lots or lands. In addition, the Board of Supervisors
authorized and directed the Agricultural Commissioner to recover its costs of details. All property
owners having any objections to the proposed removal of weeds, brush, rubbish, refuse and dirt, and
the recovery of inspection costs, are hereby notified that they may attend a hearing of the City
Council of said city to be held at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, in the Council
Chambers on March 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. where their objections will be heard and given due
consideration. If the property owner does not want to present objections to the proposed removal
of the weeds, brush, tumbleweeds, sagebrush, chaparral, rubbish, refuse and dirt, or the recovery of
inspection costs, the owner need not appear at the above mentioned hearings.
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
Property owners are advised that regrowth after first removal should not be permitted
otherwise County crews may clear regrowth.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
RAYMOND B. SMITH, BUREAU CHIEF,
AGRICULTURAL
COMMISSIONER /WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, being first duly sworn says: That on or before
the 2nd day of February, 2004, as required by the Government Code of the State of California, he
notified by United States -Mail the owners of each of the properties described in the attached list a
notice or notices to destroy noxious or dangerous weeds, of which the annexed is a true copy, and
setting the 2nd day of March, 2004, as the date upon which owners of said property could attend a
meeting of the Council of the City of Arcadia, when their objections will be heard and given due
consideration.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
This day of 2004
City Clerk
s6F Loi Cato R. Fiksdal
Agricultural Commissioner/
Director of Weights and Measures
November 4, 2003
The Honorable City Council
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
ATTENTION: CITY CLERK
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department of
Agricultural Commissioner
and Weights and Measures
11300 Lower Azusa Road
Arcadia, California 91006 -5871
hflp.-11aewn;.co.1a.ca.us
R,, CEIVED
DEC 3 2003
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY CLERK Robert G. Atkins
Chief Deputy
~Listed below are the proposed dates for the adoption of our annual Declaration List
Resolution and for the Protest Hearing. The Adoption Hearing and mailing dates will appear
on the Declaration Cards mailed to the property owners. -
Resolution and Declaration List Delivery Date: January 20, 2004
Resolution Adoption Date: February 17, 2004
Protest Hearing Date: March 2,2004
If you find these dates to be agreeable with your council and calendar, please sign and fax
(626) 350 -7077 a copy of the letter as a confirmation no later than NOVEMBER 17, 2003.
The Declaration Cards will be printed on or before DECEMBER 11 and your meeting dates
cannot be changed after that date. Any consideration in placing our item early on your
agenda would be appreciated.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (626)
575 -5487.
Very truly yours,
RAY SMITH
Bureau. Chief
Weed Hazard & Pest Management Bureau
CORINA MONSIVAIZ
Staff Assistant III
Weed Hazard & Pest Management Bureau
L,/ Signed Con fir tion
Date
Fax No: 6261350 -7077
RS:CM:cm Please print current Mayor's name below:
conf2004.frm
MAYOR JOHN WUO
Please print City Clerk's name below:
CLERK JUNE D. ALFORD
Protecting Consumers and the Environment since 1881
March 2, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Vp
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator �f
Prepared By: Joseph Lambert, Associate Planner J_
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6416: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN
APPLICATION FEE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT
SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 2188 amending various sections of Article IX (Division and Use of Land)
of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to lot line adjustments, was adopted by the City
Council on February 17, 2004. The Development Services Department is proposing a
fee of $469.00 for the processing of lot line adjustments and recommends adoption of
Resolution No. 6416, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California
establishing an application fee for lot line adjustments (as this term is defined in Section
9132.2) per City Council Ordinance 2188.
DISCUSSION
The new lot line adjustment regulations include Section 9132.2, which states that the
applicant shall pay a processing fee established by resolution of the City Council. The
Development Services Department is recommending a processing fee of $469, as
shown in the attached Cost Detail Worksheet.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Per Section 15273(1) of the CEQA guidelines, rates, tolls, fares and charges are
exempt from CEQA if said fee is to cover the costs of operating expenses.
LASER IMAGED
Resolution No. 6416
March 2, 2004
Page 1
6d
3p�
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed fee will cover the costs for processing lot line adjustment applications.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6416, a Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing an application fee for lot line
adjustments.
Attachments: Resolution No. 6416
Cost Detail Worksheet
Approved by: e ,-
William R. Kelly, Cit Manager
�fi, Resolution No. 6416
rUri *t: 7g3 :,r March 2, 2004
Page 2
Japuce ueiuw ror us® wumy uiem unryt
ARCADIA TRIBUNE
RECEIVED
affiliated with
SGV Newspaper Group MAR 1 2004
1210 N. Azusa Canyon;Road CRY OFARCADIA
West Covina, CA 91790 CITYCLERK
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(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; 1 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:
2/22/04
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California
this 22 day of FEBRUARY 20 QA_
T
r/ signature
6
i
RESOLUTION NO. 6416
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN APPLICATION FEE FOR LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENTS
WHEREAS, Section 9132.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code authorizes the City
Council, by resolution, to establish fees for processing lot line adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the City is permitted to establish fees based on reasonable costs
incurred by the City in processing applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the fee to process an application for a lot line adjustment
pursuant to Section 9132.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code shall be $469.00 based upon
the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the City to process such applications, as
set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this Resolution.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 2 "d day of March, 2004.
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4
& �0• 1�e
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
/s/ MICKEY SEGAL
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
LASER IMAGED
ql�a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No. 6416 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 2nd day of March, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY WORKSHEET
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003
SERVICE
-
REFERENCE NO.
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
DS-470
PRIMARY DEPARTMENT
UNIT OF SERVICE
SERVICE RECIPIENT
DEV.SVCS- ENGINEERING
APPLICATION
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
To review proposed changes to the property boundary between properties and to issue a certificate of
compliance.
CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE
None
REVENUE AND COST
COMPARISON
UNIT REVENUE:
$0.00
TOTAL REVENUE:
$0
UNIT COST:
$469.00
TOTAL COST:
$469
UNIT PROFIT (SUBSIDY):
$(469.00)
TOTAL PROFIT (SUBSIDY):
$(469)
TOTAL UNITS:
1
PCT. COST RECOVERY:
0.00%
SUGGESTED FEE FOR COST RECOVERY OF: 100%
$469
February 13, 2004
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
COST DETAIL WORKSHEET
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003
SERVICE- -
REFERENCE NO.'
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
DS -470
NOTE
TOTAL UNITS
Unit Costs are an Average of Total Units
1
DEPARTMENT POSITION TYPE
UNITTIME
UNIT COST ANN. UNITS
TOTAL COST
D.S. ADMIN. SR. ADMIN. ASSISTANT
0.25
$23.63
1
$24
D.S. PLANNING PROJECT PLANNER
4.00
$244.12
1
$244
D.S. PLANNING COMM. DEV. ADMINISTRATOR
0.50
$56.91
1
$57
D.S. ENGINEERING ASSOC. CIVIL ENGINEER
1.50
$131.94
1
$132
D.S. ENGINEERING CITY ENGINEER
0.10
$12.67
1
$13
TYPE SUBTOTAL
6.35
$469.47
$469
TOTALS
6.35
$669.00
- $469
February 13, 2004
r�
E ffe,,� d-f-
ORDINANCE NO. 2190
+1 -6�
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended by
deleting in their entirety Sections 3221 through and including 3221.23 and
Sections 3222 through and including 3222.9 of Article III, Chapter 2, Part 2,
Divisions 1 and 2.
