HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2004WELCOME TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Thank you for attending an Arcadia City Council meeting. The following information is provided to make the
meeting a more meaningful and understandable event.
The City of Arcadia is governed by a five - member City Council, which also serves as the Redevelopment Agency.
Every even - numbered year, either two or three Council Members are elected at large to serve four -year terms. The
City Council elects, from its membership, a Mayor to serve as the presiding officer for a one -year period.
The City Manager is employed by the City Council to carry out its policies and to serve as the Chief Executive
Officer of the City and the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS are held on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers located at 240 W. Huntington Drive. Meetings are broadcast live on cable channel 20
and replayed at various times in the following weeks. From time to time, special meetings are scheduled for
specific purposes. The City Council follows a regular order of business, as provided in the agenda for each
meeting. The agenda is prepared and made available to the public 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Full
agenda packages are available for review prior to the meeting in the City Clerk's Office at City Hall and at the
Arcadia Public Library.
•
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION is invited at all City Council meetings. At each regular meeting, time is reserveu
for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council on any matter. There is a five- minute time limit
per person. Please be aware that, pursuant to the provisions of the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited
from taking action on any issue not listed on the agenda, unless an emergency exists requiring City Council action
or an urgent need for action arises after the agenda is published.
Time is also reserved for individuals wishing to address the City Council about a scheduled "Public Hearing"
item. With respect to Public Hearings, persons addressing the City Council should limit their remarks to the
matter under consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR items are considered to be routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. There
is no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member so requests.
An ORDINANCE is a City law which can only be amended or repealed by adoption of another Ordinance. A
proposed Ordinance requires two readings —an introduction and an adoption —at separate City Council meetings.
Ordinances become effective 30 days after adoption.
A RESOLUTION is an official statement of City Council policy, directs certain administrative or legal action,
or embodies a public City Council statement. A Resolution is adopted the same night it is proposed. Once
adopted, it remains City Council policy unless changed by a subsequent Resolution.
^P ,t!r -1)R1
In compli rr� etWith+thefAMERI
CANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, if you need special assistance t.
participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Manager's Office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three
(3) working days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City
staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting.
• ;,
• 1
Property
55 West Huntington Drive
21 Morlan Place
28 West Santa Clara
41 West Huntington Drive
35 West Huntington Drive
27 West Huntington Drive
130 West Huntington Drive
11, 15, 19 West Huntington Drive
25 North Santa Anita Avenue
5 West Huntington Drive
Negotiating Parties — Agency
Property Owner
Paul Rusnak
Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia)
Don and Ray Dahl gren
Mrs. Robert Johannsen/Manny Romero
Gary and Dan Braun (35 west Huntington Pam ers)
Richard Fisher (Tempelkadian)
Linda Chang (Arcadia Land Corporation)
Ei Ji Sakurada (J.A.C. Window, Inc.)
Ei Ji Sakurada (J.A.C. Window, Inc.)
Anthony Fanticola (Wortmann Oil)
Deputy Executive Director and
Economic Development Administrator
Under Negotiation — Price and terms of payment
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members /Agency Members: Chandler, Marshall, Segal,
Wuo, and Kovacic
3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING
AGENDAITEMS
MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in
full
4. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Certificates of Appreciation to Bee Hsu, Monika
Yell and Sean Yu
5. PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items
of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect
to the proposed Items 5 a and b, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or
prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of SADR 4 -9, architectural
design review for a neon design element installed without approval at 2633
South Baldwin Avenue
• Recommendation: Deny
b. Text Amendment 03 -05 amending the City's Parking Regulations •
Recommendation: Approve Text Amendment 03 -05 and introduce
Ordinance No. 2189 amending Section 9264.3.4 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code, deleting Table 9264.3.4 and revising in its entirety Division 9 of
Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO
ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC
HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON)
6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Reports /Announcements /Statements/Future
Agenda Items
7. CONSENT — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. Minutes of the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004 regular meetings
Recommendation: Approve
b. Resolution ARA No. 210 adopting local guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section •
21000 et seg.l
Recommendation: Adopt
C. Appropriation of $30,000.00 for update of appraisal of real estate and
furniture, fixtures and equipment, and to update Preliminary Title Reports
to Litigation Guarantees for the proposed Morlan Place Project
Recommendation: Approve
CONSENT — CITY COUNCIL
d. Minutes of the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004 regular meetings
Recommendation: Approve
e. Resolution No. 6419 dedicating certain property on Rosemarie Drive
(Portion of Lot 3 of Parcel Mqp No. 23064 and Portion of Lot 22 of Tract
Map No. 21914
Recommendation: Adopt
f. Resolution No. 6431 adopting local guidelines for implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.)
Recommendation: Adopt •
3
g. Resolution No. 6433 designating an Arcadia City Council Member and an
• ; Alternate Member to the Governing Board of the San Gabriel Vallev
Council of Governments
Recommendation: Adopt
• 1
•!
h. Senior Nutrition Program
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with the Arcadia Unified School District in the amount of $40,163.00 for
the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 to provide subsidized lunch
meals for the Senior Nutrition Program
Appropriation of additional Transportation Development Act, Article 3
funding in the amount of $8.500.00 for the Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
Recommendation: Approve
j.
Non-Emergency Medical Appointment Transportation Pilot Pro g azn
Recommendation: Discontinue program
ADJOURN the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to June 1, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.,
Council Chambers Conference Room
0
ANNOTATED
COUNCIL AGENDA- CITY OF ARCADIA
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004
ITEM NO,
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
5. a.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of SADR 4 -9, architectural design
review for a neon design element installed without approval at 2633 South
Deny appeal
Baldwin Avenue
3 -1
Segal "no"
Recommendation: Deny the appeal based on staffs findings that the neon
Wuo "recused"
design element is inconsistent with the use of the building and its architectural
design per the City's Architectural Design Guidelines.
5. b.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Text Amendment 03 -05 amending the Citvfs Parking Regulations
Recommendation: Approve Text Amendment 03 -05 and introduce Ordinance
Adopted
No. 2189 amending Section 9264.3.4. of the Arcadia Municipal Code, deleting
5 -0
Table 9264.3.4 and revising in Its entirety Division 9 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part
6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. "
CONSENT:
ARA
Request for approval of the minutes of the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004
Approved April 20
7. a.
Regular Meeting.
minutes
5 -0
Recommendation: Approve
Approved May 4
minutes
4 -0
Segal "abstain"
7. b.
k RESOLUTION OF THE QTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
LIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
Adopted
IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB.
5 -0
ESOURCES CODE SECTION 21000 ET,SEQ.).
ecommendation: Adopt
7. c.
EQUEST FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROPRIATE $30,000
ROM THE AGENCY'S UNPROGRAMMED RESERVE FOR AN UPDATE OF
Approved
PRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE AND FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT,
5 -0
ND TO UPGRADE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORTS TO LITIGATION
URARANTEE FOR THE PROPOSED MORLAN PLACE PROJECT.
ecommendation: Approve
CONSENT:
kequest for approval of the minutes of the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004
Approved April 20
COUNCIL
egular Meetings.
minutes
7. d.
5 -0
ecommendation: Approve
Approved. May 4
minutes
4 -0
Segal "abstain"
Page 1 of 2 LASER IMAGED
EM NO.
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
7. e,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DEDICATING CERTAIN PROPERTY ON ROSEMARIE DRIVE FOR
Adopted
STREET PURPOSES (A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23064 AND A
5 -0
PORTION OF LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 21924).
ecommendation: Adopt
7. f.
k RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
LIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
Adopted
MPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB.
5 -0
ESOURCES CODE SECTION 21000 ET SEQ.)
Recommendation: Adopt
I
7. g.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING AN ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND AN
Adopted
ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN GABRIEL
5 -0
ALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
ecommendation: Adopt
7. h.
kECOMMENDATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
NITH ARCADIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE LUNCHEON MEALS
Adopted
OR SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM HELD AT THE ARCADIA COMMUNITY
5 -0
ENTER FROM JULY 1, 2004 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005
ecommendation: Adopt
7. i.
EQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $8,500
ROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 FUND FOR THE
Approved
IDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT.
5 -0
ecommendation: Approve
7. j.
1EQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CANCEL THE NON- EMERGENCY
EDICAL TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM TO TRANSPORT ARCADIA
Program
ENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS TO MEDICAL FACILITIES
Discontinued
OCATED OUTSIDE THE ARCADIA CITY LIMITS
5 -0
ecommendation: Discontinue program
EMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA-
Council Member Marshall's request to consider large and small dog separations at
Approved to place
he proposed Eisenhower Park Memodal Off -Leash Park Area
on future agenda
3 -0
fi , Ti AJ Page 2of2
�;eiL;l�� +6,J � ,
46:0064
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004
MINUTES
Audio and video tape copies of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency proceedings
are on file in the office of the City Clerk
The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment. Agency met in a Regular Meeting on
Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room
pursuant to the previously adjourned Regular Meeting.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, W uo and Kovacic
ABSENT:
AUDIENCE TIME RESERVED FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION
There were no members of the public audience who chose to address the Council.
1. STUDY SESSION
A Study Session was conducted on the Gold Line Phase II Project. Bill Kelly, City
Manager, noted that the Mayor serves on Gold Line Joint Powers Authority; the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS /DEIR) has been released for comment;
the City of Arcadia has been very involved with commenting on the project as compared
to other cities; the current document needs to be further reviewed in order to insure the
City's concerns regarding aesthetics, public safety, and land use are covered; the City
will respond to the DEIS /DEIR by the end of June; the Board will not be deciding which
alternative to build until December /January.
Mr. Kelly further noted that the three options presented tonight were the only three
options the Board will consider; the "all at grade" crossing is the Board's currently
budgeted project alternative (1.9 billion dollars); if Arcadia is unsuccessful at convincing
the Board that the grade separation at Santa Anita is a requirement of the project then
the grade separation will be considered an "enhancement "; the Board should provide
adequate mitigation measures for the significant adverse impacts to Arcadia in the final
report; staff will provide an update to Council in November or December that will include
computer enhanced graphics of the proposed crossings at Santa Anita Avenue and
First Street.
Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director, reported that
staff has been involved in every step of the project review process; the Board is now in
the formal comment process; Council's previous direction was to have the
environmental documents address grade separations at Santa Anita and First Street,
however, there was an issue on First Street regarding low traffic counts. Three profiles
were discussed regarding grade separations. The option with an elevated station Is the
most expensive. The crossings at Santa Anita and First will have difficulty qualifying as
alternatives due to low traffic counts; staff is looking at other variables to qualify the
Santa Anita crossing; staff will respond to these issues prior to the deadline for
comments; parking, around` the, station will also be a concern; a public comment
meeting on the project will be held in Arcadia on June 14, from 7:OOp.m. to 9:00 p.m;
the Board will, be having meetings in each of the ten communities affected by Phase II;
the public comment period on the DEIS /DEIR ends on June 21, 2004.
LASER IMAGED 05 -18 -04
RITZ
Rho
46:0065
In response to a question by Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Penman noted that the Arcadia station
is to be the most heavily used station in Phase II.
Mayor Kovacic noted that a few citizens have proposed a station at Baldwin and running
shuttles to and from various points in the City; he believes that the MTA is going to be
looking for cities to pay for enhancements and that this project is either third or fourth in
line in terms of the prioritization of statewide projects; he is in favor of raising issues and
alternatives for analysis whether or not they will be ultimately considered; he is in favor
of a grade separation at Santa Anita, either as part of the project or as an
enhancement.
Mr. Kelly stated that part of the reason the project does not have a higher priority is that
the 210 freeway and other arteriais are not at capacity, however they will be by 2025.
He futher noted that Arcadia was the only city, to our knowledge, that requested a grade
separation.
Steve Deistch, City Attorney, noted that if the project that the City wants is not
adequately described at this time, staff may have a difficult time arguing that the
California Environmental Quality Act'(CEQA) analysis performed now, was sufficient to
cover the City's new proposed project.
Finally, Mayor Kovacic encouraged those interested in this matter to attend the public
hearing on June 14, 2004 in the City Council Chamber to voice their opinion on the
project.
RECESS The City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board then recessed to hold a Closed
Session meeting.
2 CLOSED SESSION
a Labor Contract Negotiations (Government Code Section 54957.6): California
Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union Local 911 (Confidential,
Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee
Unit); Arcadia Police Officers' Association, Arcadia Firefighters' Association,
Management and.non- represented employees (City Negotiators: Tracey Hause and
Michael Casalou).
b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property Address /Property Owner
55 West Huntington Drive, Paul Rusnak
21 Morlan Place, Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia)
28 West Santa Clara, Don and Ray Dahlgren
41 West Huntington Drive, Mrs. Robert Johannsen /Manny Romero
35 West Huntington Drive, Gary and Dan Braun (35 West Huntington Partners)
27 West Huntington Drive, Richard Fisher (Tempelkadian)
130 West Huntington Drive, Linda Chang (Arcadia Land Corporation)
11, 15, 19 West Huntington Drive, El Ji Sakurada (J.A.C. Window, Inc.)
25 North Santa Anita Avenue, El Ji Sakurada (J.A.C. Window, Inc.)
5 West Huntington Drive, Anthony Fanticola (Wortmann Oil)
RECONVENE The Regular Meeting of the City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency was
reconvened in the City Council Chamber at 7:07 p.m:
INVOCATION Reverend John Lee, Mandarin Baptist Church, gave the invocation.
lk 05 -18 -04
46:0066
PLEDGE OF Teresa Wong led the pledge of allegiance.
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
ABSENT: None.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, reported that Council discussed items 2.a. and 2.b. in
Closed Session. There were no reportable actions taken.
3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
The City Manager had no report.
MOTION - ORD. & It was moved by Council /Agency Member Wuo and seconded by Council /Agency
RES. READ BY Member Marshall, then carried without objection that Ordinances and Resolutions be
TITLE ONLY read by title only and that the reading in full be waived.
4. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Certificates of Appreciation to Bee Hsu, Monika Yeh,
and Sean Yu
PROCLAMATION Mayor Kovacic presented certificates of appreciation to Bee Hsu, Monika Yeh, and
(Bee Hsu, Monika Sean Yu for their participation in Arcadia's Sixth Annual Law Day. The Arcadia Chinese
Yeh, Sean Yu.) Association made significant efforts at Arcadia Law Day; one hundred and ten (I 10)
individuals were processed, who would not have received legal services otherwise.
Bee Hsu expressed thanks on behalf of the Arcadia Chinese Association, especially
allowing them the opportunity to bring the community together. - Monike Yeh stated that
she was very happy to contribute to the event. Sean Yu thanked Mayor Kovacic for
initiating the event. They also reported that their annual fundraising event will occur on
Saturday, June 5, 2004. The money that is raised will be donated to assist the City.
Mayor Kovacic noted that the Arcadia Chinese Association serves the entire
community.
S. PUBLIC HEARING
a. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Kelly noted that the Council had continued this meeting from May 18, 2004 at the
= STAFF REPORT request of the applicant.
(Appeal of Planning
Comm.'s denial of . Mr. Penman stated that the item was an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
SADR -9) a design review at 2633 South Baldwin Avenue. The project generated from work done
at the' office building without a permit. The owner subsequently came in and submitted
the design review to staff and staff administratively denied the work. The applicant
unsuccessfully appealed to the Planning Commission and then further appealed that
decision to the City Council.
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, presented the facts of the
appeal. The applicant proposed neon banding on the office building. The project was
submitted for design review and was denied by staff on February 19, 2004 for the
following reasons; the neon was not architecturally compatible with the design of the
existing office building. The Planning Commission voted 3 -2 to deny the appeal at its
March 9, 2004 meeting. The Commission concurred with staffs analysis and denied
the project based on Inconsistency with the City's architectural design review guidelines.
Ms. Butler reported that the two Commissioners who voted in favor of the project noted
that any lighting element is an improvement in public safety and that the design
elements did not enhance or detract from the design of the building. Those speaking at
05 -18 -04
46:0067
the Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the applicant stated their opinion that
the neon lighting provides additional security and is an overall improvement of the
building. Staff noted that the neon design element at the top of the building is not
appropriate for security and there are other appropriate methods for security lighting.
The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City
Council.
Council Member Wuo read a statement, as recommended by the City Attorney, that
due to his employment with Baldwin Realty, a competitor of the applicant, there is at
least an appearance of a conflict of interest and that he should recuse himself from
consideration of this item.
In response to a series of questions from Council Members, Ms. Butler noted that the
office building project did go through the regular architectural design review process
and that neon lighting was never proposed. In addition, she noted that by definition of
"signs" in the municipal code the neon element is not considered a sign.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, the City Attorney noted that the Council
should consider this a matter of "first impression" and make findings as if the applicant
had applied for a permit in the normal fashion, despite the fact that the neon element
was initially installed without the required permit.
APPLICANT Mayor Kovacic opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to
TESTIMONY provide testimony.
Mr. Ji Han, a representative of the applicant, addressed the Council. He stated that the
neon enhanced the building's architectural design and has complimented the
neighborhood; that it defines the shape and enhances the feeling of the building; that
the tubing enhances the contour and angles of the building. He also noted the
importance of highlighting the building at night.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Han noted that the additional
lighting, even though it is at the top of the,building, lights the neighborhood well. He
noted that the applicant would like to emphasize the architectural enhancement in this
particular case.
In response to a question from Council Member Segal, the applicant's representative
stated that the neon element cost $12,000 to install and that he did not know the cost
for its removal.
PUBLIC Philip Hsu, 606 Warner Avenue, is in favor of keeping the neon architectural element in
COMMENT place. He noted that the neon fits in well with the color scheme of surrounding
businesses; that the Development Services Department's conclusion was based on
inconsistency with the City's architectural review guidelines which he felt were
subjective. Mr. Hsu stated that during the March gth Planning Commission meeting, a
commissioner in favor of the project noted that any lighting in the neighborhood is an
improvement and that another commissioner found that the neon did not detract or
enhance the building's appearance.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Hsu stated that architectural review
guidelines are dependent on personal opinions and are not equivalent to ordinances or
laws; the City should not enforce based on personal opinion as the guideline.
In response to a question from Council Member Chandler, Mr. Penman noted that the
permit.is a requirement that must be met before construction can commence. The
permit requirement would trigger the design review using the adopted architectural
review guidelines.
05 -18 -04
ld
46:0068
MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Chandler and seconded by
CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Segal to close the public hearing.
HEARING
COUNCIL Council Member Segal raised the point that whomever advised the applicant regarding
DELIBERATION installation of the neon design element gave them bad advice; he asked the Council if
they felt the installation without a permit was a $25,000 mistake.
Council Member Marshall, noted that she is a liaison to the planning commission and
stated that the item needs to be considered as if a permit was requested; the applicant
should go back to the sign people and make them pay for their mistake; she agreed
with staff that the neon element is not a safety issue, but rather one of aesthetics; she
does not favor setting a precedent for applicants to bypass the permit process if they
feel that Council will approve appeals, if removing illegally installed elements is too
costly for the owner.
In response to a question from Council Member Chandler, Mr. Penman noted that
Temple City had no comment on the matter even though the office building is located
on the border of that city. Mr. Penman further noted that staffs issue is that neon is not
typically approved for office buildings since they are "attention- attracting" devices.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Penman stated that it was
undeniable that this construction required a permit regardless of whether the installation
was a sign or a design element. In response to the question about whether a real
estate office qualifies as a retail business, Mr. Penman noted that the real estate
operations typically do not hold a resale license with the State Board of Equalization,
which would then identify them as a retailer. Ms. Butler noted that neon is typically an
"attention attracting device" which staff does not feel is compatible with typical uses for
office building; she further noted that neon has not been used on office buildings in
Arcadia.
In response to a sixty (60) day grace period request for removal of the neon from the
applicant, Mr. Penman noted that he will work with the applicant to coordinate the
number of days acceptable for removal of the neon element.
MOTION It was moved by Council Member Marshall and seconded by Council Member Chandler
then carried on roll call vote as follows to deny the appeal of SADR -4 -9 and uphold the
Planning Commission's denial. based upon inconsistency with the City's architectural
review guidelines (the design element was not architecturally compatible with the
design of the existing office building and that exposed neon tubing is not recommended
as an accent material, but in some cases is an appropriate material to be used for the
primary wall sign).
ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, and Kovacic
NOES: Segal .
ABSTAIN: Wuo
b. PUBLIC Mr. Kelly stated that the following was a public hearing regarding amendments to the
HEARING — City's parking regulations.
STAFF REPORT
(Text Amendment Mr. Penman noted that the Text Amendment was proposed by staff since parking
03 -05, Parking regulations have not been amended since 1985.
Reg.
Ms. Butler presented the recommendations that the current parking regulations be
amended in total and..that a section in the Central Business District (CBD) zone related
to shared parking be eliminated. During the past two years, the Development Services
Department has been reviewing parking standards from other cities, as well as studies
conducted by professional organizations; the proposed revisions were based upon
05 -18 -04
5
46:0069
industry standards, parking regulations of other cities and staffs experience. Highlights
of the proposed revisions included changes in required parking spaces, location of
parking, parking stall sizes, parking stall size requirements, wheel stops, loading
requirements, circulation, parking area landscaping and walls, and bicycle parking. Ms.
Butler further noted that since the CBD zone Shared Parking Standard has not been
utilized by property owners (most are unwilling to sign a non - exclusive parking
agreement), staff is requesting its elimination from the municipal code.
In response to a question from Council Member Chandler, Ms. Butler responded that
restriping would only be required for new buildings or when there were significant
changes in building or facility usage. Council Member Chandler commended the work
done both by the staff and the Planning Commission on this item.
Council Member Marshall noted that she was happy that this matter was discussed by
staff and Council and commended staff on their work. She further noted that regular
review of parking regulations is necessary since driving habits, business needs, and car
size preferences are constantly changing.
In response to a question from Council Member W uo, Ms. Butler responded that bicycle
parking is a requirement in the City and that an applicant can request that the
requirement be waived, however, bicycle parking can be accommodated anywhere on
the site, not just within a parking space. She also reported that staff did take restaurant
employees into consideration when considering changes to restaurant parking and that
parking requirements on mixed -use projects are typically reviewed on a case -by -case
basis.
PUBLIC None.
COMMENT
MOTION TO A motion was made without objection by Council Member Chandler and seconded by
CLOSE PUBLIC Council Member Marshall to close the public hearing.
HEARING
COUNCIL In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Penman noted that staff would
DELIBERATION prefer to handle bicycle parking space sizes as part of the design review process to
ensure their proper location in regard to pedestrian traffic.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Ms. Butler stated that parking space
requirements have changed in several categories due to changes in business practices
however, Arcadia's parking space standards still remain higher than other cities.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Ms. Butler noted that most buildings
comply with existing parking requirements, however some modifications are requested,
for example, in a mixed -use project.
Council Member Marshal noted that increasing some parking requirements will cut
down in density and that is well- warranted in some cases.
MOTION It was moved by Council Member Marshall and seconded by Council Member Chandler
then carried on roll call vote as follows to approve Text Amendment 03 -05 and
introduce Ordinance No. 2189 amending Section 9264.3.4 of the Arcadia Municipal
Code, deleting table 9264.3.4. and revising in its entirety Division 9 of Article IX,
Chapter 2, Part 6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding parking regulations.
ROLL CALL AYES: Council Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES None
05 -18 -04
6
46:0070
AUDIENCE TIME RESERVED FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION
There were no members, of the public who chose to address the Council
6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Marshall made a request to address Arcadia's new dog park,
MARSHALL especially in light of the proposed mixing of large and small dogs in the same area.
She stated that due to the size of smaller dogs, the park would not need to be cut in
half, but rather, she proposed dividing the park by one - quarter for small dogs and three-
quarters for large dogs. She noted that small dogs can be accidentally injured during
play with a large dog. It is her opinion that small dog owners would probably not use
the park If there were no separation of the dog sizes. She is requesting that the City
Council overrule the Recreation and Parks Commission's recommendations that there
be no separate provisions for small dogs so that the entire community can use the dog
park. She also requested a change in the suggested name (Eisenhower Park Memorial
Off -Leash Park Area) by means of a contest or through the schools. She encouraged
members of the public who have an opinion on this matter to call City Hall or herself.
She ended with a quote from Roger Karras, "Dogs are not our whole lives, but they
make our lives whole."
COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Segal reported that he was out of country or out of state for the
SEGAL majority of the past four weeks. He also offered congratulations to his daughter who
recently graduated from,Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Chandler offered congratulations to Council Member Segal's daughter.
CHANDLER He also gave an update on West Nile Virus (WNV), emphasizing the number of dead
crows that have tested positive for WNV. The phone numbers for the public to report
dead birds are 877 -747 -2243 or 877- 968 -2474. Humans should not handle the bird
without some protection via a'glove or a plastic bag. People should keep their houses
mosquito free via screens and elimination of standing water.
COUNCIL MEMBER Council Member Wuo welcomed back Council Member Segal and offered
WUO congratulations to Segal's daughter on her recent college graduation. On May 11th he
attended the Rotary Club's Salute to Seniors and offered congratulations to Shirley
Sanderson as a recipient of the Senior Citizen of the Year award. He also attended the
Altrusa Charter Installation:on behalf of Mayor Kovacic and offered congratulations to
Nancy Ely as the outgoing President and to Carol Libby as the incoming President. He
made an announcement regarding the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, which
will be held on July 24th and 25 at Santa Anita Racetrack. A rally will be held in
preparation of the Relay event on May 19, 5:30 p.m., at Matt Denny's restaurant.
COUNCIL MEMBER In response to Council. Member Marshall's request that the Council appeal the
MARSHALL'S Commission's recommendation of commingling large and small dogs in the proposed
REQUEST FOR dog park, Mayor Kovacic asked the Council if there was enough support to bring the
FUTURE AGENDA item back on a future agenda for consideration.
ITEM (Dog Park)
MOTION It was moved by Council Member Marshall, seconded by Mayor Kovacic, and
supported by Council Member Segal to bring the item of separating the proposed dog
park into large and small dog areas for discussion on a future Council agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER Mayor Kovacic requested that the City Manager direct staff.to bring back a brief update
KOVACIC on the state budget and ballot initiative.` The City Manager will provide an update at an
upcoming Council meeting.
05 -18 -04
7
46:0071
Mayor Kovacic noted that he received a letter from resident Larry Hasbrook requesting
the Council and members of the public to send letters of support to the parents of
Clayton Phun who is currently serving in Iraq. He encouraged members of the public to
send the letters to City Hall and staff will direct them to the family.
Council Member Marshall noted that the family of Clayton Phun is entitled to a Blue Star
from the City, as does any one who has a loved one serving in the military. Members of
the public who would like to apply for the Blue Star Program can visit City Hall.
Mayor Kovacic offered congratulations to Council Member Segal's daughter on her
recent college graduation:,
CITY CLERK Jim Barrows, City Clerk, offered congratulations to Council Member Segal's daughter
BARROWS on her recent college graduation. He also noted that last Thursday he and his wife had
the opportunity to attend the.47t° Annual Pops Concert at Arcadia High School. He
offered congratulations to the band and choir directors for their excellent work.
7. CONSENT AGENDA — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The Consent Agenda items were read as follows by the City Manager:
a. MINUTES Request for approval of the minutes of the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004 Regular
(Redev. Agency) Meeting.
b. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
ARA NO. 210 AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
(CEQA guidelines) CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21000 ET SEQ.)
C.
REQUEST FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROPRIATE $30,000
APPROPRIATION
FROM THE AGENCY'S UNPROGRAMMED RESERVE FOR AN UPDATE OF
REQUEST (Morlan
APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE AND FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT,
Place project)
AND TO UPGRADE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORTS TO LITIGATION GUARANTEE
FOR THE PROPOSED MORLAN PLACE PROJECT.
