HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 18, 2005MEETING AGENDA F
Arcadia City Council
and
` ° °..,.,..,.•a` Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005
This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at
this meeting. The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on
this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desk at the Arcadia Public Library
and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any questions regarding any matter on
the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (626) 574 -5455. In compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting,
please contact the City Manager's office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three (3) business 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.
6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - rime reserved for comment by the public (5 minutes per
person)
CLOSED SESSION
• a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with legal counsel regarding
the workers' compensation case of Michael Cervantes.
b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Govt. Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
REPORT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING
IN FULL
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation of Citizen of the Month Awards to youth volunteers for the Arcadia Library,
• the Ruth and Charles Glib Arcadia Historical Museum, and to the Recreation and
Community Services Department "Volunteens ".
AA
1. PUBLIC HEARING •
a• An aooeal of Resolution 1715 approving Application No. CUP 04 -014 and ADR 03 -040: A
Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to construct a 78-
unit senior condominium proiect at 161 Colorado Place.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and approve CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040.
b. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Modification Application No. MP
2004 -10 to allow a quest house converted without permits at 1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and require that the illegal second unit be
converted back into a hobby room.
C. Consideration of General Plan amendments and Zone changes to properties throughout
the City to provide consistency between the Arcadia General Plan and the Zoning Map
(GP 04 -001 and ZC 04 -003).
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6456 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, California approving amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map of
the Arcadia General Plan for certain properties within the City; and Introduce Ordinance
No. 2203 - an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, rezoning
certain properties within the City, Zone Change Case Z -04 -003.
d. Front Line Police Services funded through the COPS -SLESF Program.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6455 authorizing the Arcadia Police
Department to use funds allocated from the Citizens' Option for Public Safety-
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (COPS - SLESF) for the purpose of front
line police services.
e. Permit fee for door -to -door oeddlina, soliciting, and canvassing.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6457 - a Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, California, establishing a permit fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting,
and canvassing.
2005 -2006 Statement of Obiectives and Project Use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds.
Recommendation: Approve the allocation of funds and authorize the City Manager to
execute the Memorandums of Understanding.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - Time reserved for comment by the public (5 minutes per
person)
REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. Minutes of the January 4. 2005 continued meeting.
Recommendation: Approve
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b. Minutes of the January 4. 2005 continued meeting,
Recommendation: Approve
• C. Professional Services Agreement - Update Pavement Management Program
Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam & Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $32,414 to update the citywide pavement management program;
and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
d. Award - Construction Management and Material Testing Services for Santa Anita
Reservoir No. 4.
Recommendation: Award a professional services agreement in the amount of
$270,000.00 to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the construction management and inspection
of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and award a professional services agreement
in the amount of $55,120.00 to Ninyo and Moore Consulting, for material testing during
the construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and authorize the City
Manager and City Clerk to execute contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney.
e. Total Compensation Study,
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with Johnson and Associates for a total compensation study for an amount
not to exceed $26,000.00.
Additional appropriation for Police Department Firearms Training Range.
Recommendation: Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure Funds to
complete the firearms training range project.
9. Contribution to Arcadia Music Club to help with their oarticipation in the Presidential
• Inaugural Parade.
Recommendation: Appropriate $500.00 from the General Fund Reserve and approve a
contribution in the same amount to the Arcadia High School Music Club.
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Pr000sed Boundary Reoroanization between the City of Arcadia and the City of El Monte
Recommendation: Approve in concept the request for a boundary reorganization to
permit approximately 5.19 acres of land in the City of Arcadia to be annexed into the
City of El Monte with the conditions listed in the staff report.
b. Proclamation of a local emergency
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of Emergency Services'
issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., City Council
Chamber Conference Room.
•
ANNOTATED AGENDA
Arcadia City Council
and
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005
MEN
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN
FULL (APPROVED 5 - 0)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
a• An appeal of Resolution 1715 approving Application No. CUP 04 -014 and ADR 03 -040: A
APPROVED Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to construct a 78-
5- 0 unit senior condominium proiect at 161 Colorado Place.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and approve CUP 04-014 & ADR 03 -040.
b. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Modification Application No MP
APPROVED 2004 -10 to allow a guest house converted without Dermits at 1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
5 -0
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and require that the illegal second unit be
converted back into a hobby room.
C. Consideration of General Plan amendments and Zone chances to Droperties throughout
APPROVED the Citv to Drovide consistency between the Arcadia General Plan and the Zonina Mao
5-0 (GP 04 -001 and ZC 04 -003).
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6456 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, California approving amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map of
the Arcadia General Plan for certain properties within the City; and Introduce Ordinance
No. 2203 - an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, rezoning
certain properties within the City, Zone Change Case Z -04 -003.
d. Front Line Police Services funded through the COPS -SLESF Program.
APPROVED
5 -0
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6455 authorizing the Arcadia Police
Department to use funds allocated from the Citizens' Option for Public Safety-
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (COPS - SLESF) for the purpose of front
line police services.
e. Permit fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting, and canvassing.
APPROVED
5 -0
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6457 - a Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, California, establishing a permit fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting,
and canvassing.
f. 2005 - 2006 Statement of Obiectives and Proiect Use of Community Development Block
APPROVED Grant (CDBG) Funds.
5 -0
Recommendation: Approve the allocation of funds and authorize the City Manager to
execute the Memorandums of Understanding.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a.
APPROVED
5-0 Minutes of the January 4. 2005 continued meeting
Recommendation: Approve
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b.
APPROVED
5-0 Minutes of the January 4, 2005 continued meeting.
Recommendation: Approve
C .
APPROVED
5-0 Professional Services Agreement - Update Pavement Management Program
Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam & Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $32,414 to update the citywide pavement management program;
and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
d. Award - Construction Management and Material Testing Services for Santa Anita
APPROVED Reservoir No. 4.
5 -0
Recommendation: Award a professional services agreement in the amount of
$270,000.00 to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the construction management and inspection
of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and award a professional services agreement
in the amount of $55,120.00 to Ninyo and Moore Consulting, for material testing during
the construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and authorize the City
Manager and City Clerk to execute contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney.
e. Total Compensation Study.
APPROVED
5 -0
APPROVED
5- 0
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with Johnson and Associates for a total compensation study for an amount
not to exceed $26,000.00.
Additional anvromiation for Police Department Firearms Training Range
Recommendation: Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure Funds to
complete the firearms training range project.
9•
APPROVED Contribution to Arcadia Music Club t o help with- their articipation in the Presidential
5-0 Inaugural Parade.
Recommendation: Appropriate $500.00 from the General Fund Reserve and approve a
contribution in the same amount to the Arcadia High School Music Club.
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Proposed Boundary Reorganization between the City of Arcadia and the City of El Monte
APPROVED
5 -0
b. Proclamation of a local emergency
APPROVED
5 -0
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of Emergency Services'
issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
47:0006
MINUTES ❑❑❑
Arcadia City Council
and
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005
6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - Time reserved for comment by the public (5 minutes per
person)
CLOSED SESSION
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with legal counsel regarding
the workers' compensation case of Michael Cervantes.
b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Govt. Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber
INVOCATION Reverend Matthew Chong, Church of the Good Shepherd
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Steve Deitsch, City Attorney
ROLL CALL Present: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Absent: None
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REPORT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
No reportable action was taken by the Council in Closed Session.
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING
IN FULL
A motion was made by Council Member Chandler and seconded by Council Member Segal
to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive reading in full.
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation of.Citizen of the Month Awards to youth volunteers for the Arcadia Library,
the Ruth and Charles Gilb Arcadia Historical Museum, and to the Recreation and
Community Services Department "Volunteers ".
1 01 -18 -05
47:0007
1. PUBLIC HEARING
a. An aooeal of Resolution 1715 aooroving Aoolication No. CUP 04 -014 and ADR 03 -040: A
Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to construct a 78 -unit
senior condominium project at 161 Colorado Place.
Staff Report Mr. Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director presented the
Council with an overview of the public hearing item; he noted the age restriction
conditions in the conditional use permit and noted that this is a "market rate" project.
Mayor Kovacic noted his concern regarding the age requirements for unit occupants as
this project was provided with incentives to encourage senior citizen housing.
In response to a code enforcement question from Council Member Marshall, City Attorney
Steve Dietsch noted the order of appeal for a code violation at the project.
Public Rodney Kahn, 1111 N. Brand Blvd., representing the developers of the senior housing
Testimony project, in support of the Council's approval of this project.
Tom Fasea, an Arcadia resident, noted that the project will now bring a 45 foot high
building directly behind his house; he further expressed his concerns regarding
landscaping on the project site.
Jeffrey Lee. an Arcadia resident, appeared to provide input on this project based upon his
experience as a developer of senior citizen housing.
Motion to A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Wuo, and
Close Public noting no objections, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Hearing
Council Council Member Wuo noted that there were concessions made to the developer in order
Deliberation to encourage senior citizen housing and wants to restrict ownership to those who are fifty
five (55) years of age or older; he would like to see this condition listed in the project.
Council Member Segal noted that the project occupancy requirements include provisions
that at least one occupant must be at least 55 years of age.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal,
and carried on roll call vote to adopt the Negative Declaration, approve applications Nos.
CUP 04 -014 and ADR 03 -040 to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project at 161
Colorado Place, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Council's
decision and specific findings, mitigate landscape with trees of special species, and have
landscape plans approved by the City.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
b. An a ppeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Modification Aoolication No. MP 2004-
010 to allow a guest house converted without permits at 1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
2 01 -18 -05
47:0008
Staff Report Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, presented the staff report; she
noted that the hobby room on this property was illegally converted into a guest house;
CalTrans noted that raw sewage was being released into their right -of -way from this
illegally converted residence; she further noted that once the property owner was made
aware of the violation, he sought to make the guest house legal, however, the owner's
proposed conversion was not permitted, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the
applicant's request.
Public Rob Katherman representative of the Katherman Company who submitted a modification
Testimony application on this project to legalize the accessory structure as a guest house, appeared
to speak in support of the Council approving the appeal of this project
Julian Warner, representing Mr. Rosado, appeared to support the appeal of this project.
Jeff McClellan. 1050 W. Foothill, appeared in support of the appeal.