SECTION 2. Article III, Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 1 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 3221 to read as
follows:
"3221. SPEED LIMITS INCREASED. The City Council may
determine by resolution, from time to time, that on the basis of an engineering and
traffic survey, a speed greater than that permitted by State law would facilitate the
orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon
certain streets. The prima facie speed limit on those streets may be increased by
resolution of the City Council, and shall be effective when appropriate signs giving
notice thereof are erected upon the street. Such prima facie speed limits shall not
thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey."
1 LASER IMAGED
7r
SECTION 3. Article I11, Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 2 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 3222 to read as
follows:
"3222. SPEED LIMITS DECREASED. The City Council may
determine by resolution, from time to time, that on the basis of an engineering and
traffic survey, the speed permitted by State Law outside of business and residence
districts as applicable is more than is reasonable or safe upon certain streets and
should be decreased to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic in a manner which
is reasonable and safe. The prima facie speed limit on those streets may be
decreased by resolution of the City Council, and shall be effective when
appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street."
SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of Arcadia shall certify to the
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in
the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This
Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty -first (315`) day after its adoption.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
2
Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of March , 2004.
ATTEST:
Wj it, ilk
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
3
/s/ MICKEY SEGAL
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 2190 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 2nd day of March, 2004 and that said Ordinance was
adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmember Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
M
c�
ry ° °Rp °RwT$9 ° STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Development Services Director /Assistant City Manager
Dave Hinig, Police Chief
Philip A. Wray, City Engineer �,)
Ed Cline, City Traffic Engineer
Prepared by: Ramiro S. Gonzalez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6417 Setting Forth Prima Facie Speed Limits
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The California Vehicle Code requires cities to conduct Engineering and Traffic Surveys
every five years to set prima facie speed limits on city streets. A recent Engineering
and Traffic Survey was conducted in Arcadia for 34 arterial and collector roadway
segments. The results of the survey indicate no changes to the speed limits on all 34
roadway segments. Staff is recommending adoption of Resolution No. 6417 setting
prima facie speed limits in the City of Arcadia consistent with existing speed limits.
BACKGROUND
The California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) defines a speed trap as a section of
highway with a prima facie speed.limit not justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey
conducted within the last five years and where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices used to measure the speed of moving objects. Section 40802
declares the evidence obtained from the use of a speed trap as inadmissible in court
when prosecuting under the Code.
The current Engineering and Traffic Survey, which was adopted by the City of Arcadia
in January 1999, expired on February 19, 2004. This proposed Speed Zoning Survey
establishes recommended speed limits on portions of 34 arterial and collector streets
previously studied and is required for continued radar enforcement.
The Engineering and Traffic Survey referred to above is defined in Section 627 of the
Vehicle Code as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods
LASERIMAGED
Staff Report -
Adopt Resolution No. 6417
March 2, 2004
Page 2
determined by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for use by State and local
authorities. The surrey must include:
1. Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
2. -Accident records.
3. Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
Caltrans Method For Engineering And Traffic Survey
The City of Arcadia uses the Caltrans method for determining speed limits. The
Caltrans method bases speed zoning on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is
one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists and that by
measuring speeds, one will be able to select a limit that is both reasonable and
effective. The Caltrans method states, in effect, that speed limits should be normally
established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th- percentile speed.
The 85th- percentile is defined as that speed at or below at which 85 percent of the traffic
is moving. The 85th - percentile speed is often referred to as critical speed. Speed limits
higher than the 85th- percentile are not generally considered reasonable and safe, and
limits below the 85th- percentile do not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. Speed
limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive highways
as,to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgment of
one or a few individuals.
The basic speed law states that no person shall drive at a speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent.: Most drivers comply with this law, and disregard regulations,
which they.consider unreasonable. It is only the top fringe of drivers that are inclined to
be reckless and unreliable, or who have faulty judgment, and must be controlled by
enforcement. Speed limits set at or slightly below the 85th - percentile speed provide law
enforcement officers with a means of controlling drivers who will not conform to what the
majority considers reasonable and prudent.
As a check of validity for the proposed speed limit, an analysis is made of the two -year
accident record for the roadways under consideration. If this analysis reveals an
accident rate greater than what would be statistically expected from the traffic volume
and road type, the speed limit should be reduced.
Regarding the third element of the study, roadway conditions and factors such as
design speed, safe stopping sight' distance, super - elevation, shoulder conditions, profile
conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics,
pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks, etc. must be considered.
G 3 3 A �PS fi?v� I
Staff Report
Adopt Resolution No. 6417
March 2, 2004
Page 3
DISCUSSION
The Arcadia Police Department conducted radar speed measurements for the 34
previously studied roadway segments. The 34 segments are listed in attachment A and
are considered the study area for this exercise. The Development Services
Department, Engineering Division, reviewed the results of the speed measurements, the
accident history and field checked the roadways for unusual conditions. The data
obtained formed the basis of the Engineering and Traffic Survey and is discussed
below.
Prevailing Speeds
All sampled speed measurements were conducted during off -peak hours and contained
100 -150 vehicles per locations. The speeds shown on Attachment A (Speed Limit
Determination) are considered the critical (85th- Percentile) speeds according to widely
accepted engineering standards.
Accident History
In order to evaluate, the severity of the accident history on Arcadia's roadway segments,
two comparisons were made:
1. A ratio of injury accidents to total accidents on the study area roadway segments
was determined for the period of October 2000 through September 2002. The
information was obtained from the California. State Wide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) report for Arcadia. The ratio was 0.49.
2. A second comparison was made between the study area accident rate per
million vehicle miles (A/MVM) and the injury accident rate per million vehicle
miles (IA/MVM) with similar statistics developed by the Los Angeles County
Road Department Study of 1982 -83.
Stud
A/MVM
I IA/MVM
I Miles Surve ed
Los Angeles County
1.55
10.72
181 miles
Arcadia
11.32
10.49
14 2 miles
Comparing the two studies, the total accident and injury accident rates are
somewhat less in the City study. Using the more conservative rates, any street
having an accident rate, greater than 1.55 and /or an injury accident rate greater
than 0.72 must be considered as having an accident history of greater than
average severity.
Staff Report
Adopt Resolution No. 6417
March 2, 2004
Page 4
The critical speed limit on a given roadway could be reduced by five miles per hour as
shown on Attachment A if accident rates for that specific roadway segment are equal to
or exceed at least two of the following criteria:
1. Ratio of injury accidents to total accidents exceeding 0.49.
2. Accident rate per million vehicle miles per year exceeding ,1.55.
3. Injury accident rate per million vehicle miles per year exceeding 0.72.
Miscellaneous Roadway Conditions'
Two additional factors were also considered in establishing a justification of the
proposed speed limits:
• Roadway characteristics not readily apparent to the driver.