CONSENT AGENDA— CITY COUNCIL
The Consent Agenda items were read as follows by the City Manager:
d. MINUTES Request for approval of the minutes of,the April 20, 2004 and May 4, 2004 Regular
(City Council) Meetings.
a. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 6419 (Property DEDICATING CERTAIN PROPERTY ON ROSEMARIE DRIVE FOR STREET
Dedication — PURPOSES (A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23064 AND A PORTION
Rosemarie Drive) OF LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 21924)
f. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
ARA NO. 6431 AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
(CEQAguidelines) CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21000 ET SEQ.)
g. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND AN ALTERNATE
NO. 6433 (Delegate MEMBER TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL
— SGVCOG) OF GOVERNMENTS
05 -18 -04
46:0072
h: CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
(Senior Nutrition) ARCADIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE LUNCHEON MEALS FOR
SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM HELD AT THE ARCADIA COMMUNITY CENTER
FROM JULY 1, 2004 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005
I. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $8,500
REQUEST (Sidewalk FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 FUND FOR THE
Gap Closure Project) SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT.
J. CANCELLATION REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CANCEL THE NON - EMERGENCY
(Non - Emergency MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM TO TRANSPORT ARCADIA
Medical Trans. Pilot SENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS TO MEDICAL FACILITIES LOCATED
Program) OUTSIDE THE ARCADIA CITY LIMITS
MOTION - It was moved by Council /Agency Member Chandler and seconded by Council /Agency
CONSENT AGENDA Member Marshall, then carried on roll call vote to approve items 7.a. —j.
ROLL CALL AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member Segal abstained from items 7.a. and 7.d. in regard to the
May 4, 2004 minutes as he was absent from that meeting.
ADJOURNMENT Noting no additional business, at 8:47 p.m. the City Council Regular Meeting adjourned
(to June 1, 2004, in memory of Edward Vernon Ryan, Jr. to June 1, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
6:00 p.m.) Chamber 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.
James Barrows, City Clerk
VjO�404___'�
Vida Tolman
Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
05 -18 -04
May 4, 2004
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 Planner`f (,
SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of Architectural Design Review Application No.
Recommendation: Deny
•SUMMARY
i
The owner of the office building located at 2633 S. Baldwin Avenue, Renee Ho, is
proposing to legalize neon banding design elements that were installed on the building
without permits. On February 12, 2004, the owner submitted an application for
Architectural Design Review of the neon elements. Staff administratively denied the
request on 'February 19, 2004, and the applicant appealed staffs decision to the
Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission at its meeting of March 9, 2004 voted 3 -2 to deny the appeal.
Subsequently, on March 11, 2004, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. The Development Services Department is
recommending denial of the appeal.
•�
BACKGROUND
The applicant installed the neon design elements along the top of the office building
without permits and subsequently, was cited by a Code Services Officer. As a result,
the applicant submitted an Architectural Design Review application for the neon
elements. The application was reviewed by staff and the proposed plans were denied
on February 19, 2004. On February 25, 2004, the applicant appealed staffs
determination pursuant to Section 9295.16 of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
SADR 04 -008 CC Report
LASER IMAGED May P200e4
4 <?
I N
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The subject building is a two -story office building located on the northwest corner of •
Baldwin Avenue and Las Tunas Drive, occupied by Long Dragon Realty and related
financial services offices. The applicant installed an 18" wide white neon design
element on the top of the building along the south and east building elevations. In
addition, an orange band was installed around the two tower elements on the building,
as shown in the attached photos of the subject building.
Staff reviewed the request based on the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. The
reasons for staffs denial are based on the following guidelines:
1. The architectural treatment of buildings and their materials, textures and colors,
shall be visually harmonious with existing buildings, surrounding development,
and shall enhance the appearance of the area.
2. Exposed neon tubing is not recommended as an accent material, but in some
cases is an appropriate material to be used for the primary wall sign.
In reviewing the proposed design element, staff felt that the neon was not architecturally
compatible with the design of the existing office building. Typically, office buildings do
not utilize neon as a design element. In the past, staff has allowed neon as a design
component on some restaurants and service stations. However, we have not approved
neon on office buildings. It is staffs opinion that the colored neon is inconsistent with •
the use of the building and its architectural design. Also, the neon is not compatible
with the existing "channel letter" wall sign located on the south building elevation.
Those speaking on behalf of the application stated that the neon lighting provides
additional security, and is an overall improvement to the building. The employees of
Long Dragon Realty are concerned about their safety and the safety of customers. It is
the opinion of staff that the neon design element is not appropriate for security lighting
and there are other methods to provide additional lighting or security; including
decorative wall mounted sconce lighting, ground mounted lighting, and additional
parking lot lighting. Such lighting should be reviewed and approved by staff prior to
installation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission at its March 9, 2004 meeting . voted 3 -2 to deny the
Architectural Design Review. The Planning Commission concurred with staffs analysis
and denied the project based on inconsistency with the City's Architectural Design
Review Guidelines. The Commission found that the proposed design elements are not
consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for office buildings, and that
the proposed elements are not compatible with development in the surrounding area.
One of the Commissioners in favor of the application stated that any lighting in the •
neighborhood is an improvement and he is in favor of "lighting up the building ". The
i t � R SADR 04 -008 CC Report
f May 9, 2004
Page 2
other Commissioner in favor of the application noted that the design elements did not
enhance or detract from the design of the building, and 'he did not find it objectionable.
He also said that in absence of specific regulations prohibiting neon, he did not see how
the proposal could be denied.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Architectural Design Review decisions will not have a significant effect on the
environment and are `therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMI= NDATION
The Development Services Department recommends denial of the appeal with the
finding that the use of neon as a;design element is incompatible with ,both the use and
architectural .design of the building.
0)
A lI tt
pp a ers
Project Plans
PC March 9, 2004 Minutes
Approved by:
�J
William R. Kelly, City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Denial
If the City Council is to deny. the appeal, the Council should move to deny the
appeal and., uphold the Planning Commission's denial based on .inconsistency
with the City's Architectural' Design Revie.W Guidelines:
Approval of Appeal
If the City Council is to approve the appeal, the Council should move to approve the
appeal and overrule the Planning Commission's based on the finding that the proposed
design element is consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines,
Attachments: Aerial Photograph''
Pictures ea
•I
SADR 04 -008 CC Report
May 9, 2004
Page 3
r VI
F
s�
,;_
�
y '�;:i � � � d.
,
.��
i .s
r
_
_� '.
--
s
� ?' �.
r
i,,
,.
'.:
�� i! ,
�, ,.,
I,
�.
� �y
y�'
r . i
� i
��..
' .. I I
� 1 �
i �� ! y �' A i
Z.. � ;i
� �
'�
�
.,
1
� -.A
t
I �
1 �I
�
1
� �
y y-
r
4,] �
i ��
� ��
y'. 5
.ate l f
t �
I 14 !
1�``
li�� I:
�
Ali
i
t —
i.l
I�„
�
�'�, �DU 1'�pq
��R[n�i���
t,
�� �
�i
.v
1-
�
i
r j i t�
�
1 t` y
,�
!:�
i �I� a
°
i
I
_ -;
(
I y
',
i � � i t�
��
�
` 'r z _ %'
�-
�_
�
�'�
�r
i t � �I
w k� 6�1 I � i � �
1
i JA C
��
y
.: �
'�
L I —
�
�
..
i r i' J
� �
J��
�y[ �
.
t�.
� ,Y
�'�
t.
�
y
1
,
�
1
`���
�'�
��
7 J
y
Y L L
t
� i
wg!
...
�h ^� �
,�- �. r
;.
J
' J� D w
'i .�
��
,,, °s
�
��� � � I
� (q
'4`� i
SADR 04 -008
2633 S. Baldwin Avenue
0
0
40
R E • A - L �-J,� T - Y
€ th
City of Arcadia
RE: Disapproval of appeal
Public Hearing
SADR No. 04 -008
2633 S. Baldwin Ave.
Date 03/09/04
2633 S. BALDWIN AVE., ARCADIA, CA 91007 -8325
TEL: (626) 309 -7999, FAX: (626) 309 -7977
It is with great respect that we submit the following statements to the planning
commission to appeal the decision made on the item #04 -008 on the night of March 09,
2004.
1. It is our opinion that the neon sign colors are consistent with the existing Building
sign and colors and complement the nearby commercial surroundings.
• 2. It is our opinion that the neon tubing enhances the building look and its
surrounding area.
We are confident that the City of Arcadia would concur with our opinions.
an
Long Dragon Realty
Direct: (626) 614 -8891
.I�WWW Lo n 9 D r go n R ea /tY
Q e °o
We're With You every step of the Way
r �
�PTI. o loot 6
Subject:SADR No.04 -008
2633 S. Baldwin Ave.
It is with great respect that we submit the following statements to planning
Commission to appeal the decision for the above mentioned subject.
1. It is our opinion that the neon sign colors are consistent with the existing
Building sign and colors and complement the nearby commercial surroundings.
2.It is our opinion that the neon tubing enhance this building out look and its
security.
We are confident that the planning commission would concur with our opinion.
Renee Ho
.'L-
WA g43G
Z -z5 -o4
E
0
IL
dcr
LU
0
1
U
t l ,� s➢ w, r 9 alf v� f 1 ; °� t
O -
1
el ,{ e . ��"r,1t 1
AI�. t�JU .li's,, .vtl s p?�,. ?�n'� t ,t�+?ta °�
V
I
07 'gG
N .:
CC)
Cl) -_
N
Cl) +- ,.
N
w
CN
N co
a
"k
Z '
W W
J �
Z
z.p
ui
CD ui
Z -F— rty�yt
Y ^Wa}l
pru_t i t'
ei
trrfW 4� �Y la• 't faa <t:.
1 t
r r .
.tar ik i
t .
{Y
I
Y.
a'
t
i
oy
a
W ,�U) v U;
UJ
JI 6
t
w
� n �
,yD
/� at
I,
W
�d
_
a 1 �� �
.
❑aQiw
JU o0
• � ;.
0� m Q. W coico
I`❑
❑.� NON
,.
X,W
IL
cr W
cO �-.1 —' Q
t l ,� s➢ w, r 9 alf v� f 1 ; °� t
O -
1
el ,{ e . ��"r,1t 1
AI�. t�JU .li's,, .vtl s p?�,. ?�n'� t ,t�+?ta °�
V
I
07 'gG
N .:
CC)
Cl) -_
N
Cl) +- ,.
N
w
CN
N co
a
"k
Z '
W W
J �
Z
z.p
ui
CD ui
Z -F— rty�yt
Y ^Wa}l
pru_t i t'
ei
trrfW 4� �Y la• 't faa <t:.
1 t
r r .
.tar ik i
t .
{Y
I
Y.
a'
t
i
oy
a
W ,�U) v U;
UJ
JI 6
t
w
� n �
,yD
/� at
I,
i
�d
_
a 1 �� �
V
I
07 'gG
N .:
CC)
Cl) -_
N
Cl) +- ,.
N
w
CN
N co
a
"k
Z '
W W
J �
Z
z.p
ui
CD ui
Z -F— rty�yt
Y ^Wa}l
pru_t i t'
ei
trrfW 4� �Y la• 't faa <t:.
1 t
r r .
.tar ik i
t .
{Y
I
Y.
a'
t
i
oy
a
W ,�U) v U;
UJ
JI 6
t
w
� n �
,yD
/� at
I,
pru_t i t'
ei
trrfW 4� �Y la• 't faa <t:.
1 t
r r .
.tar ik i
t .
{Y
I
Y.
a'
t
i
oy
a
W ,�U) v U;
UJ
JI 6
t
w
� n �
,yD
/� at
I,
Y.
a'
t
i
oy
a
W ,�U) v U;
UJ
JI 6
t
w
� n �
,yD
/� at
I,
4 r
!kr
1' 1
L'
{ rF 1 YJ
1 Ya
!
i
r r
u
r
r
�
lrrI�kF
'
l
� '.
r m+
n
^.r
if
4i u
u�pi IIIS^
j
+
KI
I
rl
t 1 �
l
�sn
r S
1;
:.J
y
I
1 ix
v
^ 1 t.•
lu I
w
:I
1c �a
f °
a g LL�
N �C
CD
Zz
o
x
w +; O j�� - -� .. - J Z, J O N Z
py' m Z O �.1 i
w o� Z v w d� i
a
w
O Z. W 5
mw � F
G
o�
�w 00 r
al
$ 'iq %� 0
np
$n ro
OX
'gin �o o��z oG �•
b �e �C�1 �•• <
g
big
8 ° •
°
3 z
ON
�•• zm2 °U
z ° &�
0 0
m
- -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- = -- - -�{
w
z a6����rM z���Z •
\� ! i
HBO
4. PUBLIC HEARING HEARING SADR 2004 -008
2633 S. Baldwin Ave.
• ' Renee Ho
Consideration of an appeal of staff s denial of the architectural design review for a neon design
element that was installed on the office building without approval.
The staff report was presented.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert indicated that the decision was based
upon the design of the building and the use.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. Lambert said the two reasons given for the basis for
denial are in the architectural design review regulations. There is nothing in the code that addresses
neon signs.
Ms. Butler interjected that the architectural design review guidelines were approved by Planning
Commission and adopted by the City Council in February 2002. The main concern is that this is not an
integral part of the design of the building. There have been some requests for neon type lighting that
have been approved'but it is dependent upon the design of the building and use of the buildings. These
have been typically on retail buildings or restaurants. Neon bands have never been approved on an
office building. This neon lighting is an attention- attracting device and not appropriate for this building,
especially in light of how it has been designed. It is not compatible with the original design of the
• building. She went on to say that staff is concerned with the neon element. She thought they could have
used a less obtrusive type of lighting, such as up lighting to achieve a softer look Staff is concerned
with the aesthetics of the neon element. This type of lighting has not been encouraged in the past and
does not enhance the building, rather it becomes a focal point and this could be their reasoning for
installing it but staff feels it is inappropriate. The Long Dragon sign was approved through architectural
design review.
The public hearing was opened.