Motion to It was moved by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Marshall and
Close Public carried without objection to close the public hearing..
Hearing
Council Council Member Marshall noted that the guesthouse is in violation of the code and does
Deliberation not favor approval of the appeal.
Council Member Segal, noted that he would like to give the occupants six (6) months to
convert the residence back into the permitted hobby room and vacate the residence.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
and carried on roll call vote to deny the Modification Application No. MP 2004 -010, noting
that is will not secure an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship,
nor promote uniformity of development; and further require that the current inhabitants
vacate the property and convert the illegal second unit back into a hobby room containing
no more than one (1) bedroom and three - quarter (3/4) bathroom within six months from
the date of the City Council's action.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
C. Consideration of General Plan amendments and Zone changes to properties throughout
the Ci_yt to grovid e consistency between the Arcadia General Plan and the Zoning Map GP
04 -001 and ZC 04 -003).
Staff Report Mr. Penman presented the staff report; he noted that various parcels of the General Plan
and Zoning Map need to be amended as to be consistent with each other; Ms. Butler
further categorized the findings in six different areas 1) Live Oak Corridor, 2) Baldwin
Corridor, 3) Downtown Corridor, 4) Colorado Corridor, 5) Foothill /First Corridor, and 6)
Marendale Subdivision; she noted that there were approximately 250 properties which
were identified as being inconsistent with both the General Plan and Zoning Map.
01 -18 -05
47:0009
Public Jeffrey Lee, Arcadia resident, appeared to ask questions of staff regarding the proposed
Testimony zoning changes, he further noted that he owns a property that is non - conformance and
offered pros and cons regarding the rezoning of the area.
Peggy O'Connell representing Santa Anita Church, appeared to comment on the zoning
changes being recommended.
James Schumacher, 243 -245 E. Foothill Blvd., appeared to speak in opposition to a
proposed zoning change.
Sue Myahara owner of 253 E. Foothill since 1978, appeared to speak on this item.
Michael Rule 307 E. Foothill Blvd., appeared to speak on this item.
Jim Reich 250 E. Sycamore, appeared to speak on this item.
Motion to A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Chandler and
Close Public carried without objection to close the public hearing.
Hearing
Council'- Bill Kelly, City Manager, noted that this agenda item only deals with property zoning and
Deliberation that there are no particular projects in question this evening.
Motion It was moved by Council Member Segal, and seconded by Council Member Wuo, then
carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6456: a Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Arcadia, California, approving Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map
of the Arcadia General Plan for certain properties within the City; and introduce Ordinance
No. 2203, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California approving the
rezoning of certain properties within the City.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
d. Front Line Police Services funded through the COPS -SLESF Program.
Staff Report Mr. Kelly presented the report; he noted that the COPS Program grant funds enables local
police agencies to enhance public safety by purchasing equipment and /or services
otherwise unavailable to them through their respective budgets.
Public None.
Testimony
Motion to A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
Close Public then carried without objection to close the public hearing.
Hearing
Council None.
Deliberation
4 01 -18 -05
47:00010
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Chandler,
and carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution No. 6455: A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing the Arcadia Police Department to use
funds allocated from the Citizens' Option For Public Safety- Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund (COPS- SLESF) for the purpose of front line police services.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
e. Permit fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting, and canvassing,
Staff Report Mr. Penman provided a brief presentation on this item; he noted that this fee was
determined based on an anlaysis using the City's Cost Allocation Program.
Public None.
Testimony
Motion to A motion was made by Council Member Chandler seconded by Council Member Segal and
Close Public carried without objection to close the public hearing.
Hearing
Council None.
Deliberation
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall, seconded by Council Member Segal,
and carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution No. 6457: A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing a permit fee for door -to -door
peddling, soliciting and canvassing.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
f. 2005 -2006 Statement of Objectives and Proiect Use of Communitu Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds.
Staff Report Mr. Kelly presented a brief report on this item; he noted that a minimum of 75% of the
CDBG funds are used to support activities that benefit low and moderate income families.
Public None.
Testimony
Motion to A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
Close Public and carried without objection to close the public hearing.
Hearinq
Council None.
Deliberation
5 01 -18 -05
47:00011
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall, seconded by Council Member Segal,
and carried on roll call vote to approve the allocation of funds as outlined in the staff
report and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandums of Understanding
which are submitted to the County of Los Angeles.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - Time reserved for comment by the public (5 minutes per
person)
Karen Wong Highland Oaks Parent Teacher Association, appeared to provide the Council
with a brief update on the activities occuring at Highland Oaks School. .
Karen Trask, Holly Avenue Parent Teacher Association President, appeared to provide the
Council with a brief update on the activities occuring at Holly Avenue School.
Robert Cubik Western Pacific Development, 6710 Alta Loma, appeared to speak in
support of item 3.a.
Mark Proceko, representing the City of El Monte, appeared to speak in support of agenda
item 3.a
REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHANDLER None.
MARSHALL Noted Methodist Hospital's upcoming Mardis Gras fundraiser at the Arboretum.
SEGAL None.
WUO Commented on the Arcadia High School Marching Band's appearing in the upcoming
Presidential Inauguration Parade.
KOVACIC Read a report from City Clerk Jim Barrows who was traveling with the Arcadia High
School Marching Band in Washington, D.C.
BARROWS Was absent from tonight's meeting.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. Minutes of the January 4. 2005 continued meeting_
Recommendation: Approve
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
and carried on roll call vote to approve item 2.a. on the Consent Calendar.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
6 01 -18 -05
47:00012
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b. Minutes of the January 4, 2005 continued meeting.
Recommendation: Approve
C. Professional Services Agreement - Update Pavement Management Program
Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam & Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $32,414 to update the citywide pavement management program;
and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
d. Award - Construction Management and Material Testing Services for Santa Anita Reservoir
No. 4.
Recommendation: Award a professional services agreement in the amount of
$270,000.00 to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the construction management and inspection of
the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and award a professional services agreement in
the amount of $55,120.00 to Ninyo and Moore Consulting, for material testing during the
construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4 project; and authorize the City Manager
and City Clerk to execute contracts in a form approved by the City Attorney.
e. Total Compensation Study.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with Johnson and Associates for a total compensation study for an amount not
to exceed $26,000.00.
f. Additional appropriation for Police Department Firearms Training Range.
Recommendation: Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure Funds to
complete the firearms training range project.
g. Contribution to Arcadia Music Club to help with their participation in the Presidential
Inaugural Parade.
Recommendation: Appropriate $500.00 from the General Fund Reserve and approve a
contribution in the same amount to the Arcadia High School Music Club.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall,
and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.b through 2. g. on the Consent Calendar.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Proposed Boundary Reorganization between the City of Arcadia and the City of El Monte
Mr. Penman presented the staff report; he noted that staffs recommendation represented
the highest and best use of the property; he further noted that staff addressed the
various benefits and impacts of keeping the land in Arcadia.
VA
47:00013
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal and
carried on roll call vote to approve in concept the request for a boundary reorganization
to permit approximately 5.19 acres of land in the City of Arcadia to be annexted into the
City of El Monte with the conditions: 1) that the horse trails be relocated to the northerly
boundary of the parcel and along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse
riders in the area, 2) that Western Pacific pay all City of Arcadia costs for the processing,
and 3) that the density of the proposed project not exceed approximately 6.6 dwelling
units per acre or 34 dwelling units.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
b. Proclamation of a local emergency
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of Emergency Services'
issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Chandler and
carried on roll call vote to approve Resolution No. 6459: A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, California, ratifying the proclamation of the existence of a local
emergency within said city pertaining to the torrential rain and related matters
commencing on January 8, 2005.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council, noting no further business, adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in memory of
Former Mayor Robert Considine and Mr. John Dickson, to Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.,
City Council Chamber Conference Room.
James H. Barrows, City Clerk
by: VL& . —.
Vida Tolman
Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
01 -18 -05
0
i
LJ
\
January 18, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Direct r
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Joseph M. Lambert, Associate PlannerjL -- .
TO: Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of Resolution 1715 approving Application Nos.
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural
Design Review Application to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium
project at 161 Colorado Place.
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Michael Sun, project
Architect, to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project at 161 Colorado Place.
The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 23, 2004 voted 4 -0 with one
member absent to adopt Resolution 1715 approving Application Nos. CUP 04 -014 and
ADR 03 -040 to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project at 161 Colorado Place.
On November 25, 2004, the Mayor submitted an appeal of these applications to provide
the City Council an opportunity to discuss appropriate conditions to ensure the
appropriate age restrictions for prospective residents are in place.
The Development Services Department recommends approval of this project, subject to
the conditions outlined in this staff report.
BACKGROUND
Design Review application No. ADR 03 -040 for a 78 -unit senior condominium project
was conceptually approved by the Development Services Department on August 18,
2004. Because any residential development is a conditionally permitted use within the
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 1
C -2 zone, a Conditional Use Permit application must be approved concurrently with the •
Architectural Design Review.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposed development consists of six three -story buildings totaling 86,200 square
feet (see the attached building elevations and floor plans). The applicant's proposal
involves the removal of the existing structures on the site, and the construction of a 78-
unit senior condominium project. The condominiums are intended for sale to private
parties and shall be occupied by individuals 62 years of age or older, as set forth in a
regulatory agreement between the City and the property owner(s). The units are single
level, have two bedrooms each, and range from 1,000 to 1,400 square feet in size.
Zoning and General Plan
The proposed project is within the C -2 zone and the Commercial land use designation
of the General Plan. Residential development is a conditionally permitted use within the
C -2 zone, and is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The
proposed project is subject to the development standards of the C -2 zone and the City's
Architectural Design Guidelines.
Typically, market rate residential condominium projects are subject to the provisions of
the R -3 (Multiple - Family Residential) zone. The proposed project is located within the
C -2 zone, which does not specify development standards for residential projects.
Although staff has used the R -3 Regulations'as a guide, this application is not subject to
the specific regulations of the R -3 zone.
The Commercial General Plan land use designation allows 50 dwelling units per acre
for market rate senior housing projects and 63 dwelling units per acre for "affordable"
senior housing projects. The project is on a 1.75 -acre site and proposes 78 dwelling
units, which is a density of 45 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan allows for
senior housing within the Commercial land use designation to encourage housing for
the elderly, which is identified as a strategy within the Community Development element
of the General Plan.