• Consistency with posted speed limits in adjacent jurisdictions.
ANALYSIS
The results of the radar speed measurements determined that 27- roadway segments
have critical speeds at the existing speed limits. Seven segments have critical speeds
five miles per hour above the existing speed limits. Based on the above criteria, the
seven segments are recommended for a reduction of the critical speed by five miles per
hour, keeping them at the existing speed limits. The end result of the study is that all
34- roadway locations are recommended for no change to the existing speed limits.
Approval of the attached resolution will adopt the current speed limits as legally
enforceable per the Vehicle Code for the next five years.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Resolution 6417, a resolution of the City Council of
the City of Arcadia, setting forth prima facie speed limits.
APPROVED BY:�sz
William R. Kelly, CitV Manager
Attachments:
Attachment A: Speed Limit Determinations and Justifications
Attachment B: Speed Limit Map (Proposed)
Attachment C: Resolution No. 6417
DP:DH:PAW:EC:RSGpa
Speed Limit Determination - 2004 2/23/2004
Street
Limits
Study
Speed
Limit
Recommend
for further
Reduction
Recommended
Speed Limit
Existing
Posted
Speed
+ / -
or
NoChange
1
Baldwin Avenue
Orange Grove to Foothill
40
40
40
NC
2
Baldwin Avenue
Foothill to Huntington
40
40
40
NC
3
Baldwin Avenue
Huntington to Camino Real
35
✓
30
30
NC
4
Baldwin Avenue
Camino Real to Live Oak
40
40
40
NC
5
Camino Real Avenue
W. City Limit to E. City Limit
35
35
35
NC
6
Campus Drive
Holly to Santa Anita
35
35
35
NC
7
Colorado Street
Michillinda to Colorado BI
45
45
45
NC
8
Colorado Place
Colorado BI to Huntington
45
©
40
40
NC
9
Colorado Boulevard
Colorado to Fifth
35
35
35
NC
10
Duarte Road
W. City Limit to E. City Limit
35
35
35
NC
11
El Monte Avenue
Duarte to Live Oak
40
40
40
NC
12
First Avenue
Foothill to Huntington
40 .
®
35
35
NC
3
First Avenue
Diamond to Las Flores
35
35
35
NC
4
Foothill Boulevard
W. City Limit to Santa Anita
45
45
45
NC
5
Foothill Boulevard .
Santa Anita to Fifth
35, '
35
35
NC
6
Golden West Avenue
S City Limit to Huntington Dr
30
30
30
NC
7
Holly Avenue
Huntington Drive to Live Oak
35
35
35
NC
8
Huntington Drive
Colorado PI to Fifth
40
❑D
35
35
NC
9
Huntington Drive
Michillinda to Colorado Pl.
45
45
45
NC
10
Las Tunas Drive
Baldwin to Live Oak
40
40
40
NC
!1
Live Oak Avenue
W. City Limit to E. City Limit
40
40
40
NC
12
Longden Avenue
W. City Limit to E. City Limit
35
35
35
NC
!3
Lower Azusa Road
City Limit to City Limit
45
45
45
NC
.4
Mayflower Avenue
City Limit to City Limit
40
®
35
35
NC
15
Orange Grove Avenue
W. City Limit to Santa Anita
40
®
35
35
NC
!6
Peck Road
N. City Limit to S. City Limit
40
40
40
NC
7
Santa Anita Avenue
N. City Limit to Huntington
35
35
35
NC
!8
Santa Anita Avenue
Huntington to Live Oak
40
40
40
NC
!9
Second Avenue
Foothill to Duarte
35
35
35
NC
t0
Second Avenue
Duarte to S. City Limit
35
35
35
NC
11
Sierra Madre Boulevard
W City Limit to Santa Anita
30
30
30
NC
*
Sixth Avenue
N. City Limit to Live Oak
35
35
35
NC
*
Sunset Boulevard
W. City Limit to S.City Limit
40
40
40
NC
*
Tenth Avenue IN.
City Limit to S. City Limit
40
✓
35
35
NC
Based on critical speed
✓ Recommended for reduction due to Accident & Injury/Accident ratios
© Recommended for reduction or increase due to to roadway characteristics
not readily apparent to the driver & abutting development.
See page 2 for individual justifications.
Page 1 of 2 Attachment A
a)
r
C
4)
L
4>
IL
.0
Ln
CO
PR
c
E
U
cc
Q
N
O
N
0
m
M
4)
CD
�+
°
3
N
_O
=..y
Q
0
C
G
N
d
4)
CD
d
Q.
Q
N
4)
E
d
0
o
J
u
•,
4)
4)
40i
CL
w
O
w
U
N
N
C
O.
ci
r
N
(J
7
N
PR
c
E
U
cc
Q
N
O
N
0
m
M
U
N
N
�
0
o
C
y
L
p
U
N
(J
N
N
Y
d
3
U
>
N
U.0
.....
01
U
.
'
CO
N
N°
L
N
p
C
ca
C
U
N
0'a
O
—CD
C
:Lu
W
B
V
C
p
-0
>
C
N
N
N
p
N
'
h
w.
0
°
.0
W
>
V
°
y
N
°
n
-3mma
(D
_
m
c
O
C
O
U,L
-oO�
dU
L
(0
W
cl
'N
06
`m
.-
U
o
t
p
E
d
m
3
U
a°L
='EN
XtAUU��
O
L
O
N
'-
N
x
Np
N
N
N
N
d
p
—EEEEE'E2
w
o
0
0
0
o
w
c
N
N
N
N
N
G'
aa>iCD(Da>)
4>>a
V
'O
'O
V
-0
-0
U
07
GEC
CC
a
m
>
7
7
7
>
>
>
o
c
c
E
m
E
7
m
J
0
EU
=ciT
J
o
p?