Ny Han, 436 Catalpa, spoke on behalf of the owners. He distributed an information packet, which
included pictures of the building and showed the neon lights at night. He indicated that this is a
procedural violation and they would not mind just paying a fine, and be able to keep the neon element
and move forward. When they hired their contractor, they figured that he would obtain the necessary
approvals needed and did not feel that they should be punished for the contractor's mistake.
He discussed each photo and explained the view from each one and how it would be visible. He also
compared the neon lights on the building with the other commercial buildings in the area, such as El
Pollo Loco, which also has a band of neon around the building. Based upon the pictures, he indicated
that the neon is compatible because there are others already existing in the immediate area. He went on
to say that the neon actually enhances the look of the building and the area and disagreed with staff's
opinion that the neon is inappropriate. Although, this is_ categorized as an office building, it is situated
on a C -2 zoned property. Also, due to the existing business there, Long Dragon Realty which he
•' classified as a retail business, they have many clients that visit them at various times of the day. The
Arcadia City Planing Commiaaion 1 5 3/9/4
neon attracts customers and markets the building. The neon does not contradict architectural design
review regulations.
He explained the reasons for having the neon is to provide additional security for their employees and •
customers. Recently, there have been a rash of crimes committed against realtors while they are
working late in the office. Their working hours vary, some work late into the evening because that is the
time that their clients are available to meet. The neon illuminates the building and provides additional
security. They have already installed some security lighting in the parking area and the neon is just one
more security measure. They are concerned about the safety of their customers and employees. They
have had a great relationship with the city and would like to continue it and asked for Planning
Commission's consideration with this regard.
In answer to a question by the Commission, Mr: Han indicated that the Long Dragon sign has been there
for many years. He indicated that they moved into this building in 1998 from across the street, where
they were located before. The neon will brighten their parking lot and provide security. In reply to a
question by Chairman Baderian, Mr. Han said that they relied on their contractor to pull the necessary
permits and found out about the violation after the neon was installed.
Philip Hsu, 606 Walnut Ave. said that he is a concerned realtor. He would like to be proactive and
emphasize security and crime prevention. He submitted and read a letter from Doug Meyer, Manager
for Coldwell Banker, George Realty, which in part stated that during February one of their female
realtors was a victim of an attempted mugging and in another incident a man approached one of their
male agents with a knife. Both of these indicate the need for additional security and that a well lit
parking lot will reduce crime. They are concerned about the safety of their realtors and customers. He
noted that staff does not live in the area and does not have a vested interest, whereas, they are the •
community; the residents and business owners; and very .concerned with what goes on in their
neighborhood. They, the business owners and residents, feel that this would be a plus and will improve
the area. According to code, there are exceptions as to when neon could be used, and he felt that this
would fall into that category. Their neon tubing would be compatible with El Pollo Loco which has a
similar band of orange neon around its building. It would be visually harmonious.
Nancy Chan, 217 Sharon Rd., said she drives in this area all the time and it was a dark corner before the
restaurants came in and now the comer is lit up and looks nice. Before, this was a dangerous comer,
especially because a lot of people walk there. This comer is a gateway into the City and it is nice that it
is lit up because a dark comer does not do justice to the city. She thought the neon would greatly
increase security and as far as aesthetics it would be compatible with the other corners of the
intersection. She suggested solving the code violation by talking and compromising with the property
owner.
Chairman Baderian asked Mr. Han if they ever contacted the Police Dept, informing them of their
concerns about safety and lack of lighting? Also, they have been in this building since 1998, why are
they requesting this now?
In reply, Mr. Shu said that he discussed the matter today with the Police Department and they felt that
additional lighting would be a good idea because it would provide security and be another crime
prevention tool. In fact, they encouraged other buildings to do the same. They are requesting this now
due to the recent crimes that was committed in realty offices. As mentioned, they have enhanced the •
lighting in the parking lot and the walkways and this is just another added security measure.
Arcadia City Harming Commission 6 3/9/4
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
• ' MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Wen to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Commissioner Wen felt that any type of lighting is good and will impact the neighborhood. He viewed
this with the perspective of encouraging businesses. In fact, the racetrack, after being in business for so
many years, added illuminated signs at several key corners to attract business. As an electrical engineer
he likes to see buildings illuminated. He liked lighting up the skeleton of the building. With regard to
whether it is appropriate or not, he said that looking at this corner, there is a gas station and other
commercial uses that are well lit. This light is very typical of Chinese structure and culture and it high
lights the Asian realty company. There is nothing wrong with it. The color matches and the building
stands out. Looking at how a business would view this, they are looking to enlarge their exposure.
Although, he thought they should have gotten permission before installing the lights.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Olson, Ms. Butler indicated that if Arco wanted to redo their
signs, they would be required to have a monument sign. The new guidelines that were recently adopted
i by City Council encourage monument signs, although, it is not specified in the code. When the City
Council adopted the new guidelines, it was their desire to encourage monument style signs, so staff is
trying to encourage .that and feels that would be compatible with the design guidelines and sign
regulations.
Commissioner Olson felt they should be looking at this as if it does not exist. It was put up without any
review or approval, therefore, in his opinion, this does not exist and that is how they should review it.
This was installed without permits and is this what they want in the city? Is this what they want the city
to look like and do they want this in Arcadia? If they were concerned about vandalism and crime, would
this be the sign that they should approve to address their concerns? He was not sure that would be the
way to go. But what this sign does for the property owner is illuminate the building and help the
business. The city does have specific regulations for signs on buildings and he was troubled that the
applicant referred to this violation as "procedural'. Had they approached the city, they would not be
here right now. Staff has reviewed this and even though it was reviewed after the fact, it still does not
comply. This is not a question of allowing the property owner to pay a fine but allowing him to keep an
illegally installed element, it is what is appropriate in the city and what is not. Again, they should
review this as if it is not there. This is not a financial hardship issue but uniformity of development and
compatibility.
Ms. Butler said that the neon lighting is not considered as a sign but is considered a design element.
Staff reviewed it based on compatibility with building and the surrounding area. Staff is also objecting
to the Greek style design proposed.
0)
Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 3/9/4
Commissioner Olson further stated that if the issues are to reduce crime and provide security, then the
applicant should provide additional lighting in the parking and walkway areas. There are different ways
of accenting and providing additional lighting for security. They should look at this as if it is not there •
and would they approve it based on current regulations and he thought they would deny it.
Commissioner Lucas said in his opinion the applicant is advocating that this is a form of lighting,
whereas, staff is saying that it is a design issue. He agreed with Commissioner Olson's comments. He
did not think this was appropriate lighting for the building. He did not know whether this was the best
answer to provide additional security. He felt that this is a design issue and the only reason that security
issue has been discussed is because the applicant brought it up.
Commissioner Hsu said he drove by the area last night and saw the lighting He did not feel that it
enhances the building, nor did he find it objectionable. In absence of specific regulations, he could not
see how they could prohibit this type of lighting.
In reply to a question by Chairman Baderian, Ms. Butler stated that they look at this as an office
building and not a commercial use or the zoning of the property. Neon lighting is not encouraged, only
on rare occasions for restaurants or service stations but never on office buildings. There are many ways
and techniques to illuminate a building such as down lighting. Many hours were spent reviewing this.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner. Olson, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to deny the appeal of
SADR 2004 -008 and to uphold staff's denial based on inconsistency with the City's architectural
Design Review Guidelines. •
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Baderian
NOES: Commissioners Hsu, Wen
Chairman Baderian noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by
March 16.
•
Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 � 3194
......
Af� .
i'
o.
bn
1' �
�� \'
��.1.��
�C.� .. � �
.��hl,
.nl _ .. 'I ...
3 h
l � i
1,
��
� ,�
�
f
t
I t i +( ��
4 ���
��
� Ilu r
N
t
9V f�
i
K[
e'
`.
5 f 1 i Y 11
i.
-
��
� ��_ '� i
iii
�
j
o.
bn
1' �
�� \'
��.1.��
�C.� .. � �
.��hl,
.nl _ .. 'I ...
IF
f IF IT
IF
n e
CD
r
z� 1
�t tr AP I
F F v I f i � akt} �a i(x Y SC1 [jrQ �uOl �
; I t � }5tri �Yti it iQ Q+,v -r In' h�
u.
Y x
��' I er r �, f➢t{ s �' N Co C
co.cfl
r,3 �< <+-
V-t
Nv, Q F—,
i
lf`
a t, s }
nn i; Y
fP is i
Ft f
i :I ;
t a
4� t
t�
Nt
I;.
Z
IT
CD
�x I.
a
t
1 Y
W
4
F
1
�1
W
dM i j
I
j
14
1
{ Y
{
v
ti
Y
tli
1 ' 1 J
a
t
W
1
W
.:k
I
I S KA
I
'1 7
t 1 iYA I rli WA � .
J ifl5i ` _
L , ,
�� itp iY 32 !� ��.• a
a(
a , t
tote
Tuesday,May 04,2004
Public Hearing
SA ®R 2004 -008
2633 S.SALDWIN AVE.
J1 HAN
III II �
NIB,,
;.n t
�',
'_'t"� -';',+ '6i r �r "' 1. . .
f
r -.,
11www
`Q.
r
r
Pardha -a MoRI
We'n %
fl• 8 - A. L- T r Y
:aaitIV
Via Fax: 626-046 -5729
April 2112004
Attn. to: Mr. William R- Kelly
Arcadia City Manager'
Arcadia City Hall
240 W Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
2633 S. BALDWIN AVE., ARGAU10k. GA 91UW-04L7
TEL: (526) 309 -7909, FAX: (626) 309.7977
Re: City Councilors Hearing Extension Request
Property Address: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
Case Number: 5ADR 2004 -008
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we, the subject property owners, need more
time to do research work for May 4, 2004 hearing. We hereby
request an extension of the City Councilors hearing to May 18, 2004.
We are look forward to hearing your approval at your earliest
convenience.
Best regards,
Renee Ho
Lon g Drag 0 qoa r
Y_
e
3
TOTRL P.01
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING SADR 2004 -008
2633 S. Baldwin Ave.
Renee Ho
1. Background Statement
2. Explanations
3. Neighborhood business Letters of Support
4. Exhibit 1 — Sign company contract
S. Picture 1 — Subject Building in daylight
6. Picture 2 — Building intersection from southeast position at night.
7. Picture 3 — Building intersection from east position at night.
8. Picture 4 — A sign from neighboring business at night.
Abstract
Background
As the building owners, we signed a contract with Fortune Sign (the "Sign Company ") on
December 1, 2003, (See exihibit I) to erect the neon sign in question. As implied by the
contract, the Sign Contract assumed responsibility for obtaining any and all necessary
permits. Due to the negligence of the Sign Company, we, the owners, have become
the victims in this case.
Our first indication that the Sign Company did not received the requisite city permits
came on February 10, 2004, when we received form the City of Arcadia a property
maintenance notice of violation. This notice indicated that our sign did "not meet City of
Arcadia sign ordinances." On February 12, 2004, we promptly submitted the proper
application for permit to remedy the negligence of the Sign Company.
On February 19, 2004, we received the permit denial letter from the Development
Services Department based on "inconsistency with the City's Architectural Design
Guidelines." We appealed the case on February 25, 2004. then, we received the hearing
schedule and a copy of the "staff Report" form the Development Services Department
(DSD) providing proposal, analysis and recommendation for either "denial of appeal" or
"approval of appeal."
Argument Summary
We have attached our explanations to the reasons provided by the DSD for permit denial.
The two main reasons for denial were that the sign was "not visually harmonious" with
the surrounding environment, and that neon tubing was usually not allowed for office
buildings. As our argument details, the sign coordinates well with the surrounding color
schemes and actually adds to the visual harmony, as attested by a written and signed
statement from our neighboring businesses. In addition, the neon tubing used was
appropriate and falls under the city ordinance exception which allows tubing to be used
on retail stores. Our building is a real estate sales retail store, and therefore, should fall
within the exception to the ordinance granted by the City.
Conclusion
Even though the Sign Company, a third party we are not liable for, caused this conflict,
as a gesture of goodwill, we would be willing to consider paying a reasonable fine in
order to obtain the necessary permit to keep the sign. We would like to work with the
City to help remedy this unfortunate situation for the best solution to all parties involved.
PUBLIC HEARING SADR 2004 -008
Background Statement: As the building owner, we have signed a contract with "Fortune
Sign" on December 1, 2003 (See exhibit I) to contract this neon sign job to them. Due to the
negligence of the Sign Company, we, the owner, have become the victim of this case.
Upon receiving the property maintenance notice of violation from City of Arcadia on February
10, 2004 indicating "Signs that do not meet City of Arcadia sign ordinances ", On February 12,
2004, we submitted the application for permit to remedy the negligence of the sign Company.
On February 19, 2004, we received the denial letter from the Development Services Department
based on "inconsistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines.
We appealed the case on February 25, 2004. Then, we received the hearing schedule and a copy
of the "Staff Report" of the Development Services Dept providing proposal, analysis and
recommendation for either "denial of appeal" or "approval of appeal ".
Explanations
1. The architectural treatment of buildings and their materials, textures and colors, shall be visually
harmonious with existing buildings, surrounding development, and shall enhance the appearance of the
area. The neon is not consistent with other development in the vicinity, and does not aesthetically enhance
the design of the building or the neighborhood. The neon is also inconsistent with the existing "channel
letter" wall sign located on the south building elevation.
— Explanation—
Picture 1 depicts the subject building in the day light. Clearly the neon tubing is
neither visually distracting nor dissonant with the existing building, buildings, or
surrounding areas.
Picture 2 illustrates the comer of Las Tunas Dr. and Baldwin Ave. shown from a
southeast position. From this picture, it is also apparent that the color scheme and
visual accents are not only consistent with, but also effectively enhances the
aesthetics of the surrounding businesses that occupy the four comers. The neon
accents utilize the exact same colors as the existing "channel letter" wall sign on the
south building elevation. These two colors are orange and white. White is most
harmonious and compatible with all other colors and visually pleasing with the other
buildings in the vicinity. Under further inspection of the surrounding businesses, the
colors most widely used are also white and orange; as seen in El Polio Loco, the
Arco logo, and the Big Lots! logo and sign.