Layout and Design
The proposed project is designed to resemble an Italian village. The multiple buildings
are organized around open courtyards that serve as gathering places or garden areas.
The buildings feature multi - colored stucco exterior wall treatments with ledgestone
accents, wood shutters, wood trellises, tower elements, and varying rooflines. A
significant ledgestone base material is featured on all elevations to visually anchor the
buildings. Throughout the Design Review process, the applicant worked closely with
staff and the City's architectural consultant to achieve the design as proposed.
n
U
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 2
The buildings are all three - stories and approximately 40 -feet in height, with tower
• elements extending an additional eight feet'to accommodate the elevators. The C -2 .
regulations allow a building height of 40 -feet, and architectural projections may extend
10 -feet above the roofline of buildings. On November 16, 2004, the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency approved the design review for the proposed project subject to
the conditions of approval as set forth by the Planning Commission. The project site is
within the Redevelopment Project Area, therefore, the design is subject to the review
and approval of the Agency Board.
Setbacks
There is a special setback of 35' -0" as measured from the property line along Colorado
Place (Sec. 9320.11.2). The applicant is requesting a modification for a 20 to 25 -foot
setback adjacent to Colorado Place in lieu of the 35 -foot special setback required. The
office building to the southeast has a setback of 24' -0" and the patio area of Pepper's.
restaurant to the northwest has a setback of 12' -0 ". Also, the existing Westerner Hotel
building on the project site is setback 28' -0" from Colorado Place. Allowing a varied
setback between 20 and 25 feet for the proposed project would result in a setback
consistent with the existing and adjacent development.
The proposed condominium buildings will be setback 10' -0" from the northerly and
southerly property lines.. The easterly setback varies between 15 and 18 feet. The
• proposed setback will provide an adequate buffer between the subject development and
the residences to the east on Santa Cruz Road. The setback area shall be adequately
landscaped to minimize any potential impact on adjacent residential development. The
Planning Commission added a condition of approval that 36" box (or larger) trees be
planted between the proposed building and the residential properties to the east to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator.
Parkin
The site will be accessed from San Juan Drive, to provide safer ingress /egress to the
site. Colorado Place is designated as a primary arterial by the General Plan and does
not have adequate street width to provide a deceleration lane for safe approach. Also,
parking is prohibited along Colorado Place. A loading and'drop -off area will be provided
as vehicles enter the site. Parking is accessed from a ramp leading to the two -level
subterranean parking garage. The parking area for residents will be separated by
security gates and the 26 guest parking spaces will be available for public use. All
parking spaces are 10 -feet by 20 -feet, consistent with the multiple family provisions of
the Municipal Code. The Police Department has suggested several security measures
for the parking garages and the final security plan will be reviewed by the Police
Department prior to occupancy of the site.
The applicant submitted a traffic and parking study which was reviewed by the City
• Traffic Engineer. The study includes an analysis of off - street parking demand, and a
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 3
warrant analysis for a traffic signal at Colorado Place and San Juan Drive. The study
concluded that a traffic signal is not warranted and that the proposed senior housing •
project will probably generate less traffic during peak times than the existing motel on
the property. The City Traffic Engineer concurs with this analysis and also agrees that
the amount of proposed off - street parking will be sufficient for the senior condominium
project.
The Municipal Code requires two (2) parking spaces per unit for market rate senior
housing. The proposed 78 -unit senior condominium project would require 156 total
parking spaces. There will be 158 standard parking spaces and eight tandem spaces.
Staff conducted a survey of several surrounding communities regarding parking
requirements for senior housing. The jurisdictions surveyed required between 1 and 1.5
parking spaces per unit for senior housing. The proposed project will have slightly more
than 2 parking spaces per unit, significantly more than required by most jurisdictions,
and consistent with the City's newly adopted Parking Regulations..
Open Space and Landscaping
The private open space requirement for multiple family residential developments is 200
square feet for ground floor units and 100 square feet for second floor units. The
proposed units feature private balconies ranging between 55 and 75 square feet. As
previously stated, the proposed development is located within the C -2 zone and
therefore, the private open space requirements of the multiple family zones do not •
apply. However, in staffs opinion, the size of the private open space areas as proposed
are mitigated by the presence of the large common open space areas and the 2,000
square foot recreation room.
Regulatory Agreement
The Planning Commission approved this project with a condition to ensure that the
condominiums are owned and occupied by at least one senior citizen per household,
and that a regulatory agreement (covenant). shall be filed with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's office. The regulatory agreement would ensure that the owner and at least
one occupant of each unit shall be no less than 62 years of age, and would require that
the City be notified with the sale of each unit. The agreement would also give the City
the power to enforce the regulations set forth in the agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission at its November 9, 2004 meeting voted 4 -1 to conditionally
approve the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review. The Planning
Commission concurred with staffs analysis and also added two conditions of approval
to mitigate traffic impacts during construction and to provide adequate landscaping
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 4
between the proposed buildings and the residential properties to the east. (See
conditions # 12 and 13 as listed in this report)
APPEAL REQUEST
On November 29, 2004, Mayor Gary Kovacic appealed the subject applications. Mayor
Kovacic was concerned that the original condition that restricted age was not sufficient
to ensure that the units would be occupied by seniors and not families. Therefore,
Mayor Kovacic appealed the application to provide the City Council an opportunity to
discuss appropriate conditions to further restrict the age of prospective residents.
Since the time of the appeal, the City Attorney has researched the legality of age
restrictions for privately funded senior housing projects. According to State law, a
senior housing project with 35 or more units is considered a "senior citizen housing
development." Also, the State's definition of "senior citizen' is an individual 55 years of
age or older, not 62 years of age.
Pursuant to State law, a private regulatory agreement (CC &R's) cannot be more
exclusive than to require that one person in each dwelling unit be a senior citizen (55 or
older) and that any other resident shall be either a qualified permanent resident or a
permitted health care resident. Qualified permanent residents are listed as a spouse,
cohabitant, or other person providing primary physical or economic support to the senior
citizen, a person 45 years of age or older, or a disabled person residing with the senior
citizen who is a child or grandchild of the senior citizen. Families with children and other
individuals otherwise can be prohibited.
The original regulatory agreement would have restricted the ownership of the subject
units to individuals 62 years of age or older. According to the City Attorney, it is not
likely permissible to restrict the age of prospective condominium owners. Therefore, the
CC &R's may set forth limitations on occupancy, residency, or use on the basis of age,
but ownership cannot be legally restricted to "seniors."
Based on this information, staff has proposed an amendment to the original condition of
approval (condition # 7) reflecting the limitations set forth by State law.
ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the design criteria set
forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. The design elements of the
subject. buildings (i.e., stone veneer, wood shutters, tower elements, etc.) will provide
the necessary visual relief avoiding flat wall areas. All elevations have been treated to
avoid symmetry and to provide a high level of materials and design quality. It is the
opinion of staff that the proposed design is consistent with the multiple family residential
design guidelines and mitigates the requests to deviate from code requirements.
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 5
Based on the above information and considering the information regarding age
restrictions for senior units as set forth in the City Attorneys memo dated November 29,
2004, (see attached) staff recommends approval of this application. In staffs opinion,
the age restriction limitations set for by State law are adequate to ensure that the
proposed units will not be occupied by families.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial
Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic
significance that could not be made less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project.
FINDINGS
Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions
can be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and
other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Depart ment recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 subject to the following conditions:
1. That a modification is granted for a 20 to 25 -foot setback adjacent to Colorado
Place in lieu of the 35 -foot special setback required (Sec. 9320.11.2).
2. All perimeter walls, garden walls and patio separations shall match the buildings
and be built of colored decorative block (i.e. of lit face, Community stone, etc.) or
finished with stucco, subject to the approval
Administrator.
3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be provided subject to the review
and.approval of the Community Development Administrator.
4. The project plans shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Police
Department to ensure that security features are incorporated into the project prior to
issuance of building permits.
5. All onsite signage shall be in compliance with the City's sign ordinance (AMC Sec.
9262.4 to Sec. 9262.4.20). All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved
by Planning Services and shall require appropriate permits from Building Services.
6. "Guest Parking Only" signs with letters not less than two inches in height shall be
• properly located to designate guest parking spaces.
7. That a regulatory agreement (covenant) in a form and content approved by the City
Attorney, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office prior to
the issuance of building permits. The regulatory agreement ensures that the
occupant of each unit shall be no less than 55 years of age and that any other
resident shall be, either a qualified permanent resident or a permitted health care
resident. Qualified permanent residents are listed as a spouse, cohabitant, or other
person providing primary physical or economic support to the senior citizen, a
person 45 years of age or older, or a disabled person residing with the senior citizen
who is a child or grandchild of the senior citizen, as set forth by California Civil Code
section 51.2 and 51.3.
8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 04-
014 & ADR 03 -040 shall be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of
any approvals.
9. Approval of CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 shall not take effect until the property owner
and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these
conditions of approval.
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 7
10. That after the issuance of a building permit a Rough Grading Certificate shall be
required prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading
Certificate shall be required prior to the final building inspection. Said certificates will
certify that all grading operations have been completed in substantial compliance
with the final grading plan approved by the City Engineer, and shall be filed with, and
approved by, the Community Development Administrator.
11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning
this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or
condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which
action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section
66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City
shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the
project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney
to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the
matter.
12. Prior to the approval of any demolition or grading, the developer shall provide the
City with a construction access plan to identify the route of trucks entering and
exiting the site and the haul route to the proposed disposal areas. The plan shall
include proposed traffic control at the access points for safe entrance and exit.
Trucks shall use the approved truck routes established by the City and no truck •,
access will be allowed in the surrounding residential. neighborhoods.
13. That 36" box (or larger) trees are installed between the proposed building and the
residential properties to the east. Such landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Administrator.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approval
The City Council should move to adopt the Negative Declaration, approve Application
Nos. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project at
161 Colorado Place, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Council's
decision and specific findings.
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 8
• Denial
If the City Council intends to deny the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design
Review applications, the Council should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a
resolution incorporating the Council's decision and specific findings.
