Loading...
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 An ORDINANCE is a City law which can only be amended or repealed by adoption of another Ordinance.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 ./£ ƒ£ 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 ./£ ƒ£ ..c.. § | . LL o." @ � ! ƒ cr co w 2, ■ !! LL 9 If 2. ! . A � 0 E 0