Picture 3 further illustrates these points.
2. Exposed tubing is not recommended as an accent material, but in some cases is an appropriate material to
be used for the primary wall sign.
— Explanation—
The use of exposed tubing material for our building accent is not only
appropriate, but in fact, the ep rfect material in this situation. The neon tubing
material gives us the ability to visually enhance at night, yet is virtually invisible
during the day when not needed. In picture 1, it is shown that the neon tubing is less
noticeable and is still consistent with other buildings and /or structures in daylight.
3. In some cases staff has allowed neon as a design component on some restaurant and other retail buildings.
Typically, office buildings do not utilize neon as a design element, which is more typically associated with
retail and restaurant uses. Staff feels that the colored neon is inconsistent with the type of building and its
architectural design.
— Explanation
Although our building is an office building, we are a sales office. We provide
services, but fundamentally, we are in retail sales. The colored neon helps us to
attract and market customers that we depend on to maintain the reputation of the
model real estate office we strive for. The neon tubing does not contradict the
architectural design as it only delineates the contours of the building.
In recent times, real estate offices have required more safety because crime
against our Realtors and clients has increased. Our office work hours are not bound
by the same hours in normal work environments. We work when our clients have
time, which is after hours. Our neon accent not only adds to the safety of our
customers, our agents and the surrounding public, but it also makes it easier for our
customers to rind our building while driving at night. The safety of our customers is
very important to us and we feel that an increase in lighting in the parking lot and on
the wall will help us achieve that goal.
Long Dragon Realty has been in Arcadia for 13 years. We have a great
relationship with the city and would want to continue this great relationship. We
would greatly appreciate the Planning Commissioner's Approval of our building
accent so we may continue to serve Arcadia for the betterment of the city.
Re: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we, as the neighbor of Building 2633 S. Balwin
Ave., Arcadia, we have no objection to, the newly installed neon tubing
architecturaf design on top of the building. . We find that the designs are
very unique and artistic, the colors are visually harmonious with the
existing buildings, surrounding development, and enhance the appearance
of the areas.
We have noticed at the night time the white and orange colors of the neon
design match the same colors of the lighting of the surrounding buildings
i.e. Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant, El Pollo Loco Mexican Restaurant,
and Big Lot Discount Store etc. It is consistent with the surrounding
development of the areas.
In conclusion, we are in support of the newly installed neon tubing design
on the top of the building of 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia. With the
neon lighting on the subject property, it has enlighten the areas a lot.
Best regards,
Signed by: U ' Date:
Name & Title: NAtZA M���T,�q+� MRNA kvv,
Business Name:
Tel:
Address :(69 !Q3 C� Ci U'->FY `?i` l?D Zv
Re: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we, as the neighbor of Building 2633 S. Balwin
Ave., Arcadia, we have no objection to the newly installed neon tubing
architectural design on top of the building. We find that the designs are
very unique and artistic, the colors are visually harmonious with the
existing buildings, surrounding development, and enhance the appearance
of the areas.
We have noticed at the night time the white and orange colors of the neon
design match the same colors of the lighting of the surrounding buildings
i.e. Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant, El Pollo Loco Mexican Restaurant,
and Big Lot Discount Store etc. It is consistent with the surrounding
development of the areas.
In conclusion, we are in support of the newly installed neon tubing design
on the top of the building of 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia. With the
neon lighting on the subject property, it has enlighten the areas a lot.
Best regards,
Signed by: Sax� 'I Date: 3 691 0`
Name & Title:
Ste,,,,. I�nIo'^1
Business Name: First Baptist Church
Tel: 626 -286 -3125
Address: 6019 Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91 j Arm FI'6019 Baldwivenue
T6MO14 Ot9, California 91780 :( 626) 2�4 3125 Fax(626).286-Z185_.r:.'
Re: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we, as the neighbor of Building 2633 S. Balwin
Ave., Arcadia, we have no objection to the newly installed neon tubing
architectural design on top of the building. We find that the designs are
very unique and artistic, the colors are visually harmonious with the
existing buildings, surrounding development, and enhance the appearance
of the areas.
We have noticed at the night time the white and orange colors of the neon
design match the same colors of the lighting of the surrounding buildings
i.e. Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant, El Pollo Loco Mexican Restaurant,
and Big Lot Discount Store etc. It is consistent with the surrounding
development of the areas.
In conclusion, we are in support of the newly installed neon tubing design
on the top of the building of 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia. With the
neon lighting on the subject property, it has enlighten the areas a lot.
Best regards,
Signed by: Date:
Name & Title.
Business Name: Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant
Tel: 626- 445 -4555
Address: 558 Las Tunas Dr., Arcadia 91
3/s io
Re: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we, as the neighbor of Building 2633 S. Balwin
Ave., Arcadia, we have no objection to the newly installed neon tubing
architectural design on top of the building. We find that the designs are
very unique and artistic, the colors are visually harmonious with the
existing buildings, surrounding development, and enhance the appearance
of the areas.
We have noticed at the night time the white and orange colors of the neon
design match the same colors of the lighting of the surrounding buildings
i.e. Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant, El Pollo Loco Mexican Restaurant,
and Big Lot Discount Store etc. It is consistent with the surrounding
development of the areas.
In conclusion, we are in support of the newly installed neon tubing design
on the top of the building of 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia. With the
neon lighting on the subject property, it has enlighten the areas a lot.
Best regards,
Signed by: — Date: 3 -9-2C7. e/
Name & Title:
Business Name: FIL 4oe- L o Loco
Address: f9 -
t���r4w
�. la
ALEX GHOMI
Manager
9974 East Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 9178(
tel. 626- 309.9555
cell. 949. 292.2701
Re: 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007
To Whom It May Concern:
• Exp�rBss Test & Repair
Complete Auto Repair & SerDice
Foreign & Domestics Cars
OPEN GAS & MINI MART
M -F: 8 em m - 6 6 p pm
Sat: a am - 5 pm 24 HOURS
Sun: 9 am - 5 am
• Smog Check Appointment Available, 24 Hrs., 7 Days A Week
• Available Key Drop for Early Bird
• Also Suggestion Box ® Bay Area
Please be advised that we, as the neighbor of Building 2633 S. Balwin
Ave., Arcadia, we have no objection to the newly installed neon tubing
architectural design on top of the building. We find that the designs are
very unique and artistic, the colors are visually harmonious with the
existing buildings, surrounding development, and enhance the appearance
of the areas. '
We have noticed at the night time'the white and orange colors of the neon
design match the same colors of the lighting of the surrounding buildings
i.e. Mandarin Shanghai Restaurant, El Pollo Loco Mexican Restaurant,
and Big Lot Discount Store etc. It is consistent with the surrounding
development of the areas.
In conclusion, we are in support of the newly installed neon tubing design
on the top of the building of 2633 S. Baldwin Ave., Arcadia. With the
neon lighting on the subject property, it has enlighten the areas a lot.
Best regards,
Signed by:( Date:
Name & Title:
Business Name: ALL 0
Tel:
Address:
1`�UV -cv -vJ VV 1vr w w w w w Ucv J / >Urov♦ r -a_,c
F
s
t
Nov 26, 2003
Miss. Renee Ho
Long Dragon Realty
2633 S. Baldwin Ave
Arcadia Ca 91007
Tel: 626 -309 -3999
Fax: 626-309-7977
F®AMOVE S®VIVAW
TELEPHONE: (626) 579 -9446
FAX: (626) 579 -0610
P-0- BOX 3 6 3 6 S. EL M O N T E CA 9 1 7 3 3
E -MAIL: FSCI60QAOL.COM
REVISED PROPOSAL
To manufacture and install the following:
!. A. South Elevation: White neon (pattern) 45', actual size: 299',
Orange neon boarder: 37'
B. Corner: white neon (pattern) 54 "; actual size: 29'-6";
Orange neon boarder: 32'
C. East Elevation: white neon (pattern) W-2", actual size: 353'
Orange neon boarder: 39
** Total white neon pattern: U81.50'
** Total orange neon boarder: 108' $1,518.75 + tax
$1,296.00 +tax
** Total Neon:
Old customer discount: - $$9, +tax. .
- 9811.50 .50
2. Spot light above non - illuminated si gn age 2 spotlight, 4,' over hanging on north wail
sign..
3• Apply bird repellent on south and east wall edge & to of si $420'00 + tax
4. Electrician cost: P gnage. $1,3 0.00 +fast
$1,320.00
** 4 weeks completion. Total: $12,581,52
** 50% deposit request and balance to be pay by completion.
** Electric power provide by owner, Fortune sign hook up on sign location only.
FORTUNE SIGNS: BY_'2 `
� ACCEPTED BY: kd �
MICKEY WU �.
4
11/26/03' r✓ t�vy l�'
11 DATE: d =
h h
J i
To manufacture and install the following:
!. A. South Elevation: White neon (pattern) 45', actual size: 299',
Orange neon boarder: 37'
B. Corner: white neon (pattern) 54 "; actual size: 29'-6";
Orange neon boarder: 32'
C. East Elevation: white neon (pattern) W-2", actual size: 353'
Orange neon boarder: 39
** Total white neon pattern: U81.50'
** Total orange neon boarder: 108' $1,518.75 + tax
$1,296.00 +tax
** Total Neon:
Old customer discount: - $$9, +tax. .
- 9811.50 .50
2. Spot light above non - illuminated si gn age 2 spotlight, 4,' over hanging on north wail
sign..
3• Apply bird repellent on south and east wall edge & to of si $420'00 + tax
4. Electrician cost: P gnage. $1,3 0.00 +fast
$1,320.00
** 4 weeks completion. Total: $12,581,52
** 50% deposit request and balance to be pay by completion.
** Electric power provide by owner, Fortune sign hook up on sign location only.
FORTUNE SIGNS: BY_'2 `
� ACCEPTED BY: kd �
MICKEY WU �.
4
11/26/03' r✓ t�vy l�'
11 DATE: d =
h h
MAW
a"t
I l oo I'
5,
ry. d
a t di
I
l�
It
Y
fv�l
f
y,
r
t
m uag {. tkr p'
��
p
s
Y
r
1 r,
U,+ +
At
M
M ✓
V iF 4�r A I � •� a 11'.
1 r
1
,
ti
er5 J � t
� 1 1
1
t it 1 '•v5 ,I'•
i st � .r lll� t I kjr 1 fiY if�a, tr�9r r nl �r Y,�
I I+ Y� ' i� � ,ti � ij �e Y o F 1•} t 7 � ^., l��z °� Y
)YkY FY-
, I r F 4 i t rk
,
It I
r� 1 ,a S Y 1� A r 1 1� 1 r�p•,
�11
x
k t
k
I 1
V.
IIIi
III
..
t AIL
J
t
I {
f 1� PI iJl
zr
r
}
rn
I:
Y�I r
]V
I f
5
i
i t
p
x
it
Y � I
i
« r
vd
t � I
1 s f
1 r
1
�
rah 1
a
1 r n '�i fi
1
p�pr Ifi.
tY
'
" 1 ' + , « 7 d I Fi y, a r a I a r< , - •
T
f ,ii x11 1 ur 4`i 'J
r 1 i a v f
I
.
I�
N„tu I � f Ir y riV «J v r f
i
t e 4 I,,Ya
i F
9 Y 5
Y
i
vt
11 .f
IZ
lfh
�
1
Ol.
z ,w I,,
If I
ri Ip«
It
ti
�a
rl
ti
i,
Ike,
r qt r�
4
Q 1 y «
a;, r
May 18, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don PenSgan, Assistant City Manager /Development Services
DirectorO
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration of Text Amendment T.A. 03 -05 amending the City's
Parking Regulations
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 2189 Amending
Section 9264.3.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, deleting Table
9264.3.4 and revising in its entirety Division 9 of Article IX, Chapter
• 2, Part 6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding Parking
Regulations
SUMMARY
Text Amendment 03 -05 was initiated by the Development Services Department
to update the City's parking regulations. The current parking regulations have not
been amended since 1985 and during the last few years there have been
significant changes in the way many businesses operate such as banking
institutions and there are new types of businesses that the parking regulations do
not address such as tutorial schools and senior housing.
Staff is also proposing that the "shared parking" regulations set forth in the CBD
(Central. Business District) zone be eliminated.
The Planning Commission at its March 9, 2004 meeting voted 5 to 0 to
recommend approval of the proposed changes.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of text
amendment T.A. 03 -05 as set forth in the staff report and attached Exhibit A and
introduction of Ordinance No. 2189 Amending Section 9264.3.4 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code, deleting Table 9264.3.4 and revising in its entirety Division 9 of
Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding Parking
• i Regulations.
LASER IMAGED
DISCUSSION
During the past two years, the Development Services Department has been
reviewing parking standards from other cities as well as studies conducted by
International Parking Design, Inc., Walker Parking Consultants and the American
Planning Association. The proposed revisions are based upon industry
standards, parking regulations of other cities and staffs experience.
General parking changes
A summary of proposed changes is set forth below.
Required Parking Spaces
The following lists the proposed changes to the number of required parking
spaces:
sf — Square Feet
2 gfa —Gross Floor Area
Wn n: 0"tt
-g -ETA 03 i05c�ap � 1S
CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 2
•
•
r
L
None
1 space per staff + 1 per five
Day Care /pre - school facilities,
nurseries
(5) children or one (1) per 10
children If adequate drop off
rovided
Fast Food w/o drive thru
20/1000.- fa
15 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
Fast Food w /drive thru
20/1000 sf gfa
10 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa .
Financial Institutions, including
6/1000 sf gfa
4 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
but not limited to banks,
savings and loans, credit
unions
Health Clubs /Fitness Centers
1/35 sf gfa
1 space per 35 sq. ft. gfa in all
workout areas
Hotels /Motels
1.1 per room
1 space per room + number of
spaces required for ancillary
uses such as restaurants,
large meeting rooms, etc.