Approved by: =1
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachments: Memo from City Attorney regarding age restrictions for Senior Housing
Planning Commission Resolution 1715
PC November 9 2004 Minutes
Aerial Photo & Zoning Map
Land Use Map
Project Plans submitted by applicant
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Environmental Information
E
•
CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 9
c R
° �rouno' MEMORANDUM •
M C,I- / A
Date: November 29, 2004
TO: WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER
7—
FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, CITY ATTORNEY `
d"
SUBJECT: PERMISSIBLE REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR HOUSING
BACKGROUND
The City of Arcadia ( "City ") approved a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for a
Senior Housing Project. As a condition of approval, the City has required the
developer to record restrictive covenants requiring all owners and residents of the
development to be sixty-two years old, or older.
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Can a developer record CC &Rs or other written policy requiring that all
owners and residents of a new development for seniors be a minimum age?
2. Can a developer record CC &Rs that do not permit families to reside in or
occupy a dwelling unit?
SHORT ANSWER
1. Yes. Age restrictions, as applied to housing designed specifically for the
elderly, are permissible pursuant to Civil Code Sections 51.2 and 51.3; however
such restrictions may not be more restrictive than permitted by these provisions.
California Civil Code section 51.4 expressly states that the requirements for senior
housing in California are more stringent than federal requirements in light of
California's severe shortage of housing for families with children. California law
defines "seniors" for this purpose as persons fifty -five (55) years of age or older.
- 1 -
Yes. However, Civil code Section 51.3 clearly states that limitations in
2,
CC &Rs or other written policies shall not be more exclusive than to require that
one person in residen e i n eac
to d w e lling uni
qua e r permanent resident, or a and
each other reside q erson over 45
permitted health care resident. Therefore, a spouse or cohabitant, a p
years of age, and a permitted health care resident could all potentially reside with
the senior citizen. Families with children otherwise can be prohibited.
ANALYSIS
1. A e U15(:1 The Unruh Civil Rights Act in California prohibits discriminatory housing
practices. This law is construed to prohibit age -based discrimination in housing.
However, Civil Code Sections 51.2 and 51.3 provide an exception to the general
prohibition on age discrimination. This exception applies to housing specifically
designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens. ^
2 Age J JL$l I111ll110.1i� i+ • i p
. Civil Code Section 51.2 prohibits age discrimination in the sale or rental of
housing by a business establishment. This section permits the establishment and
preservation of housing accommodations for senior citizens and social, of
accommodations are designed to meet the needs, both Phys
senior citizens- Section 51.2 provides design standards and elements that a
developer may implement in order to establish a presumption that such
development meets the needs of senior citizens. The term "business
establishment" utilized in this secti n of the Code is broadly construed.
o
3.
Pursuant to Section 51.3, the term "senior citizen" (also referred to as "qualified
resident ") 5 )h ears old older. Section 51 3 defin d s a n " senior citizen housing is
fifty -five (55) y
development" as a residential development, developed for senior citizens, that has
at least thirty-five (3 5) dwelling units.
0
-2-
4. Occu pancy Limitations That May Legally Be Imposed Regarding Senior
Housing: •
According to Section 51.3 limitations on occupancy may o require the
following:
(a) That one person residing in the dwelling unit is a senior
citizen.
(b) That any other residents are "qualified permanent residents,
permitted health care residents, or other permitted
occupants."
(c) Note: Upon the divorce from, or the hospitalization, death
or other prolonged absence of a senior citizen, a qualified
permanent resident, who resided with the senior citizen
prior to such occurrence, may remain in the dwelling unit,
The law does not appear to allow the adoption of CC &Rs or other written policies
which restrict occupancy of a dwelling unit to one senior citizen and only one
qualified resident or permitted health care resident. However, the definitions of a
"qualified permanent resident" and "permitted health care resident," both further •
described below, are sufficiently narrow to prohibit an entire family including
young children or teenagers from moving into the development.
5. Definition of a Qualified Permanent Resident
A qualified permanent resident is defined in Section 51.3 as a person residing with
the senior citizen who is:
(a) Forty-five (45) years old or older;
(b) A spouse, cohabitant, or person providing primary physical
or economic support to the senior citizen; or
(c) Generally, a disabled person residing with the senior citizen
who is a child or grandchild of the senior citizen.
Pursuant to Section 51.3, a "cohabitant" is defined as persons who live together as
husband and wife, or persons who are domestic partners. Based on this definition,
it appears that only one person could qualify as a spouse or cohabitant under the
definition of a "qualified permanent resident."
-3 -
• 6. Gues of a Senior Citizen or Qualified Perman Resident:
Any policies or CC &Rs must also permit the temporary residence by a guest of a
senior citizen or qualified permanent resident. While the CC &Rs may impose
restrictions related to the guests of a senior citizen or qualified permanent resident,
any such restrictions must allow the temporary residence of a guest who may be
less than fifty -five (55) years of age provided, however, that the CC &R's may
restrict such temporary residence to sixty (60) days.
7. Definition of a Permitted Health Care Resident.
A person hired to provide live -in, long -term or terminal health care to a senior
citizen, or a family member of the senior citizen providing such care, is a
"permitted health care resident." The care provided by a permitted health care
resident must be substantial in nature and must be related to either, or both,
essential daily activities or medical treatment. A permitted health care resident is
entitled to reside in the dwelling unit, and may be permitted to remain in the
dwelling unit during a prolonged absence of the senior citizen upon certain,
conditions. However, a permitted health care resident will not be entitled to
remain in the dwelling unit upon the death of such person.
8. Ma A Housing Development Restrict the Ownership o Dwelli Units to
Senior Citizens?
Civil Code Section 51.2 specifically applies to the "sale or rental of housing based
upon age," and authorizes the establishment and preservation of housing for senior
citizens. The language of this Section potentially implies that age restrictions may
be applied to the sale of a dwelling unit. However, the Laguna Woods
Community, formerly Leisure World, does not restrict the sale of housing units
based on age. In that Community, a person of any age may own a dwelling unit,
but only a "senior citizen" and other qualified persons may reside in a unit.
Further, age restrictions are not likely a permissible requirement for ownership.
Therefore, it would not likely be permissible to limit the devise, for example, of a
dwelling unit to a non -"senior citizen" upon the death of the current qualifying
owner, or to require the devisee to sell the unit if such person is not a "senior
citizen" or "qualified permanent resident." Section 51.3(c) states only that:
The covenants, conditions, and restrictions and other documents or written policy
shall set forth the limitations on occupancy, residency, or use on the basis of age.
0
M
Therefore, there is no clear authorization in either of the two relevant sections to •
restrict either the sale or ownership of a dwelling unit to a "senior citizen." If a
dwelling unit is owned by a person who is not a senior citizen or a qualified
permanent resident, it appears that such person must either rent the unit to a senior
citizen, or sell the unit.(or possibly leave the unit vacant).
c: Don, Penman, Asst. =City Manager/Dev.Stvs Dir.
•
•
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 1715
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 04 -014 & ADR 03-040 TO CONSTRUCT A 76 -UNIT SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 161 COLORADO PLACE
•
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2004, a conditional use permit application was fled by
Michael Sun of JWDA Architects to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project (Development
Services Department Case Nos, CUP 04 -013 & ADR 02 -072) at property commonly known as 161
Colorado Place; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on November 9, 2004, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or Vicinity because the
initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the proposed
project.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, loading, landscaping and other features including the
shared parking with the neighboring business, are adequate to adjust said use with the land and
uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as
set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the
General Plan.
•
6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the
environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit
No. CUP 04014 & ADR 03 -040, to construct a 78 -unit senior condominium project at 161 Colorado
Place, upon the following conditions:
1. That a modification is granted for a 20 to 25 -foot setback adjacent to Colorado
Place in lieu of the 35 -foot special setback required (Sec. 9320.11.2).
2. All perimeter walls, garden walls and patio separations shall match the buildings
and be built of colored decorative block (i.e., split face, slump stone, etc.) or finished with
stucco, subject to the approval of the Community Development Administrator.
3. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be provided subject to the review
and approval of the Community Development Administrator.
4. The project plans shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the
Police Department to ensure that security features are incorporated into the project prior to
issuance of building permits.
5. All onsite signage shall be in compliance with the City's sign ordinance (AMC •
Sec. 9262.4 to Sec. 9262.4.20). 'All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by
Planning Services and shall require appropriate permits from Building Services.
6. "Guest Parking Only" signs with letters not less than two inches in height shall
be properly located to designate guest parking spaces.
7. That a regulatory agreement (covenant) in a form and content approved by the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office prior to the
issuance of building permits. The regulatory agreement ensures that the owner and at least
one occupant of each unit shall be no less than 62 years of age and requires that the City be
notified with the sale of each unit.
8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
04 -014 & ADR 03-040 shall be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any
approvals.
9. Approval of CUP 04014 & ADR 03 -040 shall not take effect until the property
owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Forth available from the
n
U
2
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions
• of approval. permit a Rough Grading Certificate shall be
10. That after the
is
of a building
required prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading Certificate shall
I building inspection. Said certificates will certify that all grading
be required prior to the fina
operations have been completed in substantial compliance with the final the C grading play
approved by the City Engineer, and shall be filed with, and approved by,
Development Administrator.
11. Prior to the approval of any demolition, grading, or building construction plans,
the applicant shall provide the Development Services Department with a construction access
plan to identify the route of trucks entering and exiting the site and shall include the haul
route to proposed disposal areas. The plan shall also include proposed traffic control routes
access points for safe entrance and exit. Trucks shall use only the approved
established by the Development Services Department and no truck access will be allowed in
the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The construction access plan is subject to the
review and approval by the Community Development Administrator. proposed buildin
• 12. That 36" box (or larger) trees shall be installed between the prop g
and the residential properties to the east. Such landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Administrator. Arcadia and its
13. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or
condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision,
including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the
project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter.