o
U
0
o
Fn
E
O
m
O
-0
Q
=-0
p
J
C
N
`o
L
12
J
p
o
U
U
n000._
2
Ulu-
00
d
(D
c
�
w
d>
N
a)
C
Q
0
y
>
o
>
0
7
N
Q
a
01
r
o
c
°o
>
d
m
3
(7
y
Q
3
R
Q
c
o
m
L
m
mUiL=2OF
o
o
m
c
M
00
N
00
�t
Lo
V'
04
N
M
PR
c
E
U
cc
Q
N
O
N
0
m
M
city of
„y� A
APopmt�
Arcadia
- -- ----- 1..- 35
'f
w�& �9 45
o$
45
35
P
�fl
i ✓r
CO)
� R
35
351
1
1
I
i
7
RR
M
N
W+ E
Speed Limits
30 MPH
^®
35 MPH
,�V
40 MPH
45 MPH
p Ummit Uri, J 7
a
Development Services Department
S Engineering Division Attachment B
Rwe dby F.SGmwkb FNxury17,XZ4 ` -r J
RESOLUTION NO. 6417
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PRIMA FACIE SPEED
LIMITS OTHER THAN THOSE SET FORTH BY STATE LAW
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Sections 22357
and 22358, Sections 3221 and 3222 of the Arcadia Municipal Code authorize the
City Council, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, to increase or
decrease the prima facie speed limit otherwise allowed by state law on certain
streets in order to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic in a manner
that is reasonable and safe; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has recently conducted an engineering and
traffic survey which together with earlier such engineering and traffic surveys,
indicates that a speed either greater than or less than that otherwise permitted by
state law upon certain streets in the City would facilitate the orderly movement of
vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires and intends to keep in place without
interruption those certain increases and decreases in the prima facie speed limit on
certain streets set forth in Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 3221 through and
including 3221.23 and Sections 3222 through and including 3222.9; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2190 which
permits the City Council, by resolution, to increase or decrease the prima facie
speed limit on certain streets based on an engineering and traffic survey, while at
1 LASER IMAGED
-7?0
the same time removing from the Arcadia Municipal Code those certain increases
or decreases in prima facie speed limits in existence at the time of adoption of
Ordinance No. 2190.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey
conducted by the City, an increase in the speed otherwise permitted by State law
upon the following streets would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular
traffic and would be reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit
shall be as hereinafter set forth on those streets or parts of streets specified
hereinafter in this Section 1:
Baldwin Avenue between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Avenue,
thirty (30) miles per hour.
Baldwin Avenue between Camino Real Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, forty
(40) miles per hour.
Camino Real Avenue between Baldwin Avenue and the easterly city limit of
the City of Arcadia, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
Duarte Road between the easterly and westerly city limits of the City of
Arcadia, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
2
First Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Huntington Drive, thirty -five
(35) miles per hour.
First Avenue between Huntington Drive and Diamond Street, twenty-five
(25) miles per hour.
First Avenue between Diamond Street and Las Flores Avenue, thirty-five
(35) miles per hour.
Foothill Boulevard between Santa Anita Avenue and Fifth Avenue, thirty-
five (35) miles per hour.
Golden West Avenue between Huntington Drive and Naomi Avenue, thirty
(30) miles per hour.
Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Live Oak Avenue, thirty-five
(35) miles per hour.
Las Tunas Drive between Baldwin Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, forty (40)
miles per hour.
Live Oak Avenue between the easterly and westerly city limits of the City of
Arcadia, forty (40) miles per hour.
Longden Avenue between the westerly City Limit and easterly city limits of
the City of Arcadia, thirty-five (35) miles per hour
Mayflower Avenue between the northerly and southerly city limits of the
City of Arcadia, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
3
Orange Grove Avenue between the westerly city limit of the City of Arcadia
and Santa Anita Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
Santa Anita Avenue between the northerly city limit of the City of Arcadia
and Huntington Drive, thirty -five (35) miles per hour.
Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and the southerly city limit
of the City of Arcadia, forty (40) miles per hour.
Second Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Duarte Road, thirty-five
(35) miles per hour.
Second Avenue between Duarte Road and the southerly city limit of the City
of Arcadia, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
Sierra Madre Boulevard between the westerly city limit of the City of
Arcadia and Santa Anita Avenue, thirty (30) miles per hour.
Sixth Avenue between the northerly city limit of the City of Arcadia and
Live Oak Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
Sunset Boulevard between the westerly city limit and the southerly city limit
of the City of Arcadia, forty (40) miles per hour.
Tenth Avenue between the northerly and southerly city limits of the City of
Arcadia, thirty -five (35) miles per hour.
SECTION 2. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey
conducted by the City, the speed permitted by State law upon the following streets
is more than is reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit shall be
0
as hereinafter set forth on those streets or parts of streets specified hereinafter in
this Section 2, and such prima facie speed limits are hereby determined to be
appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and are
reasonable and safe:
Baldwin Avenue between Orange Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard,
forty (40) miles per hour.
Baldwin Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Huntington Drive, forty
(40) miles per hour.
Campus Drive between Holly Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, thirty-five
(35) miles per hour.
Colorado Boulevard between Colorado Street and Fifth Avenue, thirty-five
(35) miles per hour.
El Monte Avenue between Duarte Road and Live Oak Avenue, forty (40)
miles per hour.
Foothill Boulevard between the westerly city limit of the City of Arcadia
and Santa Anita Avenue, forty-five (45) miles per hour.
Huntington Drive between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Place, forty-
five (45) miles per hour.
hour.
Lower Azusa Road from City Limit to City Limit, forty -five (45) miles per
5
Peck Road between the northerly and southerly city limits of the City of
Arcadia, forty (40) miles per hour.
SECTION 3. The increase and decrease in prima facie speed limits set
forth in this Resolution shall be effective upon the date that Ordinance No. 2190
becomes effective, and further when appropriate signs either exist or are erected
upon the applicable street giving notice of the foregoing prima facie speed limits.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
T
day of March , 2004.
/s/ MICKEY SEGAL
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No. 6417 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 2nd day of March, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7
IV JUNE Do AVOW
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
a� 1s
v
REPORT-
Development Department
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
Mayor and City Council
Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Develo ent Services Director
Martha Eros, Transportation Services Officer�)W
Attached for the City Council's review and approval is Resolution No. 6415 authorizing
the City Manager to submit a claim form for Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 4 funds for fiscal year 2003 -2004. The claim form has been prepared by staff
and will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for processing.
The City will receive $361,962 in FY03 -04 to operate Arcadia Transit.
DISCUSSION
The Transportation Development Act was adopted by the California State legislature in
1971 (SB325) and, eams its funds from retail sales tax and gasoline /diesel sales tax.
Local agencies are allocated funds based on area population and transit fare revenue
generated by its local transit service. The funds are administered by means of two
programs, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA).
In Los Angeles County, the MTA serves as the regional planning agent and administers
the funds to each of the participating municipal operators. In total, Arcadia Transit will
receive $361,962 in Transportation Development Act funds in FY03 -04.
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is derived from one -fourth of one percent
(0.0025) of the 8.25% retail sales tax collected statewide for transportation planning and
mass transit. The State Board of Equalization returns the quarter cent to each County
according to the amount of taxes collected in its jurisdiction. In FY03 -04, the City of
Arcadia will receive $342,752 in LTF funds to operate Arcadia Transit. Eligible uses
LASERIMAGED hYOa_1UA_Stuli Re7wn_03-0p I
include public transit, program administration, transportation planning, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, special group transportation service, and rail passenger service.
The State Transit Assistance (STA) fund is a second TDA funding source created in
1980 dedicated to public transit operation and capital expenditures. STA funds are
derived -from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels appropriated to the
State Controller Office to the regional Transportation Planning Agency (the MTA) for
formula allocation. The formula is calculated using 50% population count and 50%
operator revenues for the prior fiscal year. The City will receive $19,210 in STAF
monies in FY03 -04.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Arcadia will receive a total of $361,962 from the MTA in State funds to
operate Arcadia Transit. This amount represents approximately 28% of Arcadia
Transit's FY04 Operating Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6415 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT
THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT- ARTICLE 4 CLAIM FORM TO THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $361,962 TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF
ARCADIA TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004.