Industrial, Manufacturing
2/1000 sf gfa
3/1,000 sf gfa for projects
<10,000 sf in area
2/1000 sf gfa for projects.
>10,000 sf
Martial Art Studios
Not addressed
1 space per 100 sf of
instructional floor area
Offices, General
411000 sf gfa
No change
Offices for Medical, Dental,
6/1000 sf gfa
6 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
including acupuncturist
(same) however differing
between other medical -type
uses
Optometrists, Op ticians
1611000 sf gfa
5 spaces per 1,000 sf fa
sf — Square Feet
2 gfa —Gross Floor Area
Wn n: 0"tt
-g -ETA 03 i05c�ap � 1S
CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 2
•
•
r
L
0t
Other Permitted uses, i.e.,
5 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
No changes
retail, service uses, nail
salons, beauty salons, etc.
Psychologists, Psychiatrist,
6 /1000 sf gfa
4 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
Counseling offices
Public Assembly; including
115 fixed seats; 1/35 sf of non
1/5 permanent fixed seats;
churches, community bldgs.,
fixed seats; 1/28 linear feet of
1/35 sf of area with non -fixed
recreation centers, community
bench area
seats; 1128 linear feet of bench
buildings, private clubs
area
Restaurants /Bars
10/1000 sf gfa
10 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa for
restaurants/ bars with less than
5,001 sf of gfa
15 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa for
restaurants /bars >5,001 sf gfa
Restaurants with bars and /or
10/1000 sf gfa
20 spaces per 1,000 sf gfa
cocktail lounges occupying
more than 30% of the
dinin /bar area
Senior Citizen affordable
None
1 per unit
apartment housing
Senior Citizen market rate
None
2 per unit
housing units
Senior Citizen assisted living
None
1.5 per unit
facility
Movie and performing arts
Under public assembly: 115
1 per 3 fixed seats
theaters and auditoriums
fixed seats
Tutorial Schools; learning
Under public assembly:
Schools /leaming centers for
centers; trade schools; private
115 fixed seats; 1/35 sf of non
children under high school
schools
fixed seats
age: 1 per employee plus 1 for
every 5 students
Trade schools, private schools,
learning centers for students of
high school age or older: 1 per
employee plus 1 for every 3
students
Warehouses
2/1000 sf fa
No change
Location
Currently the code allows off -site parking within 495' of the building or land use.
The proposed revision will allow off -site parking within a maximum of 100' rather
than the 495' allowed. This standard is proposed to be changed because
realistically people will only park where the parking is convenient and within
immediate access to a use.
Parking Stall Sizes
Currently the City's parking stall sizes are:
• TA 03- 05ccrpt 5-1e CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 3
Standard 9'x 20' commercial •
8' /i x 20' industrial
Compact 8'x 16'
(the City allows 20% compact spaces)
Some cities allow a universal parking stall size and do not differentiate between
compact and standard spaces (see attached table). Most of the universal
parking stall sizes noted in the attached table are 8' -6 "x18'. Based upon staffs
observations and experience of parking in the narrower stall widths in other
communities, and the trend towards larger vehicles, staff is recommending that
compact or small car spaces be eliminated from the code and that the standard
size of 9'x 20' remain for commercial and 8'/z x 20' remain for industrial.
One of the Planning Commissioners suggested that a universal parking size of 9'
x 18' be considered, noting that the width is typically more critical than the depth
of the space. Another Commissioner suggested that there be a standard parking
stall size of 9' x 20' for all parking spaces within both the commercial and
industrial zones.
Although 9' x 18' stalls are permitted in many cities, it is the Development
Services Department's opinion that a 9' x 20' stall provides for a better stall depth
especially in light of the larger vehicles such as the SUV's and extended cab •
trucks that are on the market today. The average length of the larger SUV's is
nearly 17 feet, and the Ford Excursion is 18.89' in length and the standard
Chevrolet Suburban and GMC Yukon are 18.28' in length. Larger vehicles
require more maneuvering space and have a smaller margin of error for the
driver when pulling into a typical parking stall. The sale of larger SUV's has
increased faster than any other type of vehicle in the domestic, import and light
truck categories combined?
In regards to the parking dimensions of 8 1/2' x 20' one of the reasons for the
smaller parking stall widths is because the parking in industrial zones is primarily
there to accommodate the employees. Generally industrial uses have a limited
need for customer parking. As a result persons come to the site, park their
vehicle and then leave only at the end of the business day.
Parking in commercial areas serves both employees and customers and there
tends to be a much higher turnover of vehicles in parking spaces, thus the wider
parking stall width provides easier maneuverability for the higher traffic volumes.
3 ,,SUV Parking — Time to Review — Parking Dimension Standards" by Saul M. Kane, P. E. & •
Matthew D. Ridgway, AICP.
TA 03- 05ccrpt 5-18 CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 4
•;
•
•i
Wheel Stops
The existing code requires either a planter curb or wheel stop for each parking
space to be placed a minimum of 39" from the forward end of the parking stall for
a standard size stall and 26" for a small car stall.
Wheel stops do serve a purpose where they protect structures, walls, sidewalk
encroachments cabinets, and utilities such as hydrants and light poles.
Generally, however, wheel stops are a nuisance and a potential liability for the
property owner (persons tripping over them and cars running into or over the
wheel stops causing damage to the vehicles as well as the stops). Also, they are
susceptible to damage and tend to be neglected when they begin to deteriorate.
Staff is recommending that the requirement for wheel stops be eliminated with
the exception where the spaces face buildings, walkways, walls or other
structures.
Loading Requirements
The loading requirements are being revised to prohibit loading doors and/or
docks on commercial or industrial buildings from being located within 100 feet of
residentially zoned property. In addition all loading areas in excess of 100' from
residential properties or facing public rights -of -way must have a minimum 10'
high solid decorative wall to screen the loading area.
Circulation
A requirement is being added to prohibit parking space backup areas within the
first 20 feet from the public right -of -way and a parking lot entrance or exit. The
purpose of this is to avoid cars backing up onto the street while a car is trying to
enter or exit from a parking space located too close to the property line.
Parking Area Landscaping and Walls
The Development Services Department is also proposing that the interior
landscaping requirements in parking lots be increased for both commercial and
industrial projects as follows:
Commercial zones
That the interior landscaping be increased from 5% to 10 % with an increase
in the number of trees. The 10% would include planting areas adjacent to
buildings as well as planting areas within the parking area and the planting
area that is part of tthe parking stall overhang (which are currently not included
in the 5% calculation).
TA 03- 05ccrpt 5-18
CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 5
Trees shall be a minimum of 24" box with a minimum of 5% of the trees •
specimen trees (36" box or greater).
Industrial Zones
The following changes are proposed:
• That the interior landscaping be increased from 3% to 5 6/6.
Trees shall be a minimum of 24" box with a minimum of 5% of the trees
specimen trees (36" box or greater).
Bicycle Parking
Wording has been added that provides standards for bicycle parking at a ratio of
5% of the requirement for automobile parking. As an example for a lot with 100
parking spaces, a minimum of 5 bicycle parking spaces would be required.
CBD Zone Shared Parking
The Central Business District (CBD) Zone was created in 1995 and regulates the
zoning in the downtown area. The parking requirements are the same as other
commercial zones with the exception that the CBD parking regulations allow for •
"Shared Parking ". The "Shared -use parking standards" are based on the
assumption that patrons will use a single parking space for more than one
destination and that one parking space will be open and available for short-term
parking to serve many different uses that may have different peak hours. The
shared parking standards reduced the minimum required parking ratio as follows:
Office 3/1,000 sf gfa
Retail 2.5/1,000 sf gfa
Public Assembly 1 space/? seats
Restaurant < 1,000 sf of gross usable area 3/1,000 sf gfa
Restaurant > 1,000 sf of gross usable area 5/1,000 sf gfa
In order to be eligible for shared parking, persons wishing to develop a property
under "shared -use parking" are required to enter into an agreement with the City
and recorded with the Office of the County Recorder, requiring the parking to be
operated on a nonexclusive basis, to be open and available to the public for
share -used short-term public parking during normal business hours.
Although the shared use parking concept made sense in its application, it has not
been used by any business or property owner because no one. has been willing
to sign an agreement allowing the parking to be nonexclusive. Staff is
recommending that Table 9264.3.4 "Alternative Shared -Use Parking Standards"
TA 03- 05ccrpt.5 -1 B
CC T.A. 03 -05 •
May 18, 2004
Page 6
be deleted and Section 9264.3.4. "PARKING" be revised in its entirety to read as
set forth below:
"9264.3.4. PARKING. Unless otherwise indicated in this Division, parking
facilities shall be provided as set forth in Section 9269, 'GENERAL
PARKING REGULATIONS' of this Code."
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission at is March 9 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend
approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council. It was the
consensus of the Commission that the document provided a thorough analysis of
the parking needs and that the deletion of the compact or small space was
appropriate. As previously stated, the following are two comments from the
Commission:
One Commissioner felt that the industrial and commercial zones should
have the same parking stall dimension requirements.
Another Commissioner felt that the City should consider 9' x 18' stall
dimensions rather than 9' x 20'.
RECOMMENDATION
• ! The Development Services Department recommends approval of Text
Amendment 03 -05 revising in its entirety Division 9 "GENERAL PARKING
REGULATIONS" as set forth in attached Exhibit A and revising Section 9264.3.4
as set forth above.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed text amendment will not have a potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from CEQA per
Section 15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Text Amendment T.A. 03 -05 and introduce Ordinance No. 2189
Amending Section 9264.3.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, deleting Table
9264.3.4 and revising in its entirety Division 9 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 6
of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding Parking Regulations.
TA 03- 05ccrpt 5-18
CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 7
Approved by: `""
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit A — GENERAL PARKING REGULATIONS
Exhibit B — Standard and Universal Size Parking Spaces
Exhibit C — Parking Standards for Selected Cities
Ordinance 2189
Categorical Exemption
TA 03- 05ccrpt,5 -18. CC T.A. 03 -05
May 18, 2004
Page 8
n
LJ
•
0
2
0
ARCADIA TRIBUNE
affiliated with
SGV Newspaper Group
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
topaua ueiuw iur u5u uv4 uunty t,ium umy)
•
PROOF OF PUBLICA
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
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:
5/9/04
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California
this day of MAY 20 Q4_
signature
I
RECEWED
DRAY 13 2004
CITY OF ARGAMA
Cr YCLERK
TII BEFORE COUNCIL DIA CITY,'',.
Trom ,City ' of. Arcadia Commun
i. Development Division
(Pursuant to law Ahe -City Councll here
gives notice that'a public hearing : will .
held, to, determine whether or,; not" i
following request —shoul d,be u approv(
"conditionally approved or denied:
Application : No.:., Text'-Amendment l'
r2003005
pro; Request: -Text Amendment ,t
(1) Revising 1nelts, entlrety Division
;'General Parking-'Regulations set forth
{{"Article .)X, Chapter -, 2, -Part 6' of,
I� Arcadia ; Municipal •!Code.• (2) ; Deleti
— :,Sections 9264 3 4.A and 0264.3.4.11 %,c
Table 9264.3.4 relating,to shared park!
�standards for the CBD'.(Central Busini
IDistricf) Zone,.
Applicant: ; Initiated by the •Citv,�
Arcadia', -+Development Serv1,
Department.
Environmental Document. CategoFlcc
Cexempt- ;15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(D
Ti ;
me•of ".Hearing - Tuesday, May 18,;2
at 7:00 ' -.%
Plpce oft Hearing Cltv4CounciliChamti
at ArCpola "CItX Hall ° -;
240 'West .Huntington Dnve Arcai
,
)California '
-I""
a.. -
eAlleAs'avatlable•for revievr at.
p innnlna: Services off ices
h the, Americanf With
If- you • "'need special!
ticloate" In the -'�. Public..
contact ,• Planning;
574 -5423. at 'least; three
before-the' meeting or
,special servicesyare
fication will: - help: city .
asonabie arrangements
'h access -. to: the Public.
'SERVICES.
CRTME NT::.
elopment , pldision,'/
May 18, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
Chairperson and Agency Board Members
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Developme ervices Director
Prepared by: Brian Saeki, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: ARA Resolution. No. 210 and City Council. Resolution No. 6431 adopting
local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.)
Recommendation: - Adopt
SUMMARY
Attached for the City Council's and the Redevelopment Agency's consideration are
Resolution 6431 and ARA Resolution 210 adopting the revised California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)''guidelines.
The proposed 2004 Guidelines are an update of the previous guidelines adopted by
the City Council and the Agency Board on May 20, 2003.
The Development Services Department is recommending that the Redevelopment
Agency and the City Council take two separate actions as follows:
Acting as the Redevelopment Agency, adopt ARA Resolution 210; amending
and adopting local guidelines for implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.); and
Acting as the City Council, adopt Resolution No. 6431; adopting local
guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality- Act (Public
Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a part of the Public Resources
Code (Sections 21000 et seq.), is California's most important environmental law. It
requires all public agencies within the state to evaluate the environmental effects of
their actions, avoiding or reducing, when feasible, the significant environmental
impacts of their decisions.
LASER IMAGED: �
Adoption CEQA Guidelines
May 18, 2004
Page 2
CEQA requires that all agencies adopt specific objectives, criteria and procedures for
evaluating public and private projects.
On May 20, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution 6349 and the Redevelopment
Agency adopted ARA Resolution 205 adopting the 2003 CEQA guidelines. Due to the.
changes in CEQA during the past year, new guidelines are proposed for adoption.
DISCUSSION
Although there have been very few significant statutory changes to CEQA during the
last year that would impact the City and Agency, several bills relating to CEQA were
signed into law this past year that warrant changes to the guidelines. The following is
a brief summary of these bills.