The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its
officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
•
3
SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning
Commission's action of November 9, 2004 to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP •
04014 & ADR 03 -040, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson and Wen
NOES: Commissioner Lucas
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a
copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this
Resolution No. 1715 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on
November 23, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hsu
/s /Robert Baderian
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
S etary, Planni ommission •
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
n
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
n
LJ
4
• 3. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2004 -014 & ADR 2003 -040
161 Colorado Pl.
Michael Sun
Consideration of a conditional use permit and architectural design review to construct a 78 -unit
senior housing project.
The staff report was presented.
In reply to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert indicated that the City imposed the 62-
year age limit, which has been imposed on a couple of other projects that have been already approved
by the Planning Commission. This is a regulatory number that, staff is utilizing. Lambert e of
indicated that they did not have any data on the occupancy of these types of dwellings; typically
o say that the traffic impact analysis submitted by the City's
the adults is 62 years old. He went on t
traffic engineer stated that the project would probably result in fewer trips than the existing use on the
site.
Ms. Butler stated that they looked at other similar projects in other cities and the average age limit is
older than 62,years. She concurred with Mr. Lambert's comments regarding the other senior housing
projects that have established a minimum age of 62 -years old for at least one of the occupants. Many
other cities were surveyed and typically the occupants are 70+. The parking requirement is more than
• what otherr cities are requiring. Staff felt this higher parking ratio was justified due to the limited on-
street parking and feels comfortable with the project as designed.
In reply to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert explained the density requirements and
Ms. Butler further commented by saying that the proposed density is less than allowed density for
senior housing. There will be two levels of underground parking, resulting in two spaces per unit.
The spaces are wide and spacious. With regard to the excavation process, Mr. Lambert indicated that
time limits could be imposed on truck access.
y
Phil Wray, City Engineer, said they will restrict the truck traffic so the residential streets to the east are
not utilized and possibly close a lane on Colorado Place. Their routes will also be reviewed.
Ms. Butler explained that staff did not want ingress and egress off of Colorado Place because there is
no deceleration lane and traffic is faster. This project creates a transition to the residential uses. She
indicated that there would be adequate signing indicating the location of guest parking.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler said to encourage senior or affordable type
housing, subterranean parking is being permitted but on a regular residential project it would not be
allowed. The other option is to increase the number of floors, thus, increasing the height. This type of
a design provides for more open space.
With regard to the special setback along Colorado Pl. Ms. Butler indicated that it was probably for
• street widening at one time and is no longer necessary.
iiror4
Arcadia City Pluldmg CO— n'ss'-
The public hearing was opened.
Rodney Kahn, 11 I 1 N. Brand, Glendale, said that they have been working with staff on this project for
more than a year. They held a community meeting and the neighbors were happy that the hotel was
being replaced. The project creates functional courtyards and has 60 open space as well as other
amenities such as a recreation room. The parking ratio for this project is greater than others that they
have previously developed. The driveway was relocated and placed in the safest location. They are in
agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report.
Dr. John DiGiulio, 861 San Marino Rd., San Marino, was concerned about parking. He thought there
are too' many units for the site.
Ms. Butler explained that the proposed density is less than what code allows for senior housing.
Tom Kocaya, 137 Santa Cruz Rd., said they live to the rear of the subject buildings. He was happy to
see the hotel being replaced with this use but was concerned with the units and balconies that would be
facing his property and would look down upon it. They would lose their privacy. He asked that those
units be eliminated. He was concerned with the increased noise and traffic from this use. He
explained that guests of the restaurant across the street drive to the middle of the street before making
any turns due to limited visibility. He said that the proposal is for a common walkway, which will be
very close to their properties with only a 5' high wall separation. This makes them vulnerable. He
asked that all the units on the 3rd floor be eliminated to preserve their privacy.
In rebuttal, Mr. Kahn explained that the density is below what code allows. In terms of the location o�
the driveway, they were told by staff where it should be and that is not negotiable. Because this is
senior building, the peak hours will not be the same as homes with working adults. Currently, the
walkways are very close to the property lines but they will be providing dense landscaping that will
mitigate the privacy issues. There is separation between buildings, which breaks up the structure and
provides a mass relief. If they did away with the units on the 3 floor, the project would not be viable.
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Olson to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Olson, Ms. Butler indicated that a preliminary landscape
plan was submitted but the Planning Commission can modify that and require denser landscaping.
There are only 5 -units on the 3 floor that face the properties to the rear.
Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director stated that the Planning
Commission can require 36" box trees which are more mature and will provide for faster screening.
•
Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 1119!4
• In reply to comments made by Commissioner Lucas, Chairman Baderian indicated that the applicant
has stated that it would not be feasible for them to proceed with the project if the units on the 3rd floor
were eliminated.
Commissioner Lucas said speaking from his own personal experience in Pasadena during construction
of a multiple - family dwelling with subterranean parking; the impact of the construction on the
neighborhood is ferocious in terms of debris and dust. He asked that the City exercise tremendous
control over this and the resulting traffic.
Chairman Baderian thought that was a good suggestion and asked that the City make it clear to them
and take due diligence to minimize impacts during the construction phase.
Ms. Butler explained the hours of truck traffic and said they could impose a condition that the
applicant submit a truck route plan that must be approved by the City Engineer. She explained that the
setback of the P floor is 19'.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve CUP 04-
014 & ADR 2003 -040 subject to the conditions in the staff report on the additional condition
that additional landscape be provided that address the concerns, and that a traffic construction
plan be submitted to Development Services Department for their review and approval.
• ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: Commissioner Lucas
Chairman Baderian noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the
resolution. The resolution will be adopted on November 23 Appeals are to be filed by December
2 °d .
•
Arcadia City PIMMMg Comm -iw
9 1119!4
(200)
100 0 100 Fee
SP
9
PEPPERS
SANTA
ANITA
RACETRACK
(133) (120.
(129)
(123)
(117)
OFFICE
BUILDING
'Amadmu 161 Colorado Place
-AM 4
Development Services Department AD
CUP 04=014
Engineering Division
Prepared by. R.S.Goazaiez, October, 2004 PORATS ADR 03=040
(143)
(146)
(130)
(140)
RESIDENTIAL
__ -csz rocw iaz
�T'W6WIS3Ne 1J611�Hd N9L-
» roiavm
DNI6f10H klON36 MOtlJtlV
V
Z
ti
O
OUP
2�a
waZ
00
G ti
W 0 O Q
JV
y O
Q
Q � V
r
V a
Q
c � P
Y � k
VLV4 1APONd
/NVId 3115
op�
a ,
O
Q
o0
5
i
--
y , \ \
op�
a ,
O
Q
o0
5
dannr
pHlSgl� tlpN3S tll0tlptltl 2 '.C�.:
•
/ I
1
1 1 6
1
1
1
1
I
0
a L Q
NVId aoo)e ONnC89
1
9 r
m f
1'
I dl
a
� I
- 3
00
� � 1
W
S 4
1
` ` II
OT'INSWLS3NA 103f'Otld NEll -A96H _T—`— .�..,....— g a n O
�.1.t•� ry - + M
aovia oavuoim iei = V Mr NvId H0012 ONODIS_
ONIMOW COIN3S 0AQV W _° v I 1 1
II I
1 1 1
1
1
I
1
J
a••
a
.• _.;.:... ��I 11 is ��
I
I
I
1
�Y
I
I
'➢LC655
1
3 0�
I Q Y
0
0
•
GL'4SL IBC01 'Til
YiL93M11?3fOtld N91-I El
tl�V16Y'Jw
owsnoti uowas `nrnndd
I
I
1
I I
�I
I
1,
I
I
r�
1
/ I
1
/ I
I
/ 4 '
/ I
I
- � I
°
V aM NV Id tlOOlj Qa�Hl _ {! S 3
I
V
8 �
i
I I I
I
i
I
I
1
5
8I
a -uc rxni �
�T'IN3L83VA 1J3f'ONd N131 -f86H
V�'tlIOV�W
a> oav O wl
'JNISlIOH NOIN3S tll�tl�l1V
I
Y�
0
1
LU
IL
' l
R ' f
% I r
� � 9
I / R
I e
R
a
' I x
r I R
I
r
/
x
q
x I
-
I q I
I q I
R sl I
�M . wp
�Mmm m
4 I I
i
I I JI!
l
L
O
O
r �
I
r0
Z
J
n
Z,
W
84 '0
dannr Nd,d � �N3w3sd9_ :� I � � a I
A x MI R x l Y
v z N2vzll,
Fwnm I 7 F
fa
— — — — — — — — — — llll
fl y LU
LIJ
U)
-----------------------
aov,a oavom ici _ -tea 'daMf
aasna� uolras mav�ev Z.�:
� a
N oo
Q \ Fi Cl
Q
V
'ao Nvnr Nvs
z
O
J
W
I
F
0
Q
W
W
W
3
S
e s
=
6 �
" T d
g e g C ' gga
y
3 'C
b d e °g tl
0
R
e `
�.p
_1
1 O
SN OIIV /,3'l3
153M V H1n05
� a
N oo
Q \ Fi Cl
Q
V
'ao Nvnr Nvs
z
O
J
W
I
F
0
Q
W
W
W
3
S
e s
=
6 �
" T d
g e g C ' gga
y
3 'C
b d e °g tl
0
R
e `
E
9L-SGL 19 L e) l34
�T'l1HW183Al11J3f'OHd 113E -1H6F
vi viavonv
F'NL MvYOV'J pl
DM6nOH U01438 tlIQ=
..�rr.w
... ............ ....a .......
dannr
a �'I
N
a �Nnr S
•
z
0
J
w
S
K
O
z
f-
Q
w
a
`e y
e
Z
zx
N�
R
�
6 » w tl
SNO]1V/G
»
Hl?JON a 15V3
� `
�
Q`
f-
Q
w
a
`e y
e
Z
R
�
6 » w tl
e
»
A F
E 6 tl E 6
Or�O/J�OO�J
aL -SGL 19 L91 't2l •••^w•••••r_
on'yavuss,w u3roed r+ar.+alet+ '— "'—.._
vo via. >av : aT. � ................. ...........
a�.v oawowv wi -=
OMSnOH HON3S dI0doHd
I
i I
I
I
a
a�lr NVS
z
O
Q
w
w
O
U
� b
W :
Z
z
O
w
w
e
€
a
3
_ g
3
€ 8 �
Y Y u k F
0 J a
y
6
€ 8
5 E E E N
5 y -
_
S
C tl Y
8 �-
m i
O
SNO11VA 1-13
l ?JOI?J31N1
d
I
i I
I
I
a
a�lr NVS
z
O
Q
w
w
O
U
� b
W :
Z
z
O
w
w
e
€
a
3
_ g
3
€ 8 �
Y Y u k F
0 J a
y
6
€ 8
5 E E E N
5 y -
_
S
C tl Y
.. .. � KC 19L91 •ldl �nw ... .u.a.ea. �� E
_ io� ON C i..1 � a VKIVOWv ; aM I ,['J13C omsna _ , +uavas ,�
N
R
J_
Q
w
N
e $
1 I
C.�
ztj
Y
tt�
a
J
Q
ti
w
Q
N
J_
Q
w
m
#
w
u
z
ipt k i .