Approved: ---'
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachment(s)
1. Resolution No. 6415, TDA - Article 4
2. FY04 Transportation Development Act, LTF- Article 4 Claim Form
3. FY04 State Transit Assistance Fund Claim Form
ic f 2'�: ✓li U\FY04_TDA WTReport O3 -0244
1,7y :n .a-(
Page
RESOLUTION NO. 6415
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF
THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM
FORM TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF
ARCADIA TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 -2004.
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act of 1971 ( "Act ") (Chapter 1400,
Statutes 1971 (SB 325), and amendments thereto) makes certain funds available for public
transportation systems; and
WHEREAS, the Arcadia City Council has adopted a budget for Arcadia Transit for the
2003 -2004 Fiscal Year evidencing the need for financial assistance; and
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCAG ") has been
charged under the Act with the responsibility for the general administration of local
transportation funds through the Act.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council appoints the City Manager or his/her designee to
execute and file a claim with SCAG for local transportation funds in an amount to be
determined by SCAG based on preliminary estimates of funds available, and to take any and all
necessary further actions and execute any and all necessary documents in order to receive such
funds.
LASER IMAGED
3 -e
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of March 2004.
/s/ MICKEY SEGAL
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
110 JUNE
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P. 4NN "
City Attorney of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No. 6415 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 2nd day of March, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
Date: March 2, 2003
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Martha Eros, Transportation Services Office"
Subject: Resolution No. 6418 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Gold Line Phase
II Joint Powers Agreement, replacing the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments with the San Bernardino Associated Governments as an
authorized member of the Governing Board.
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
On July 15, 2003, the Arcadia City Council adopted the Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers
Agreement ( "JPA ") in cooperation with the eleven (11) cities involved with the Gold Line
Phase 11 rail extension project. The current Los Angeles to Pasadena Blue Line
Construction Authority ( "BLCA ") Board of Directors is composed of representatives from
the cities of Los Angeles, South Pasadena, Pasadena, the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( "MTA ") and the regional San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments ( "SGVCOG "). The eleven Phase II cities include Arcadia,
Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona,
Claremont and Pasadena.
Amendment No. 1 will replace the SGVCOG seat with representation from the San
Bernardino Associated Governments ( "SANBAG ") as a voting member on the Phase II
Governing Board.
BACKGROUND
During the past year, the San Bernardino Associated Governments expressed interest
in extending the Gold Line Phase II rail line to the City of Montclair, and has participated
in the Steering Committee meetings held monthly among the Phase II entities. The San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments has voted to resign its seat on the JPA
Governing Board to maintain the proposed 15- member voting board and provide San
LASER IMAGED 3P
Bernardino County with representation. SANBAG will assume the same responsibilities
as each Phase II city, including paying annual membership dues of $32,000.
As set forth in the Gold Line Construction Authority, A Joint Powers Authority, Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement, Section 31. Amendment (p. 12), all Phase II legislative
bodies must unanimously approve any /all amendments to the adopted text or content of
the JPA. Each Phase II city in the rail alignment has agreed to the change in seat and
is adopting the proposed amendment.
The goal and intent of the JPA is to create a partnership between the existing Blue Line
Construction Authority Board and the Phase II cities, and to grant each city active
oversight and participation in the decision making process on matters impacting their
local jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Each Phase II city has adopted the Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
and has actively participated in the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") process for
their jurisdiction. Each Phase II city supports the replacement of the SGVCOG with
SANBAG, thus providing a main transportation artery connecting Los Angeles and San
Bernardino counties.
Each Phase II city adopting the JPA will be a Member of the Gold Line Phase II
Construction Authority ( "Authority ") for the estimated 15 -year life of the project (through
year 2018). The JPA specifies that the Gold Line Construction Authority may be
terminated early only after 60% plus one of total voting membership votes to disband
the Authority (10 of the 15 eligible voting Members). Conditions for early termination of
the JPA include (a.) the inability to secure federal and/or state funds by the fourth year,
December 31, 2007, to complete the construction of the Gold Line Phase II to the City
of Montclair, (b.) failure to unanimously adopt the JPA by the eleven local municipalities
and Phase I entities involved with Gold Line Phase Il; (c.) or, in the event that all
Members determine that an alternate form of governance structure would better support
the Gold Line Phase 11, the JPA will be terminated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Currently, the BLCA and the Phase II cities are completing analysis on the
Environmental Impact Report—as mandated by local, state and federal regulation —to
address issues affecting each local jurisdiction. A community meeting will be held in
each Phase II city to allow the public to review and comment on the EIR and related
issues. The City of Arcadia will schedule its community meeting in June 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT
Each Phase II member (excluding the City of Los Angeles and MTA) will be required to
pay annual membership dues averaging $32,000 during the first four (4) years of the
031 -4,i 2NA1
project for administrative and planning costs; funds will not be used for any legislative
advocacy efforts. SANBAG will assume the same fiscal responsibility as the initial
Phase II cities, paying annual membership dues to the Gold Line Phase II Construction
Authority.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 6418 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Gold Line Phase II Joint
Powers Agreement, replacing the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments with the
San Bernardino Associated Governments as an authorized member of the Governing
Board.
Approved by: if!-k2
William R. Kelly, CTty Manager
Attachment:
1. Resolution No. 6418, Phase II Gold Line JPA Amendment No. 1
2. Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Authority, Amendment One
RESOLUTION NO. 6418
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY 'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, °CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENT ONE TO THE
GOLD LINE PHASE H °CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY JOINT
FOWERS.AGREEMENT, REPLACING THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WITH THE 'SAN BERNARDINO
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AS AN AUTHORIZED MEMBER OF
THE GOVERNING BOARD.
WHEREAS, the Blue Line . Construction Authority CTLCA') was formed in 1998 in
accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 132400, et seq. for the purpose of planning,
designing and constructing the Los Angeles- Pasadena Metro Blue Line light rail project
extending from Union Station in the City of Los Angeles to the City of Claremont; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles- Pasadena Metro Blue Line was renamed the Gold Line by
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in November 2001; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San
Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Pasadena : (collectively known as the "Phase ,H
Cities"), the San,Gabriel Valley Council of Governments ( "SGVCOG ") and the BLCA are
engaged in planning efforts for light rail extension between Pasadena and Claremont ( "Gold Line
Phase Ir ); and
WHEREAS, the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority Joint Powers Agreement
'JPA ') was approved and executed by the Arcadia City Council on July 15, 2003; and ;
WHEREAS, the JPA was adopted by each Phase H City, and the Gold Line Phase Il
Construction Authority ( "Authority") was formed effective September 15, 2003, pursuant to
Section 6503.5 et seq. of the Government Code, to represent the interests of Phase U Cities; and
LASER IMAGED
04
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino Associated Governments ( "SANBAG') submitted a
request to.join the Authority as a voting Member, and has agreed to pay annual dues and assume
all financial and advisory responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the SANBAG has agreed to abide by all rules and regulations stipulated in
the adopted JPA; and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG has voted to forego its membership on the Governing Board
of the Authority in favor of the SANBAG; and
WHEREAS, the existing Governing Board of the Authority has affirmatively voted to
transfer the SGVCOG membership to SANBAG; and
WHEREAS, a unanimous affumafive vote is required by every Phase II legislative body'
to approve any and all amendments to the adopted JPA.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves Amendment One to the °Gold Line
Phase II Construction Authority Joint Powers Agreement, replacing the San .Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments with the San Bernardino Associated Governments as an authorized
Member of the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority Governing Board.
SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager or his/her
designee to take any and all necessary further actions to execute Amendment One on behalf of
the City of Arcadia.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of March 2004.
ATTEST:
FP'j,FJP;vII4A40Ad "if a a *g:ro°
Arcadia City Clerk of the City of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
City Attorney of the City of Arcadia
/s/ MICKEY SEGAL
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA
I, JUNE D. ALFORD,'City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No. 6418 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 2nd day of March, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adoptedby the following vole -to wit:_" -
AYES: Council Member Chang, Kovacic, Marshall, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None _
ABSENT: None
�yc
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
AMENDMENT ONE
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
GOLD LINE PHASE II CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY
This Amendment One to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Gold
Line Phase II Construction Authority ( "Amendment One ") is approved and executed by
the current members of the Gold Line Phase H Construction Authority as set forth in
Exhibit 1 -A, attached hereto, and each of which must approve and execute this
Amendment One in order for Amendment One to be effective. This Amendment One is
also approved and executed by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (the
"SANBAG "), which approval and execution shall allow SANBAG to become a member
of the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority should all of the current members listed
in Exhibit 1 -A so approve this Amendment One.
WITNESSETH:
The parties hereto do agree as follows.
Section 1. Recitals. This Amendment One is made and entered into with
respect to the following facts:
a. The Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority (the "Authority ") was
formed pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code to enable its member
cities and agencies to participate as frilly as is necessary and appropriate in the planning,
funding, design and construction of the Gold Line Phase II light rail project ( "the Gold
Line Phase IP');
b. The SANBAG has asked to join the Authority in order to work
cooperatively with the Authority and its member cities and agencies to complete the Gold
Line Phase II including a possible extension to the city of Montclair;
C. The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (the "SGVCOG ")
has voted to forego its membership in the Authority in favor of the SANBAG; and
d. The SANBAG has agreed to pay dues and assume other required
financial responsibilities as a condition of its membership in the Authority.
Section 2. Terms Remain in Effect. All terms of the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement for the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority (the "Agreement') that are
not deleted or amended by this Amendment One remain frilly in effect and the execution
of this Amendment One by each of the parties hereto signifies approval and acceptance of
the Agreement as modified by this Amendment One.
LA# 140 10v2
Section 3. Replacement of SGVCOG with SANBAG. In Section 5c in the
third sentence delete the phrase "and the SGVCOG". In the heading for Section 5d delete
the phrase "and SGVCOG Representatives ". In Section 5d delete the second sentence in
its entirety. In Section 16 and in Exhibit A of the Agreement, wherever it may appear
replace " SGVCOG" with "SANBAG ".
Section 4. Change to Section 16. In the third sentence of Section 16 of the
Agreement change the word "designate' to "identify ".
Section 5. Change to Interest Calculation Date. In Section 26c of the
Agreement, change the date from which interest is to be calculated from "September 2,
2003" to "December 31, 2003."
Section 6. New Section 29a. Section 29a of the Agreement is deleted in
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 29a.
"a. Payment of Dues. The SANBAG and each Phase II City that
are Mciribers of the Authority shall have an obligation to participate in the
funding of the Authority and shall be responsible for the payment to the
Authority of dues. The LACMTA and the cities of South Pasadena and
Los Angeles shall not be required to pay dues and shall not have any
obligation to participate in the funding of the Authority, but shall, in good
faith, provide assistance and support to the Authority."
Section 7. New Section 29b. Section 29b of the Agreement is deleted in
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 29b.
"b. Initial Dues. The initial dues shall be Thirty -One Thousand
Four Hundred Forty -Five Dollars ($31,445.00) for the SANBAG and for
every Phase II City (the "Initial Dues ") and the Initial Dues shall be due
and payable to the Authority on October 1, 2003, except for SANBAG
whose Initial Dues shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after the
effective date of its membership in the Authority."
Section 8. New Section 29c. Section 29c of the Agreement is deleted in
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 29c.
"c. Annual Dues. In March of 2004, and in each March thereafter,
the SANBAG and the Phase II Cities shall determine the Annual Dues,
which shall be the same for the SANBAG and for each Phase II City that
is a Member, except that if one or more additional stops for the Gold Line
Phase II has been authorized, the SANBAG and the Phase II Cities may
approve, by an affirmative vote of sixty percent (60 %) plus one (1) of the
Phase II Cities plus SANBAG that are voting Members of the Authority,
an adjustment to the Annual Dues of one or more Phase II Cities and of
SANBAG that takes into consideration the location of the additional
stop(s) and the Phase II City(ies) and/or SANBAG that will benefit
therefrom. The annual dues (the "Annual Dues ") shall be due on July I of
LA #140770v2
each year, starting in 2004. The Phase II Cities and SANBAG shall
determine the Annual Dues after considering the recommendation of the
Committee, which recommendation shall be based upon the estimated
operating costs of the Authority and the projected costs of the Gold Line
Phase II, both for the following year. An increase in Annual Dues of no
more than five percent (5 %) from the previous year may be approved by
an affirmative vote of a majority of the SANBAG and the Phase II Cities
that are current voting Members of the Authority. An increase in Annual
Dues by more than five percent (5 %) from the previous year will require
an affirmative vote of sixty percent (60 %) plus one (1) of the SANBAG
and the Phase II Cities that are current voting Members of the Authority."
Section 9. Effective Dates. The effective date of this Amendment One shall be
the first date on which each of the current members of the Authority, as listed in Exhibit
1 -A, shall have approved and signed this Amendment One. The effective date of the
SANBAG's membership in the Authority shall be the first date on which each of the
_ current members of the Authority and the SANBAG shall have approved and signed this
Amendment One.
Section 10. Counterparts. This Amendment One may be executed in several
counterparts, and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one Amendment One,
binding on all the parties hereto, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory
to the original or same counterpart.
The current members of the Authority and the SANBAG have caused this
Amendment One to be executed on their behalf, respectively, as follows:
WY S"
Mayor /Chief Executive Officer/
Executive Director
ATTEST
City Clerlc/ e etary
Date
LA #140770v2
EXHIBIT 1 -A
Current Members of the Gold Line Phase II Construction Authority
Arcadia
Azusa
Claremont
Duarte
Glendora
Irwindale
LaVeme
Monrovia
Pomona
San Dimas
South Pasadena
LA #14077Ov2
ARC e
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
Greg Gerlach, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Mall expansion
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The Development Services Department is requesting an additional appropriation for
building inspection services for approximately six (6) months (three months this fiscal
year) to inspect tenant improvement work that will be completed as part of the Westfield
Shoppingtown Mall expansion.