1. SB 1074:
o Revises one of the two definitions of "infill site ". For a site to qualify as
"infill" under the new definition, the surrounding development must consist of
specified amounts of "qualified urban uses" as that term is definedin Public
Resources Code section 21072.
o Clarifies that a housing project that requires rezoning may still qualify for
any of the three exemptions by previously approved SB192.5 as long as the
proposed project and zoning are consistent with the existing General Plan
designation for the site.
o Corrected a drafting error in Public Resources Code section 21092 to
indicate that the lead agency is required to provide public notice when it
finds that only limited environmental review is needed for a project because
the project was previously analyzed in a Master EIR.
o Made grammatical changes to Public Resources Code section 21080.5 and
extended the deadline established by that section for the Secretary of the
Resources Agency to develop a protocol for reviewing the certified
regulatory programs. that currently enjoy exemptions from CEQA.
2, AB 1545:
a Requires that all lead agencies accept email comments on a draft EIR,
negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.
o Allows public agencies to offer the option of providing notice by email rather
than regular mail.
- Adoption CEQA Guidelines
May 16, 2004
Page 3
3. AS 677 requires that the lead agency file a Notice of Determination with the Office
of Planning and Research when it finds a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
section 21159.22, 21159.23, or 21159.24 of the Public Resources Code.
The City Attorney's office has prepared a set of updated Local CEQA Guidelines for
the City and Redevelopment Agency to adopt in compliance with the above - described
CEQA requirement. These guidelines are tailored to the City's and Agency s specific
needs and provide step -by -step procedures for evaluating projects prior to approval.
The updated guidelines also provide instructions and revised forms for preparing any
environmental documents required under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that there be two separate actions as follows:
f i Redevelopment Aoencv
That the Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution No. ARA 210, a resolution of
the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency amending and adopting local guidelines for
Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 at seq.).
City Council
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6431 amending and adopting Local
Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.).
Approved: wr-�§
William R. Kelly, City Manager /Executive Director
Attachment: 1) ARA Resolution 210
2) City Council Resolution No. 6431
•f M.Y.. , _
RESOLUTION NO. ARA -210
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(PUB. RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21000 ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs, title 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) and the
California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt
objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects
undertaken or. approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required,
of environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that
evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency ") must revise its
local guidelines for implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current
provisions and interpretations of CEQA;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1
LASER IMAGED
91
rte"
SECTION 1. The Agency adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004 Revision)," a copy of which is on file
at the offices of the Agency and is available for inspection by the public.
SECTION 2. All prior actions of the Agency enacting earlier
guidelines are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. The Secretary of the Agency shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 18th day of may , 2004.
ATTEST:
Secretary
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
PROVED AS TO FQF-M:
a.
Stephen P. Deitsch
Agency Attorney
z
/s/ GARY A. KOVACIC
Chairperson
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
Ie
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, Secretary of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA -210 was
passed and adopted by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia,
signed by the Chairperson and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said
Agency held on the 18t` day of May, 2004 and that said Agency Resolution was
adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6 r jA ES H. BARROW
Secretary of the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency
7
RESOLUTION NO. 6431
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ADOPTING
LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB.
RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)
and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regs., title 14, §§ 15000 et
seq.) and the California courts have interpreted specific provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt
objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects
undertaken or approved by such public agencies and the preparation, if required, of
environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that
evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia ( "City") must revise its local guidelines for
implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and
interpretations of CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:-
SECTION 1. The City adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2004 Revision)," a copy of which is on file
1
LAS'E'R it1itiu�t)
3p
at the Development Services Department and is available for inspection by the
public.
SECTION 2. All prior actions of the City enacting earlier guidelines
are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 18th day of May , 2004.
ATTEST:
/S/ JAMES H. BARROWS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
2
/s/ GARY A. KOVACIC
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6431 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 18th day of May, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3
ill JAMES H. SARR®MP
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
KW-JMMF�V;�!F 197
May 18, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TO: Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Don Penman, Deputy Executive Director
By: Pete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator
SUBJECT:
Request to appropriate $30 000 for update of appraisal of real estate and
SUMMARY
•i The Agency is currently in negotiations with Rusnak/Arcadia for a possible 3.6 acre
expansion of the Mercedes Benz dealership to the east. The Agency obtained initial
appraisals in 2002 and an updated appraisal in 2003 for the real estate (land and
buildings) and the furniture /fixtures and equipment ( "FFE "). Because of the passage of
time, these need to be updated.
The Agency previously obtained Preliminary Title Reports which need to be upgraded to
Litigation Guarantees.
These services will be provided by: Mason & Mason - real estate appraisal update (5):
$12, 500; Desmond Marcello and Amster - FFE appraisal update (6): $12,000; United
Title — Litigation Guarantees: $3,250. Contingency: $2,250. Staff recommends
approval.
DISCUSSION
In January 2002 the Agency after a request for proposal process obtained fair market
value appraisals of five properties: Rod's Restaurant, storage building (Bekins), Elks.
Club, Church of Arcadia, Dahlgren (vacant lot). The Agency also obtained appraisals of
the HE of Rod's Restaurant, storage building, the Church, Estrada Insurance,
Goldsmith Jewelers, and the Elks Club.
• In May /June 2003 the Agency obtained updated appraisals of both the real estate and
FFE. The Agency also obtained a Preliminary Title Report ( "PTR ") for the five (5)
LASER (,1 AGED
properties. These were needed, along with several consultant studies of the other costs •
to assemble the five properties, (e.g. relocation, clearance, environmental Phase 1,
Goodwill), in order to obtain the possible total project cost to assemble the site.
Since over a year has passed, and the Agency hopes to conclude a satisfactory
agreement-with Rusnak this summer, an update of the real estate and FFE appraisals
and an upgrade of the PTRs to a Litigation Guarantee is needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None
FISCAL IMPACT
The Agency will. need to appropriate $30, 000 to fund the appraisals.
Mason and Mason - Appraisal updates (5) $12,500
Desmond Marcell Amster - FFE appraisal update (6) 12,000
United Title — Litigation Guarantees 3,250
Contingency 2.250
Total $30,000
RECOMMENDATION
That the Agency appropriate $30,000 from the Agency's unprogrammed Reserve, and
authorize staff to proceed with the appraisal and upgrades as stated above.
Approved: =7
William R. Kelly, Executive Director
is
•
• A
0RAT$ STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
•)
DATE: May 18,.2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
Philip A. Wray, City Engineer
Prepared By: Tim Kelleher, Senior Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
Recommendation: Adopt
The City of Arcadia accepted Lot 33 of Tract No. 21924 in 1956 and Lot 3 of Parcel Map
No. 23064 in 1992, both in Fee Ownership. Both lots are one -foot wide control strips
used to legally deny access from 460 West Walnut Avenue to Rosemarie Drive.
Recently a developer proposed a subdivision of the property at 460 West Walnut
Avenue and requested access to Rosemarie Drive.
It has been past practice of Arcadia to use one -foot wide control strips to require
developers to make public improvements, or in some cases, reimburse previous
developers for making improvements that benefit an adjoining property. In this
instance, the developer at 460 West Walnut Avenue has agreed to make the required
improvements as per the conditions of approval for Parcel Map No. 60058. In
consideration of the developer's subdivision, staff is recommending that the City Council
dedicate those portions of Lot 3 of Parcel Map No. 23064 and Lot 33 of Tract No. 21924
necessary to give the developer access to Rosemarie Drive.
BACKGROUND
Rosemarie Drive runs east and west between Holly Avenue and Baldwin Avenue just
south of Longden Avenue. More specifically, it's approximately 1900 feet long and
• provides access to 55 residential lots. Rosemarie Drive is a typical Arcadia residential
street, except that it is blocked at approximately its mid point. Rosemarie Drive dead-
LASER ItvIAGED 3�
Staff Report
Resolution No. 6419
May 18, 2004
Page 2
ends into the east and west property lines of 460 West Walnut Avenue and 461 West
Palm Drive.
The parcels at 460 West Walnut Avenue and 461 West Palm Drive were not included as
part of the surrounding subdivisions during the 1950's and consequently created a
roadblock at the mid point on Rosemarie Drive. At that time, the developers were
required to give the City one -foot wide lots in "Fee Ownership" across Rosemarie Drive
which in essence denied access to Rosemarie Drive from landowners at 460 West
Walnut Avenue and 461 West Palm Drive.
Recently, a developer proposed a subdivision of the property at 460 West Walnut
Avenue. The subdivision is a two lot parcel map, Parcel Map No. 60058, with the
southerly parcel requiring access to Rosemarie Drive. To gain access to Rosemarie
Drive from the southerly parcel will require the City to dedicate for road purposes the
previously mentioned one -foot wide lots owned in fee by the City.
DISCUSSION
•
At its November 18, 2003 meeting, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. •
60058 at 460 West Walnut Avenue. Parcel Map No. 60058 divides a 76' x 367' lot into
two lots. The north lot fronts on Walnut Avenue; the southerly lot fronts on Rosemarie
Drive. The City Council required the developer to dedicate and build a partial cul -de-
sac on Rosemarie Drive for access to the southerly lot while maintaining the dead -end
street layout. At such time that 461 West Palm Drive develops to the south, the balance
of the cul -de -sac will be completed. Ultimately, Rosemarie Drive will remain a blocked
street.
Currently, the City has fee ownership of two one -foot wide control lots across
Rosemarie Drive that legally block access for Parcel No. 2 to Rosemarie Drive. To
facilitate the subject development, the City must dedicate said control lot for street
purposes. Enclosed with this report is Resolution No. 6419 that dedicates lot 3 and lot
33 of the above mentioned maps for public street purposes upon the acceptance of all
of the right -of -way improvements completed by the developer.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact incurred by the City. The subdivider has agreed to
reimburse the City for administrative costs to process this dedication.
•
....... r . . e ?'-. 't': a
Staff Report
Resolution No. 6419
May 18, 2004
•, Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt Resolution No. 6419 dedicating a portion of Lot 3 of Parcel Map No. 23064
and ,a portion of Lot 33 of Tract No. 21924 for street purposes allowing access to
Rosemarie Drive to Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 60058.
APPROVED: k'
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Enclosures: Map of Existing Conditions (Attachment #1)
Resolution No. 6419
DP:PW:TK:pa
•
•)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
0
9
RESOLUTION NO. 6419
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DEDICATING CERTAIN
PROPERTY ON ROSEMARIE DRIVE FOR STREET
PURPOSES (A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
23064 AND A PORTION OF LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 21924)
WHEREAS, Lot 3 of Parcel Map No. 23064 and Lot 33 of Tract No. 21924 were
conveyed in fee to the City of Arcadia, at the time said maps were recorded, for the
purpose of preventing access from property adjacent to said lots onto Rosemarie Drive
until such time as the proper right -of -way improvements on Rosemarie Drive are made;
and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 60058 has been approved and the sub divider of
Parcel Map No. 60058 has agreed to make improvements to the right -of -way adjacent to
Lot 2 of Parcel Map No. 60058 in order to allow access from said Lot 2 onto Rosemarie
Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That certain property located in the City of Arcadia, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, which constitutes a portion of Lot 3 of Parcel Map No. 23064
and a portion of Lot 33 of Tract No. 21924 and is described on attached Exhibit "A ", is
hereby dedicated for public street purposes, effective upon the acceptance by the City of
Arcadia of all of the right -of -way improvements completed by the developer on the
northerly side of Lot 2 of Parcel Map No. 60058.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
LASER IMAGED
�f
Passed, approved, and adopted this 18th day of May 2004.
/s/ GARY A. KOVACIC
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
ISI JAMES H. BARROWS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6419 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 18th day of May, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1:
A PORTION OF LOT 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23064, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 254 PAGES 42 AND 43 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID PARCEL
MAP NO. 23064, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, BEING
CENTERLINE OF ROSEMARIE DRIVE, SOUTH 89003'00" WEST 1.00 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE SOUTH 89003'00" WEST 30.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 056'47" EAST 1.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°03'00" EAST 30.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°56'47"
WEST 1.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 31 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT `B ", ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE
MADE A PART HEREOF.
PARCEL 2:
A PORTION OF LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 21924, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 594 PAGES 73 AND 74 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 33 OF SAID
TRACT, ALONG EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 33 NORTH 00 °53'15" WEST
30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 32 OF SAID TRACT;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 32 SOUTH 89003'10",
WEST 1.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'53'15" EAST 30.00 FEET TO A POINT IN
THE CENTERLINE OF ROSEMARIE DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE NORTH 89003'10" EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 30 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B ", ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE
MADE A PART HEREOF.
5--lo-0l
EXHIBIT "B"
CONTROL LOTS TO BE DEDICATED TO
PUBLIC AT 460 W. WALNUT AVENUE, NORTH
ARCADIA, LOS ANGELES SCALE 1 " =20'
LEGEND
®AREA DEDICATED
TO PUBLIC
RECORDED DATA FROM PM 23064, PMB 254 -42 -43
RECORDED DATA FROM TR. N0. 21924, MB 594- 73- 740`&NU SUS
�y ALFRED J.
o THELWELL p
* EXP. 9 -30 -05 *'
sf NO- 6999
9TF u
PROJECT SIDE OF CA��F
P.M. NO. 060058
5 !D;
E'LY LINE TR. NO. 18991,
CO
M.B. 499- 18 -19. ALSO
E'LY LINE OF LOT 32 TR.
M
NO. 21924, M.B. 594- 73 -74.
ACCEPTED AS W'LY LINE OF�
O
PROJECT INSTRUMENT NO.
3
03- 1325932, REC. 5 -9 -03
v7
ro
LOT 32
0
TR. NO. 21924
Z
M.B. 594 -73 -74
1
'03'10 "E]
ROSEMARIE DRIVE Z
-t-- 766.00'
0
r7
ems' In
oo u')
(o
0
i °oz
Z�
ARCEL 2
ARCEL 1
NE COR. LOT 3
PM NO. 23064,
PMB 254/42 -43
30.98•
O�
[N89'03'02" 30.98'
89'03'10 "E] N89'03'02 "E
(N89'03'00 "E) o
SE COR. LOT 33 0
TR. NO. 21924, of
M.B. 594 -73 -74 N
ROSEMARIE DRIVE 1.