M M E
ry
A
W
u
z
w
w
w
w
O
F
O
x
R
!�J
m
A
J
F
W
m
w
0
vo viavow Z -? ��
5 tll0tl�kftl ==
E owsnaiHO -
:0
it
Z
O
F
a
>
W
J
W
_J
a
F
W
C)
f -1
3
�b
1
Ii 1 aT
v
m
z
0
a
w
J
w
J_
a
ti
W
U
I
S T
k�
N
u
Z
O
F
a
1
W
J
W
_J
a
F-
W
(J
J
it
wl
U
z
w
xx
o�
2 11v134
EI
E E.
i i
f
E owsnaiHO -
:0
it
Z
O
F
a
>
W
J
W
_J
a
F
W
C)
f -1
3
�b
1
Ii 1 aT
v
m
z
0
a
w
J
w
J_
a
ti
W
U
I
S T
k�
N
u
Z
O
F
a
1
W
J
W
_J
a
F-
W
(J
J
it
wl
U
z
w
•�Nanisanw
a HOIN OOV I CIVO V
�wsnaa eoiN3s viav�uv
. .... .... L
Aa
SNV-d 11Nn - iv , )i I q E o Q
F
Z
D
Q
U
e
•
•, o
;i
a
Q
U
e
•
. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT)
g RtoggTDO ,
1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project:
Application Nos. CUP 04-014 & ADR 03 -040: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design
Review Application to construct a 78 -unit senior housing project at the subject location.
2. Location:
161 Colorado Place, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
Michael Sun (JWDA Architects)
529 E. Valley Blvd. Suite 228 -A
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 288 -9199
The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having
reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting' of the Planning Commission,
including the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the
Planning Commission /City Council's findings are as follows:
The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation of the
project site and will not have a significant effect upon the environment.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment.
A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at:
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Community Development Division
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, 91007
(626) 574 -5423
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows:
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Community Development Division
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, 91007
(626) 574 -5423
. Staff
Date Received for Filing
Neg Dec
7/02
File No. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
J ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Application Nos. CUP 04 -013 & ADR 03 -040
2. Project Address (Location)
161 Colorado Place, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Michael Sun (JWDA Architects)
529 E. Valley Blvd. Suite 228 -A
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 288 -9199 •
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department
Community Development Division -- Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C -2
C�
1- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102
0 8. Description of Project:
File No. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Application Nos. 04 -013 & ADR 03 -040: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural
Design Review Application to construct a 78 -unit senior housing project at the
subject location.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's
surroundings.)
The properties to the north are zoned R -1 and are developed with single - family
residences. The property to the south is zoned S -1 and is the Santa Anita
Racetrack. The property to the west is zoned C -2 and is developed with a
restaurant. The property to the east is zoned C -2 and is developed with an office
building.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
0 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a `Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Geology /Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Population & Housing
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
] Air Quality
] Cultural Resources
] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
] Land Use & Planning
] Noise
] Public Services
] Transportation / Circulation
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
2_ CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102
File No. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the •
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation
measures based -on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if
any remaining effect is .a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been
addressed.
[ J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department
October 12, 2004
Signatu Date
Joseph M Lambert Donna L. Butler
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a
fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
r�
LJ
-3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02
•
•
Fie No. CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
2. All answers must take account of
e, indirect asc including
well as direct, , and cost ucti construction as well as
cumulative as well as project - level,
operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate If there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an Environmental impact Report is required.
applies where the incorporation
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" ration of mitigation
impact." The lead agency must describetthel miitigatoln'cmeasurres,t!and briefly xplain l they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier
Analyses" may be cross - referenced). rogram
5. Earlier analyses may be u e pursuant to he tiering analyzed in an earlier ta IR or
or other CEQA p effect has been in Section 17 at the end of the
Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are disc
checklist.
a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) scopetofdandaadequdatelysanalyzedtl nwancearlier document apursuantctolsapplicable llegal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation
deasures.beFor effects n tmeasuressthat were Significant
at d or refined from u the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged .g ., general plans, zon ordinances). es). Reference to a or
for potential impacts, should, g ro riate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
outside document should, where app p
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
B. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
ME
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
1.
AESTHETICS — Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new, source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86,000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is currentle
developed with a 60 -room hotel that would be razed subsequent to approval of this project. The project site is
surrounded by, commercial land uses to the south, west and east and single- family residential land uses to the
north on Santa Cruz Road. The proposed project was subject to an Architectural Design Review process and
has met or exceeded the city's standadrds for design and development standards. As such, no adverse
impact on aesthetics is anticipated.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts
to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non- agricultural use?
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
40
CEQA Checklist
5
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than
Potentially Significant Sig ss n No
Significant With
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan, is a conditionally
approved use in the C -2 zone, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional gency
a
with applicable environmental regulations. T rounded by urban uses and no agricultural
he project site is surrounded
resources currently exist at the project site or in the surrounding. areas. As such, the proposal will have no
impacts on agricultural resources.
3, AIR QUALITY - Whe av ual y management c o l r e ria
established by the appl
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air F El ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
• c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86,000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is currently
developed with a 60 -room hotel that would be razed subsequent to approval of this project. e project site is
surrounded by commercial land uses to the south, west and east and single - family residential land uses to the
north on Santa Cruz Road. The proposed construction and continued use of the site will be in accordance with
local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As such, no
adverse impacts are anticipated.
4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑
• habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
ffl�
CEQA Checklist
6
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With' Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but
not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites?
3
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86, 000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is surrounded by
commercial land uses to the south, west and east and single- family residential land uses to the north on Santa
Cruz Road. The project site is currently developed with a 60 -room hotel that would be razed subsequent to
approval of this project. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑
historical. resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ ®
formal cemeteries?
CEQA Checklist
7
7/02
I
File No.: uJP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
• Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation -
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86,000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is surrounded by
commercial land uses to the south, west and east and single - family residential land uses to the north on Santa
Cruz Road. The project site is currently developed with a 60 -room hotel that would be razed subsequent to
approval of this project. As such, no adverse impacts on cultural resources are anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑
most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
•
CECA Checklist
8
7102
ill Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
v) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
❑
❑
❑
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the
❑
❑
❑
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
❑
❑
❑
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
•
CECA Checklist
8
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than •
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined
to be especially susceptible to any of the above, geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land,
and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposed project
consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate 86,000 square foot senior
condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is surrounded by commercial land uses to
the south, west and east and single- family residential land uses to the north on Santa Cruz Road. The project
site is currently developed with a 60 -room hotel that would be razed subsequent to approval of this project. All
new construction shall be required to comply with all applicable building and safety codes. As such, no
adverse impacts are anticipated.
VII, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the •
environment?
c)
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
❑
❑
❑
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
❑
❑
❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
❑
❑
❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
❑
❑
❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
❑
❑
❑
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
•
CEQA Checklist
9
7102
File No.: Li1P 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
• Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86,600 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is surrounded by
Cruz Road. la The p oject is developed with -room hotel that would be azed subs quent to
approval of this projec.
osal t wil ll l l be In compliance with shall
emergency access a fire safety regulations. As such, no
codes. The prop
adverse impacts are anticipated.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
g,
a) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
•
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
such that there would be
❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
a net deficit
table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing
groundwater
would
uses for which per support
mits have
nd esor planned
ng a s
sti
existing
granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
or river,
❑ ❑ ❑
C)
including through the alteration of the course of a stream
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
in a manner
on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
or river,
❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream
in
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff a
or
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
❑ ❑
e) Create or
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
additional sources of polluted runoff?
substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
CEQA Checklist
10
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
40
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
Less Than
•
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No
-
Impact
Mifigation
Impact
Impact
Incorporation
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on
❑
❑
❑
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede
❑
❑
❑
or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
❑
❑
❑
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
k)
Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff?
❑
❑
❑
1)
Potential impact of project post- construction activity on storm
❑
❑
❑
®
water runoff?
•
m
Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material
❑
❑
❑
storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
n)
Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm
❑
❑
❑
on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies?
o)
Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial
❑
❑
❑
uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality
benefit?
p)
Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of
❑
❑
❑
storm water runoff that can use environmental harm?
q)
Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or
❑
❑
❑
surrounding areas?
40
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
• Less Than
Potentially Significant g
Significant With Significant No
Impact - Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate
86,000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78 residential units. The project site is currently
d be razed subsequent developed with a 60 -room hotel that woul to approval of this project. All new
construction shall be required to comply with all applicable building and safety codes. As is currently
the site
developed, there will be little change to the existing drainage and runoff generated by the project site. As such,
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
g, LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
•
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑
ommunity conservation plan?
U
w �
c
The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the Genera! Plan and with the
regulations of the C -2 zone, and is required to comply it the re g lotio of ny con e di c i nal agency
with applicable environmental regulations. Thep p ow proj
design review to construct an approximate 86,000 square foot senior condominium project featuring 78
residen o uni The project s
project. The is stem with the a Commerc al land use designation e of the General
to app roval
Plan, and is a conditionally approved use in the C -2 zone. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipate
10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: ❑
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? El
b) resource recovery ssite del n on a loccall g locall y- im p ort a nt
neral p an, petit c El ❑ of
plan or other land use plan?