Based on information from the City's plan review consultants, the average cost for a
combination building inspector is approximately $60.00 per hour plus mileage. The
Community Development Division of the Development Services Department is
requesting that an additional $32,500 be allocated to the Building Contract Services
Account (4104 - 6160). This money should cover the costs for a contract building
inspector for the remainder of this fiscal year.
DISCUSSION
According to Westfield Corporation, the City will be processing, plan checking,
permitting and inspecting 67 tenant improvement jobs at the mall between now and the
scheduled grand opening in October 2004, totaling over 225,000 square feet of building.
This takes into account the more complicated inspections including the large multi -
screen AMC theatre and improvements to three relatively large spaces (i.e., Dave and
Busters, Borders and Sports Chalet), several restaurants and relocation of the food
LASER IMAGED
00,k/. 7 F.
court. The tentative start date for twelve (12) of the tenant improvements will likely
commence upon completion of the building shell which should be sometime in April. As
a result, the majority of the interior work will probably be built out over a five to six
month time period starting in April of 2004.
Based on the quantity of work that will be completed in such a short period of time, the
interior improvements will require the services of a full time building inspector.
The City's three Building Inspectors continue to have a high volume of daily inspections
and are only able to handle the current inspection workload by working overtime and by
shortening their office hours by one -half (' /z) hour each day.,
In addition, the Building Official is conducting field inspections when an inspector is out
of the office. The current number of inspections is approximately 18% higher than last
year and the number of issued permits is approximately 14% higher than last year
although the current number of plan check submittals is about 8% below last year.
It is staffs assessment that the City's three inspectors will not be able to handle the
inspection of the tenant improvements at the mall as well as. cover the compliance
inspections for the rest of the City without additional help.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City's plan review consultants, Vandorpe -Chou Associates, Inc. and Scott Fazekas
and Associates, Inc., charge up to $60.00 an hour, depending on qualifications, for a
combination inspector plus mileage. This would be approximately $65,000, or $32,500
this fiscal year (2003 -04) and $32,500 during the next fiscal year for the equivalent of a
full -time contract inspector for six (6) months. The City has a current Professional
Services Agreement (PSA) with these firms for plan check and inspection services, so
no modifications to the PSAs are needed.
Staff estimates that the construction valuation of the interior improvements at $11 -12
million and anticipates between $105,000 - $120,000 in building permit revenue, which
will more than cover the cost of the inspector.
RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate $32,500 from the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance for
additional inspection services for the Westfield Shopingtown Mall expansion.
Approved by:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
DATE
March 2, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Administrative Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services DirectoP
Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Revised iob specifications for Dispatcher 1 /II
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
It is recommended that the City Council approve the revision to the job specifications of
Dispatcher 1 /II in the Arcadia Police Department.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the City Council adopted the Personnel Classification and Compensation Plan
that was prepared by Personnel Concepts. This study provided new job titles, job
descriptions, and compensation levels to manage City job classifications.
Periodically, City departments experience the need to create new classifications or
revise existing job descriptions to address new operating needs. Requests are
reviewed by the City Manager, and if approved, the Administrative . Services
Department/Human Resources Division will conduct assessment interviews and
analysis to evaluate the requests and make recommendations. A report is then brought
to the Human Resources Commission for review and approval of all job descriptions,
prior to the job descriptions being sent to the Council for final approval.
DISCUSSION
The proposed revised job classifications pertain to the Police Department. The current
typing speed requirement for the position of Dispatcher 1 /11 is 50 net words a minute.
Ongoing recruitment efforts for this position have proven to be unsuccessful and
vacancies continue to rise. Discussions held with current Dispatcher employees
indicated that the typing speed requirement for the position is too high.
LASER IMAGED
CUN.7 ve,
Mayor and City Council
March 2, 2004
Page 2
A survey of local public safety agencies was conducted. Among the cities surveyed in
our area, the results indicate an average typing speed of 31 words a minute.
Furthermore, the survey analysis indicates that though typing is critical to the Dispatcher
position, multi- tasking, exercising good judgment, effective communication skills, and
the ability to assess and interpret situations are more essential skills of the job.
It is apparent that the current typing speed is significantly higher than the industry
standard. In order to expand recruitment efforts and align the typing requirements with
other public safety agencies in the area, the staff recommends that the typing speed
requirements for Dispatcher Illl be modified to 35 net words a minute.
The proposed job descriptions were presented and approved by the Human Resources
Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 12, 2004.
FISCAL IMPACT
Implementation of the proposed new job specifications for Dispatcher 1111 will not have
an impact on the General Fund, as the proposed revisions do not necessitate a change
in salary.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the new job specifications for Dispatcher UII.
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
TLH:CL:
de's
STAFF REPORT
Administrative Services Department
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David H. Hinig, Chief of Police
Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct
Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement — Information Systems Management
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an
amendment to an Agreement with Knight Communications for information
systems management at the Police Department
SUMMARY
In August 2000, the Administrative Services Department eliminated in -house
information systems management and outsourced this service to Knight
Communications for system support. With staff reassignments /retirements within the
Police Department and Knight Communications' thorough understanding of the
Department's system, staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City
Manager to enter into Amendment No. 1 to a professional services agreement with
Knight Communications in the amount of $15,600.00 for information systems
management at the Police Department until June 30, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Knight Communications has provided a qualified Systems Coordinator to efficiently and
effectively administer the functions of managing the City's information systems for to all
City departments, with the exception of the Police Department, for approximately 3 '/2
years.
In August 2003, the new Police facility was opened and all of the necessary information
systems components were transitioned to the new facility. Since this time, Knight
Communications' System Coordinator and their technical support staff have been
working closely with the Police Department to ensure and maintain the integrity of the
system.
LASER IMAGED
Coiy, 7 c
I
Mayor and City Council
March 2, 2004
Page 2
In order to continue to provide management of the Police Department's information
systems, staff is proposing that Knight Communications provide the following
information systems management functions until June 30, 2004:
• Provide and conduct personal computer hardware diagnostics and resolutions.
• Provide personal computer software diagnostics and resolutions.
• Provide personal computer user support on applications as deemed fit
• Protect information systems infrastructure and provide information technology
solutions for the City of Arcadia's Police Department on a continuing basis.
• Work closely with any third party hardware /software vendor in the resolution of
problems associated with their hardware and software.
• Evaluate and make recommendations regarding hardware /software purchases,
identify costs, and recommend purchases of equipment, supplies, and other
services as needed.
• Work closely with selected City staff in identifying and establishing long -term
goals and objectives.
• Assist and support the implementation of new projects and solutions as specified
by the City of Arcadia's Police Department.
The level of service proposed is on -site during regular business hours. Additionally, all
personnel for Knight Communications are on call 24 hours a day and remote dial -in
support services are also available 24 hours if needed. Knight Communications has
provided satisfactory service for the City to date. Therefore, staff is recommending the
City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into Amendment No. 1 to a
professional services agreement with Knight Communications in the amount of
$15,600.00 for information systems management at the Police Department until June
30, 2004.