LOT 2 P.M. 23064
P.M.B. 254 -42 -43
N89'03'02 "E
100.00' -
-
p
o
u
o
O
M
ROSEMARIE DRIVE Z
-t-- 766.00'
0
r7
ems' In
oo u')
(o
0
i °oz
Z�
ARCEL 2
ARCEL 1
NE COR. LOT 3
PM NO. 23064,
PMB 254/42 -43
30.98•
O�
[N89'03'02" 30.98'
89'03'10 "E] N89'03'02 "E
(N89'03'00 "E) o
SE COR. LOT 33 0
TR. NO. 21924, of
M.B. 594 -73 -74 N
ROSEMARIE DRIVE 1.
LOT 2 P.M. 23064
P.M.B. 254 -42 -43
N89'03'02 "E
100.00' -
DATE:
May 18, 2004
STAFF REPORT
Office of the City Manager
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: William R. Kelly, City Mana er
By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and
Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6433 DESIGNATING AN ARCADIA CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER AND AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS
• The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments ( "COG ") requires that the selection of a
Delegate and Alternate Member to their Governing Board be done by resolution.
Consistent with the assignments announced at the May 4, 2004 City Council meeting,
Resolution No. 6433 designates Mayor Gary Kovacic as the City of Arcadia's Primary
Delegate to the COG and Mayor Pro Tern John Wuo as the Alternate Delegate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6433 designating
an Arcadia City Council Member and an Alternate Member to the Governing
Board of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.
Attachment: Resolution No. 6433
0 LASER IMAGED
RESOLUTION NO. 6433
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING AN ARCADIA
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND AN ALTERNATE MEMBER
TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
WHEREAS, the Arcadia City Council approved the formation of the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments; and
WHEREAS, the Council of Governments is structured with a Governing
Board (policy body) made up of elected officials selected by each member city;
w]
WHEREAS, each member city is requested to designate by resolution a
Governing Board Member and an Alternate Governing Board member.
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 rescinds Resolution No. 6352
and designates Mayor Gary Kovacic as the Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem John
Wuo as the Alternate to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
1
LASER IMAGED
Y
Passed, approved and adopted this 18th day of May , 2004.
ATTEST:
/S/ JAMES H. BARROWS
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�- P 6t�
City Attorney
2
/s/ GARY A. KOVACIC
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 643 3 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 18th day of May, 2004 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/S/ JAMES H. BARROWS"
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
ki
Q�! *T
STAFF REPORT
May 18, 2004
TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID A. LEWIS, DIRECTOR
RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTM
Prepared by: Jim Venegas, Senior Citizens Supervisor
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
• Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into" a contract
with Arcadia Unified School District for the period July 1, 2004 though
June 30, 2005, in the amount of $40,163 to provide subsidized lunch
meals for the Senior Nutrition Program.
SUMMARY
It is recommended that the City Council approve an agreement with Arcadia Unified School
District to provide luncheon meals for the Senior Citizen Program offered by Arcadia Senior
Citizen Services at the Arcadia Community Center from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.
BACKGROUND
The City of Arcadia, Senior Citizen Services has contracted with Catering System Inc. since
July 1, 2001 to provide luncheon meals for Senior Nutrition Program offered at the Arcadia
Community Center Monday through Friday. This is the last year of the renewal clause of the
existing agreement. The contract expires June 30, 2004. Guidelines set forth by the
Community Development Commission (CDC) indicate that the City must follow the
appropriate procurement procedures to award a new contract for fiscal year 04 -05.
Senior Services staff prepared and mailed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to six vendors and
• published an article requesting RFP's in the local papers in order to meet the CDC
competitive selection process. Two vendors met the RFP requirements, these vendors
where Catering Systems Inc.; they submitted a bid of $3.95 per meal and Arcadia Unified
LASER IMAGED
-2-
School District (AUSD); their bid was $3.25 per meal. AUSD was the low bidder and it is
recommended that they be awarded the contract for fiscal year 2004 -05. .
Presently the cost per meal is $4.18. The bid price reduces the cost to $3.25 per meal, plus
.15 for a 4 oz. juice, not be supplied by AUSD making a total City cost of $3.40 per meal.
Participants currently. pay $2.00 and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
subsidize $2.18 per meal. For fiscal year 2004 -2005 it is proposed that participants continue
to pay $2.00 and that CDBG funds and City funds subsidize the remaining $1.40 of the cost
per meal. The proposed Senior Nutrition program budget for fiscal year 2004 -05 is $40,163
(a combination of CDBG and City funds), which is sufficient to cover the per meal cost as bid.
The senior lunch program averages 41 meals per day, which indicates that the Senior
Nutrition program is meeting the needs of the senior community. The Senior Citizens
Commission has concurred and supports the continuance of the Senior Nutrition program.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Senior Citizen Meals Program budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 is $40,163;
$20,163'in CDBG funds to continue subsidizing the luncheon meals costs, and $20,000 from
the Senior dtizen/Recreation and Community Services Department General Fund Budget,
which is offset by participant payments. The proposed budget is adequate to continue the
program.
RECOMMENDATION •
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Arcadia Unified School district, for
the period July 1, 2004 through June 30,, 2005, in the amount of $40,163 to provide
subsidized lunch meals for the Senior Nutrition Program. .
APPROVED:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
°R•TII STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: May 18, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Development Services Director /Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Philip A. Wray, City Engineer Q
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Funding for Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
Recommendation: Appropriate additional Transportation
Development Act, Article 3 funding in the amount of $8,500.00
SUMMARY
In the FY 2003 =04 Capital Improvement Program Budget, the City Council appropriated
r•, $72,000 for the Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. The project is funded with
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds. Phase I of the project has been
completed and there are now insufficient funds to complete Phase II. Staff has
determined a scope of work based on the priorities of the Sidewalk Transition Plan and
discussions with the transit agencies and is requesting an additional appropriation of
$8,500 to complete Phase II.
•
BACKGROUND
The City annually receives TDA Article 3 funds to be used specifically for pedestrian
oriented facilities such as sidewalks, curb ramps and bus stops. In the FY 2003/04
Capital Improvement Program, the City Council appropriated $72,000 in TDA Article 3
funds for the Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. The project was intended to construct
pedestrian facilities at priority locations determined by the City. Phase I of the project
constructed sidewalk on Centennial Way.
Staff is ready to proceed with Phase II. Phase II consists of pedestrian improvements at
various locations based on the priorities in the Sidewalk Transition Plan and discussions
with the transit agencies. The targeted improvements for Phase II are estimated based
on informal bids, at $26,000 slightly higher than the project fund balance after Phase I.
Therefore, staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $8,500 in TDA Article 3
funds to complete the improvements.
LASER IMAGED
Staff Report
Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
May 18, 2004
Page 2
Because Phase II is estimated at less than the $30,000 formal bid process threshold,
staff has requested informal bids. The informal bid process does not require the City
Council to approve a construction contract, however, the City Council must approve the
additional appropriation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $72,000 have been appropriated in the FY 2003 -04 CIP budget
for this project. The current project fund balance is insufficient to cover the cost of the
remaining work at $26;000. An additional appropriation of $8,500 is necessary to
complete the work as planned. TDA Article 3 funds accrue annually and there are
sufficient funds available in the fund balance to cover this request
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council appropriate an additional $8,500 from the Transportation
Development Act Article 3 fund for the Sidewalk Gap Closure Project.
APPROVED BY:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
DP:PAW:pa
•
11
Development Services Department
STAFF REP Rrr=
Date: May 18, 2004
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
, Martha Eros; Transportation Services Officer
Subject:
Discontinue program
SUMMARY
At the October 2, 2003, Arcadia Senior Commission ( "Commission ") meeting, the
• Commission requested a six (6) month extension of the Non - Emergency Medical
Appointment Transportation Pilot Program ( "Medical Program ") for an opportunity to
promote' the service to the senior and medical community. The Arcadia City Council
approved a six (6) month extension to the Medical Program on November 18, 2003.
The Medical Program was implemented in September 2002 to provide Arcadia senior
and disabled residents access to five (5) medical facilities located outside the Arcadia
city limits. Medical ridership during the 12 -month pilot period was far below projected
performance levels, and, to date, participation continues to fall below projected
performance levels. Therefore, staff is recommending that the program be
discontinued.
BACKGROUND
Arcadia Transit has provided the general public with transportation to Methodist Hospital
and all medical buildings located in the city limits since its inception in 1975. Members
from the Arcadia Senior Commission familiar with increased costs associated with HMO
health care and Medicare systems (resulting in members being referred to medical
professionals and facilities located in neighboring cities) identified a need for
transportation outside of the city limits to assist seniors and disabled persons to access
their health care provider(s).
• City staff, in cooperation with the Commission and the Recreation and Community
Services Department, identified five medical hubs located beyond the Arcadia city limits
where seniors are being referred: Santa Teresita Hospital and City of Hope Medical
,, :,, 4i',"IuiaL Cr. "Ih1 -v,, 00.18,,19
LASER IMAGED q(
Center in Duarte, Mountainview Dialysis Center in Monrovia, Kaiser Permanente •
Baldwin Park, and Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena.
The pilot Medical Program was blended into the Arcadia Transit dial -a -ride system by
increasing the level. of contract service hours with Southland Transportation Inc., the
City's transportation provider. The program utilizes existing vehicles, reservations and
dispatch staff, drivers . and administrative management. Appointments are available
Monday through Friday, 8AM to 6PM, by advance appointment only in order to reserve
a vehicle and accommodate regular demand response service. Subscriptions are not
available for the Medical Program.
DISCUSSION
When the 12 -month trial period approached review and evaluation, the Arcadia Senior
Commission expressed concern about the availability of information and marketing
efforts of the Medical Program to medical offices that provide health care to Arcadia
seniors. The Commission determined that additional. medicaI offices (within reasonable
access to the City of Arcadia) would be identified and a list of offices provided to City
staff for inclusion to the existing list of five (5) medical hubs, and that Commission
members would visit medical offices that service Arcadia seniors to distribute literature
to educate office staff.
City staff created a separate brochure describing the Medical Program and included one •
(1) additional medical center —San Gabriel Valley Medical Center. —to the list of service
destinations. The brochure was placed at the Community Resource Center, Arcadia.
Public Library and City Hall, and an ample supply was provided to the Commission for
distribution. City staff did not receive a list of additional medical offices to add to the
destination list.
A total of 2,540 annual hours of service [10 hours (Monday – Friday, 8AM – 6PM) x 254
weekdays] at a rate of $22.70 per hour and a flat passenger fare_of $2.00 per one -way
trip was programmed for the pilot program. Due to the distance (location) and travel
time required to access the designated sites, each medical trip was projected at one
hour per each one -way passenger trip, for a total annual productivity level of 2,540
passenger trips.
During the 12 -month pilot period, the Medical Program provided a total of only 241 one -
way trips, with 78.58 revenue hours provided from September 2002 through September
2003, for an average cost of $7.40 per one -way trip or $14.80 per passenger
(roundtrip). An additional 161 trips were provided during the extension period from
October 2003 through April 2004, increasing the eighteen -month ridership to 402. A
year -to -date total of 144.46 revenue hours have been expended, resulting in an average
cost of $8.15 per one -way trip or $16.30 per. passenger (roundtrip).. The Medical
Program has provided transportation to 57 clients, of which 11 repeat clients constitute
38% of the service requests. Thirteen (13) new clients used.the service during the
extension period, representing 14% growth in persons using the system. •
{y
0M, :0:1.:,x;,:
SEPTEMBER -03
. i DESTINATION
TRIPS
APRIL -04
DESTINATION
TRIPS
Variance
Santa Teresita
81
Santa Teresita
131
38%
Kaiser Medical
17
Kaiser Medical
92
81%
Huntington Memorial
61
Huntington Memorial
93
34%
City of Hope
56
City of Hope
60
6%
Mountainview Dialysis
26
Mountainview Dialysis
26
0%
Grand Total
241
Grand Total
402
40%
Ridership on the Medical Program remains low, and the subsidized cost per passenger
will continue to increase as time and (potentially) travel distance increases. Although a
40% increase in one -way trips has been experienced during the past seven (7) months,
the overall use of the Medical Program falls below expected performance measures and
the cost and time involved to transport one`person is extremely high.
Additionally, the City is currently in the process of a Request for Proposals ( "RFP ") for
the operation, maintenance and management of the Arcadia Transit dial -a -ride system.
Contract costs are expected to increase due to fuel prices, insurance rates and
computation of revenue service hours. City staff is unable to predict the cost impacts
the Medical Program will experience, but are certain that the hourly rate specific to the
Medical Program will also increase.
Staff is suggesting that the pilot Non - Emergency Medical Transportation Program be
cancelled effective June 30, 2004. The Arcadia Transit dial -a -ride system will continue
to offer seniors and disabled persons transportation to any destination within the
incorporated city limits, including Methodist Hospital and all medical offices, for 25 cents
per ride.
Regional resources available to seniors and disabled persons include Access Services
Paratransit and the Immediate Needs Transportation Program operated by the County
of Los Angeles.
FISCAL IMPACT
Ending the pilot program will make the programmed Proposition C Discretionary funds
available for other transportation related services as needed.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CANCEL THE NON - EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM TO TRANSPORT ARCADIA SENIOR
CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS TO MEDICAL FACILITIES LOCATED
OUTSIDE THE ARCADIA CITY LIMITS.
• Approved By: U "n �
William R. Kelly, City Manager
tpM"Ji:il Kuzl f :ml KiI R, ;'. 0Si831
i & aft 2#($
� ! ƒ
cr
co
w 2,
■
!!
LL
9 If 2.
!
. A �
0
E
0
0 a
FL
./£
ģ
CL
..c..
§
sIL
LL
o."
!!..
ja
0�
2��7!!
§UA
i
'w
w
§
(�
K
. .
$
§
.
k
—
! ■!A!!
� ! ƒ
cr
co
w 2,
■
!!
LL
9 If 2.
!
. A �
0
E
0
0 a
FL
./£
ģ
..c..
§
| .
LL
o."
@
� ! ƒ
cr
co
w 2,
■
!!
LL
9 If 2.
!
. A �
0
E
0