No mineral resources are known to exist at the site. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
11. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels Ce noise ❑ ❑
standards established in the local general p or
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
is b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑
/4 ■
CEQA Checklist
12
7102
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
❑
❑
❑
❑
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
❑ ❑
•
No
Impact
excessive noise levels?
There will be a short-term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is
completed, it is anticipated that although the noise factor would increase with the net gain of 18 dwelling units
on the site, however this noise will be the type of noise associated with residential neighborhoods and should
not significantly adversely impact any of the neighboring properties. As such, the impact shall be less than
significant.
12.
POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ® ❑
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
13.
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan which allows
senior residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site. The General Plan
encourages senior housing in designated areas as it helps address the housing needs identified by the
General Plan. Also, the population gain which may result from the proposed project has been addressed in the
1996 General Plan update. The project will not create any significant impact upon population or housing. As
such, the impact shall be less than significant. •
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
CEQA Checklist
13
7/02
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
• Less Than
Potantialty Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan which allows
• senior residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site. To address potential public
safety impacts, staff recommends that a closed circuit television camera be installed as a security measure
within the underground parking garage, and that the parking garage areas shall be adequately lighted. This
shall be incorporated as a condition of approval of the related Conditional Use Permit. As such, the impacts
shall be less than significant.
14. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan which allows
senior residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site. The population gain which
may result from the proposed project has been addressed in the 1996 General Plan update. Also, the project
as proposed includes a 2,000 square foot recreation room and outdoor recreation areas. Therefore, the
project will not create any significant adverse impact upon recreation services.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑
• existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
CEQA Checklist
14
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑
standard established by the county congestion management .
agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
r�
LJ
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
•
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan which allows
senior residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site. The applicant has
submitted a traffic impact analysis and the City's Traffic Engineer has determined that no additional traffic
signals are needed and that no other major public improvements are neccessary as part of this project. Part of
the conditional use permit process will include an analysis of the parking situation and a determination by staff
on the adequacy of parking. As such, the impacts if any, are less than significant.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of •
which could cause significant environmental effects?
CEQA Checklist
15
7102
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
•
C J
17
LJ
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, at seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑
which serves or may serve the project determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑
❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the
General Plan which allows
residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site.
The proposed project shall
senior
be subject to all applicable wastewater and NPDES requirements. As such,
no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑
❑ ❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
16
7/02
File No.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
•
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan which allows
senior residential units with an approved Conditional Use Permit at the project site. The conditional use permit
shall not result in cumulative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or limit the future development of the
neighborhood. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
u
0
CEQA Checklist
17
7/02
Fie No. 01-
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
(626) 574 -5
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
General Information
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
.-(- Yo TNT LLC
Yee
l D n b2
Aa�dYes 5 .
2. Address of project (Location):
r co
C4 9 /��
• 3. Name, address and telephone.numb (63 6erson a abe�cont concerning this project:
a (n7
Soh EfAjY:el cA.
4. List and describe hose oth related
by city, regional, stat pub approvals
agencies
for this
project, including t 9 (
0 1� '7�0,jo 9N w . l I
5, Zoning:
6. General Plan Designation: S ; nY F-( 'A5, A
Project Descrlatjon
7. Proposed use of site (project description):
. g Uh
B. Site Size: 9 6 ' 3 Sq. Ft. / 75 �• Acre(s)
9. Square footage per building:
g 6 ya0 S
10. Number of floors of construction:
pat Sew Cwti + � T - 1 -o r,
11. Amount of off - street parking provided:
W s, e ,
12. Proposed scheduling of project:
y -.4 Y
5eb. 4 c . J . n. / M A.I�GA . � ofl� —►
13. Associated projects:
/V vh<
14. Anticipated incremental development:
A
0
15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of ho sizes expected: n
7 9b U!?`r - � �, C/Hr b h; 2e 5{� own o n S�ICe•� �i7 �' , � �,�-; cQ N�/ 1
16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
/✓� ua *If rc" w f
17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
,`\y0 f i h4 5 Or !
18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
tf i v,
•
19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
uzP or a oti.�
EnwranlnfoFoan -2- - - 4101
0. Are the following
a h aitems applic sheets as project
necessary),
it e ff e cts? Discuss below all items
checked yes
YES NO.
❑ of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground
21. Change in existing features
contours.
❑ r vistas from existing residential areas or public
22. Change in scenic views o
lands or roads.
❑] 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of genera{ area of project:
❑ 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
❑ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
❑ ® 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
❑ ❑ 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
❑ ® 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more?
❑ 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
❑ ® sewage, etc.)
❑ 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.)
❑ ® 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects
❑ 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan,
policy or ordinance consistent with this project?
34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant
❑ effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR?
Environmental Settin
35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the stability, project site it
plants and an t including
cultural, historical or
information on topography, o
scenic aspects- Describe
photographs of the site. (Snapshots e or Polaroid t photos will be
existing structures on s aye a 1' �a(s, t 5
cal {ar��
• accepted.) 7k c "J, I s S {�l� l e lm'ffS ,OLO
. 7hfr< p o e 1.
oY Sea: 4 a5 (f s 0, fI�2 'Oe . �� `�,'iq siruCfc4kC 3 ^Vx � (� I ;fL - 100
r vlo - to5 t o,� �Yl u {° i7oaY 0\• 4101
ff -3-
EmAronlnfoForm
36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on
plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses
(residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one- family, apartment houses,
shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set - backs,
rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will
be accepted.7hvt a by cul -rrV J-C�I t s���� ! ®J" SLR " CA S�C&S V, YG4
Certification r
7 ,nYy o,nn 1. YO r 2Y liQs, .f vl91oS 4i I aWh Dh �Y(o-to beay0�
�
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Date �/8 / °+
(Signature)
For (
•
1 8
•
EnmronlnfoForm -4- 4101
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
R'nRAtiD ,oa
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all property owners within a 300' radius, that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by
and before the ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL to determine whether or not the following request should be
approved conditionally approved or denied.
APPLICATION NOS.: CUP 04 -014 & ADR 03 -040
LOCATION: 161 Colorado Place, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles.
REQUEST: An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit
and Architectural Design Review application to construct a 78 -unit senior housing
project.
APPLICANT: Michael Sun
ENVIRONMENTAL A Notice of Intent has been prepared and it is available for review in the
DOCUMENT: Planning Services office.
TIME AND DATE Tuesday, 3anuary 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
OF HEARING:
LACE OF HEARING: Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber
240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California
The application file and plans of the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design
Review are available for review at the Planning Services offices.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing. and to provide evidence or testimony
concerning the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review. You are hereby advised
that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the Conditional
Use Permit and Architectural Design Review, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections
which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
Persons wishing to comment on the proposed application may do so at the Public Hearing or by writing to
Planning Services prior to the January 18, 2005 Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter,
or to submit comments, please contact Joe Lambert, Associate Planner, at Planning Services: 240 West
Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066, (626) 574 -5444, e-mail: jlambert @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the
Public Hearing, please contact City Clerk's Office at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working days before the
meeting or time when such special services are needed. This notification will help city staff in making
reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the Public Hearing.
Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays
0 i om 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on January 7, 2005.
da Tolman
Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manager
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON'DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
(626) 574 -5400
City File Nos.: CUP 04-014 & ADR 03 -0
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice is hereby. given that the Planning Services of the Community Development Division has
completed an Initial Study of the following project:
• Conditional Use Permit & Architectural Design Review Application Nos. CUP 04-014 & ADR 03 -040:
A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to construct a 78 -unit senior
housing project in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles.
The Initial .Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines for implementing the California
Environmental Quality AcL The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project
may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, Planning Services of the
Community Development Division has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The project site is _ / is not X on a list compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5.
Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at the City's Planning Services office,
located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91066, and are available for public review.
November 9` ". 2004. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing,
to the City by this time and date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
At its meeting on Tuesday, November 9 2004 at 7:00 p.m., the Arcadia City Planning Commission will
consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. If the Planning Commission finds that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the
Planning Commission may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division / Planning Services
Joe Lambert, Associate Planner
Date Received for Filing
By Los Angeles County:
(County Clerk Stamp Here)
u
DECLARATION
I, �iC,L�AI Y�1r��,g10-1G 7 , hereby declare that I am over 18
years of age and not a party to the within matter; that my business address is 240 West
Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California; that I am employed in Los Angeles County,
California; that I placed public hearing notice for Cit,a 4y (J/Y � - /74)� in
(application number)
• envelopes addressed to property owners whose names appear on the attached list
supplied by the applicant, which envelopes were then sealed and postage fully paid
thereon and on 6, ZOOS , deposited in the U.S. mail at
Arcadia, California.