Mayor and City Council
March 2, 2004
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for providing information systems management as described until June 30,
2004 is $15,600.00. Sufficient funds are available in the Police Department's Operating
Budget for this service.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into
Amendment No. 1 to a professional services agreement with Knight
Communications in the amount of $15,600.00 for information systems
management at the Policy Department until June 30, 2004.
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
TLH:CL:
r
m
March 2, 2004
Public Works Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director
Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Man ger
Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Change Order —
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve a Contract
Change Order for the construction of a gravity sewer line at Wilderness
Park in the amount of $39,680.
SUMMARY
On January 20, 2004, the Council approved the award of contract to Denboer
Engineering & Construction Inc. for $129,650 for the Wilderness Park Pumping Station
and Sewer Pipeline Connection Project. The original scope of the project to repair "all
septic systems" at the Park was modified due to the excessively high,bids for the work.
The septic systems servicing the kitchen and upper restroom facilities were part of the
original project, but deferred because of excessively high construction costs presented
in the original bid proposal. The current low bidder, Denboer Engineering &
Construction, Inc., propose to do the work at a cost of $39,680 if the work is done as
part of this project.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract change order in the amount
of $39,680 to benboer Engineering & Construction, Inc, for the Gravity Sewer Portion of
Wilderness Park Pumping Station and Sewer Pipeline Connection Project bringing the
total project cost to $169,320.
Currently, the septic systems servicing Wilderness Park are not functioning properly and
are in need of replacement. The Wilderness Park Pump Station and Sewer Pipeline
Connection Project, as approved by the City Council on January 20, 2004, will correct
the critically dysfunctional septic system servicing the Nature Center.
This project was originally bid in July 2003. The City received three (3) bids ranging
from $249,260 to $340,850, all well above the approved budget amount. Based on the
high bid amounts and inconsistencies in the bids, the City Council rejected all bids and
instructed staff to modify the project scope and re -bid the project. Part of the reduction
LASER IMAGED
Mayor and City Council
March 2, 2004
Page 2
was the elimination of the gravity sewer and removal of associated septic, systems.
After project scope reductions, the resulting bids came in at $129,640. A request for
proposal to fully complete the, project was given to the low bidder (Denboer Eng.),and a
reasonable proposal within the project budget was received for the gravity sewer and
removal of the septic systems.
A bid analysis was conducted that compared the current bid with the earlier bids for the
same work. The in -house Engineer's Estimate was $42,000. The following reflects
Denboer's proposed costs and the bid estimates associated with the July 29, 2003 bids
rejected by the City Council:
vcnwci LI IV. V VVIIJ4, I. IV
Mehta Construction Company Buena Park, CA $41,450
Ross A. Guy & Son Fallbrook, CA $50,820
Hickman Mechanical, Inc. Arcadia, CA $88,850
The above estimated amounts reflect the cost of the work without a mobilization cost.
Should this work be bid independent of this project, the cost would be substantially
higher due to additional mobilization costs and new administration costs.
Staff, recommends that the City Council approve a contract change order to the current
project in the amount of $39,680 to Denboer Engineering & Construction, Inc for the
construction of. the gravity sewer portion of Wilderness Park Pumping Station and
Sewer Pipeline Connection Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $207,000 were budgeted in the 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement
Program for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a contract change order to Denboer Engineering & Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $39,680 for the Gravity Sewer Portion of Wilderness
Park Pumping Station and Sewer Pipeline Connection.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve a contract change order for this
action.
PM:KH:dw
Approved:
William R. Kelly, tity Manager
A
0
STAFF REPORT
hOOR�'OAAT$Q'�0
Development Services Department
March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Pe an, Assistant City Manager /Development Services
Director Q �
�
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator (2
SUBJECT:
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The City Council authorized the Development Services Department to retain a
consultant to develop new sign regulations for the City.
In response to the City Council's direction, request for proposals (RFPs) were
sent to eight (8) firms. Three (3) firms responded to the RFP.
The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council
authorize staff to enter into an agreement with RBF Consulting in an amount not
to exceed $30,000.00 for the preparation of citywide sign regulations for the
commercial and industrial zones and allocate an additional $14,900.00 to cover
said cost.
Sign Regulations
March 2, 2004
BASER (IMAGED Page 1
9q,
VA
DISCUSSION
The City Council conducted a study session to address potential changes to the
sign regulations that Development Services Department staff believed would,
along with the current sign design guidelines, enhance signing within the City.
The City Council at the study session directed staff to proceed with a request for
proposal (RFP) for consultant services.
Request for proposals were sent to eight (8) companies; the City received the
following three (3) proposals:
Cotton /Bridges /Associates, Inc. (CBA)
Persico Planning Partnership
RBF /UDS (Urban Design Studios) Consulting
Staff evaluated the proposals based on experience, references,
comprehensiveness, costs and responsiveness to the scope of work as set forth
in the RFP.
In reviewing the proposals, the Development Services Department believes that
RBF /UDS Consulting has the most experience in the preparation of sign
ordinances and provides a very comprehensive and thorough proposal
addressing the City's needs and requirements.
Prior to becoming a division of RBF Consulting, Urban Design Studios (UDS)
was the author of the City's CBD (Central Business District) zoning regulations,
as well as the related design guidelines that were adopted in 1995. The same
staff that worked with the City in 1995 will be working on the new regulations.
RBF /UDS Consulting has extensive experience in the preparation of sign
regulations that address current trends in signing and they affectively utilize
graphics and illustrations in their sign regulations. Some of their more recent
experience includes preparation of zoning and sign regulations in the cities of
Pasadena, Diamond Bar, San Bernardino and Stockton.
RBF's base fee is $28,650. This includes a public hearing before both the
Planning Commission and the City Council. An additional task would include a
Community Workshop for $1,000.00. The total cost for RBF /UDS would be
$29,650. The approximate time frame is six (6) to eight (8) months.
When the City Council adopted the 2003 -04 budget, staff anticipated that the
cost for a sign study would be approximately $10,000. However, after the
Council's study session in September, staff determined that the scope of work
involved in preparation of new sign regulations would be much more extensive
Sign Regulations
- 4r�?-,v March 2, 2004
Page 2
than originally anticipated and the cost would exceed the $10,000 originally
budgeted.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fee for the consultant's services will be $29,650. The 2003 -04 Community
Development Division budget has $44,200 for "Contract Services ". Of this
amount $34,200 is set aside for architect and landscape design services. Costs
for these services are charged to the applicant, so in effect this is cost neutral.
Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) has been set aside in "Contract Services" for
completion of a sign study. In addition, $5,100 may be budgeted from the
Redevelopment Agency for the study based on the percentage of total
businesses within the City that are located in the City's Redevelopment area.
The Development Services Department is requesting an additional allocation of
$14,900 to cover the total contract fee of $29,650, plus $350 for any added
graphic materials that may be needed.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with RBF
Consulting in the amount of $29,650 for the preparation of a new sign
ordinance, and
2. Appropriate an additional $14,900 from the General Fund Reserves
into the Contract Services account (4103 - 6160).
Approved by: .>'npa -ft 7 6
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Sign Regulations
March 2, 2004
Page 3