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date' J#A / //- frLY d(, 2 dpS ~
clarant
�s �✓(Qr�P�Y
Jam Free Printing ® www.avery.com Q AVERY® 5160®
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160 1- 800 -GO -AVERY
3 5775- 015 -009
LIN MARK & HSUEH L
143 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007
1 5775 - 015 - 010,012
OCCUPANT
161 COLORADO PL
ARCADIA CA 91007
2 5775- 015 -011
BARRINGER GARY L GARY TR
181 COLORADO PL
ARCADIA CA 91007 -2602 CO36
4 5775 - 015 -008 5 575 - 015 -007
KOCAYA THOMAS J & SHARON L TR RODRIGUEZ PETER M & DELOMA C
137 SANTA CRUZ RD 133 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007
6 5775 - 015 -006 7 5775 -015 -005 8 5775 - 015 -004
KU JIMMY C ALLAM GERTRUDIS ALLAM ARNOLD MCAULIFFE JOAN A
129 SANTA CRUZ RD 123 SANTA CRUZ RD 117 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007
9 5775- 015 -003 9 5775 - 015 -003 10 5775 - 015 -002
EATON GRGRY & JANET SMITH EILEEN OCCUPANT SIMON JON W & ROWENA L SIMON TR
444 N ALTA VISTA AVE 111 SANTA CRUZ RD 107 SANTA CRUZ RD
MONROVIA CA 91016 -1629 C008 ARCADIA CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3029 C007
11 775 - 015 - 025,026
PARFINCO INC
100 W WALNUT ST
P ASADENA CA 91124 -0001 C000
12 5775 - 001- 021,025
OCCUPANT
285 W HUNTINGTON DR
ARCADIA, CA 91007
14 5775 - 011 -021
OCCUPANT
227 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3038 C007
15 5775- 014 -006
OCCUPANT
226 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
16 5775- 014 -007
GELBER LOUISE C TRUST
1225 RANCHO RD
ARCADIA CA 91006 -2241 CO38
5775 - 014 -007
'MC CUPANT
218 1 /2 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
11 5775 - 015 - 025,026 12 5775 - 001 - 021,025
OCCUPANT 234567 DEVELOPMENTS INC
125 E HUNTINGTON DR PO BOX 60014
ARCADIA CA 91006 ARCADIA CA 91066 -6014 B900
13 5775 - 011 -032 14 5775 - 011 -021
CALIF THOROUGHBRED BRDERS ASSN BLACKFORD ALMA V TR
201 COLORADO PL 225 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -2604 CO36 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3038 C007
15 5775 - 014 -006 15 5775 - 014 -006
BOTROS LOTFY L & SAMIA TRUST OCCUPANT
212 W ADAMS AVE 224 SANTA ROSA RD
ALHAMBRA CA 91801 -4731 C042 ARCADIA CA 91007
15 5775 - 014 -006
OCCUPANT
228 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
15 5775 - 014 -006
OCCUPANT
228 1 /2 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
16 5775 - 014 -007
OCCUPANT
216 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
16 5775 - 014 -007
OCCUPANT
220 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
16 5775- 014 -007
OCCUPANT
218 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
16 5775 - 014 -007
OCCUPANT
220 1 /2 SANTA ROSA RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
oe►s ®Jl?J3A1d AV3AV-09 ®0%5 3lVTdW31 �a ^V asn
® W0Tfd8neA&MM ® 6uiluiadasAlwef
Jam Free Printing
® www.averyxom
a AVERY® 5160
Use Averv® TEMPLATE 5160
1- 800-GO -AVERY
16 5775 -014 -007
17 5775 - 014 -008
17 5775 - 014 -008
OCCUPANT
DI GIULIO JOHN H
OCCUPANT
SANTA ROSA RD
861 SAN MARINO AVE
200 SANTA ROSA RD 1
W 2
CADIA CA 91007
SAN MARINO CA 91108 -1221 C006
ARCADIA CA 91007
17 5775- 014 -008
17 5775- 014 -008
17 5775 - 014 -008
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
200 SANTA ROSA RD2
200 SANTA ROSA RD 3
200 SANTA ROSA RD 4
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007
17 5775 - 014 -008
17 5775 - 014 -008
17 5775 - 014 -008
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT
200 SANTA ROSA RD 5
200 SANTA ROSA RD 6
200 SANTA ROSA RD 7
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007
17 5775 - 014 -008
18 5775 - 014 -009
19 5775 - 014 -010
OCCUPANT
LUCEY ROBERT & BARBARA
WU ENG HSU & YING H
200 SANTA ROSA RD 8
201 SANTA CRUZ RD
209 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3031 C007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3031 C007
20 5775 - 014 -011
20 5775 - 014 -011
21 5775 - 014 -012
YOUNG SAMUEL F & WENDY H
OCCUPANT
BRYAN SUSAN P
5415 HILTON AVE
215 SANTA CRUZ RD
219 SANTA CRUZ RD
TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 -3123 C005
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3031 C007
5775 - 016 -005
22 5775 - 016 -005
23 5775 - 016 -006
BAGCIIBRAHIM
OCCUPANT
PARRINO MARILYN A
20658 LAUREL LOCK DR
214 SANTA CRUZ RD
208 SANTA CRUZ RD
KATY TX 77450 -4914 C019
ARCADIA CA 91007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3030 C007
24 5775 - 016 -025
25 5775 - 016 -026
26 5775 - 016 -009
CRUZ ARGELIA
MAIO DING D JIANHONG LU
KIMBALL ROBERT & MAGALI TR
200 SANTA CRUZ RD
146 SANTA CRUZ RD
140 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3030 C007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3028 C007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3028 C007
27 5775 - 016 -010
28 5775 - 016 -011
29 5775 - 016 -012
SHAHOIAN HAIRABED & KNARICK
NAZARIAN HENRIK & SELA
LIN CHIEN -HO
130 SANTA CRUZ RD
120 SANTA CRUZ RD
112 SANTA CRUZ RD
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3028 C007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3028 C007
ARCADIA CA 91007 -3028 C007
JWDA HSIENTEIN PROJECT INV LLC
PATRICK PO BOX 1462
529 E VALLEY BLVD ARCADIA CA 91077 -1462 8005
SAN GABRIEL CA 91776 -3668
•
A83AV-09-008-1, ®0915 31V1dW31®tiaAv asn
®09L5 ®AN3AV wortiane•MNM ® 6uilui.id aaJd wef
•
•
•
January 18, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrato
Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner 1'L
SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
Modification Application No. MP 2004 -010 to allow a guest house
converted without permits at 1050 W. Foothill Boulevard.
Recommendation: Deny
SUMMARY
This modification application was submitted by Lauren Mosler of the Katherman Co.,
representing property owner, Pedro Rosado, to legalize a 1,260 sq.ft. guest house that
was converted without building permits from a hobby room at 1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 23, 2004 voted 3 -0 with two
members absent to deny MP 2004 -010. On November 29, 2004, the property owner's
representing attorney, Julian R. Warner, submitted an appeal for this application.
The Development Services Department recommends denial of the modifications due to
the fact that staff cannot make the necessary findings to support such requests.
BACKGROUND
subject property.
In November 2003, the subject accessory building was brought to the City's attention by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) when they noted raw sewage
being emptied into their right -of -way along the Foothill Freeway. Upon further
investigation, they found that the sewage originated from an accessory building on the
An Arcadia City Code Enforcement Officer and a Building Inspector visited the site and
noticed that a 1,260 sq.ft. accessory building located at the rear of the property had
MP 2004 -010 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 1
been converted from its original hobby room use into a living unit with two bedrooms,
two bathrooms, a living room, a kitchen, a laundry room, a hobby room, and a walk -in
closet. Based on their observation, the plumbing and electrical work did not meet •
building and safety codes; for example, the sewage outlet was connected to the site's
irrigation drainage system. The Code Enforcement Officer issued two Notices of
Violation, one in December 2003, and another in February 2004. While the sewage
issue had been resolved, the subject building remained as an illegal dwelling unit.
In March 2004, this case was turned over to the City Attorney who issued a final Notice
of Violation. The property owner then retained the services of The Katherman
Company to assist in legalizing the conversion. They referred to the State Housing Law
which was amended under Assembly Bill 1866, providing the creation of second units in
single - family zones provided that such units meet specified requirements. Also, they
stated that the subject property is one of the two remaining larger lots (1.5 acres) in the
neighborhood where the other lots are less than a quarter acre to justify allowing the
additional unit to remain.
The City Attorney informed the applicant that in 1983 the City passed Ordinance No.
1782 to preclude second units based on specific findings and therefore the conversion
could not remain as an additional dwelling unit.
The Katherman Company then submitted a modification application to legalize the
accessory structure as a guest house. At its regular meeting on November 23, 2004,
the Planning Commission voted 3 -0 with two members absent to deny the applicant's
requests. •
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The .City prohibits second units in single - family zones. At this time, the applicant is
seeking modifications to permit the conversion of the subject building into a guest
house, since guest houses are permitted under the current accessory living quarter/
guest house regulations. The modification requests are as follows:
A. A 14' -2" easterly side yard setback in lieu of 16' -2" required (9252.2.9.3 &
9252.2.3).
B. A 20' -4" rear yard setback in lieu of 25' -0" required (9252.2.9.3 & 9252.2.4).
C. A 1,260 sq.ft. guest house in lieu of 600 sq.ft. permitted (9252.2.6).
D. To exceed the number of rooms allowed in a guest house (9252.2.9.3).
Modification requests A and B are existing conditions that do not meet today's
standards; they are requested because any changes in the use of structures require
compliance with.the current regulations. In staff's opinion, requests A and B would not
have any negative impacts on the neighboring properties.
The code permits a maximum square footage of 600 sq.ft. for guest houses /accessory
living quarters. Although the subject property is a large lot (approximately 64,500 sq.ft.),
MP 2004 -010 Appeal •
January 18, 2005
Page 2
the use of an accessory living quarter /guest house should remain limited as an
accessory use to the main dwelling. Allowing a larger guest house encourages its use
• as a second unit. The request to more than double the maximum allowable square
footage is excessive. Therefore, staff cannot make the necessary findings to support
such a request.
The subject building is permitted for a hobby room only and was illegally converted into
a 1,260 sq.ft. dwelling. The applicant is requesting to convert this dwelling into a guest
house. By Code, an accessory living quarter /guest house shall not contain more than
one bedroom, one living room, and one bathroom. The proposed guest house contains
two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room, a hobby room, a laundry room, and a
walk -in closet. At the time of inspection in December of 2003, the Code Enforcement
Officer noticed that the "hobby room" area was also used as a bedroom; there was also
a kitchen with a dining area within the southwest portion of the building. Staff visited the
site on January 11, 2005 and observed that there are cooking facilities but no formal
kitchen, and the hobby room was being used for hobbies. In staff's opinion, allowing all
the rooms to remain would encourage the continued use of the building as a second
dwelling. Therefore, staff cannot make the necessary findings to support the request to
exceed the number of bedrooms and bathrooms permitted for a guest house.
Staff completed an inventory of accessory buildings in the City approved in the past
three years and found that only few required modifications. Those requiring
modifications are generally minimal requests relating to setbacks; none of the
modifications compare to the extent of the requests as presented for this project.
. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission at its November 23, 2004 meeting voted 3 -0 with two
members absent to deny the modification requests because they cannot make the
necessary findings to approve them. They also required that the subject guest house
be converted into a hobby room containing no more than one room and one three -
quarter bathroom within 90 days from the date of denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act. This project involves minor alterations of land use limitations
that meet the requirements for a Class 5 exemption under Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
• MP 2004 -010 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 3
FINDINGS
Section 9292.1.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Modification to be •
granted, it must be found that the modifications would result in the following changes:
1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or
2. Prevent an unreasonable non - economic hardship; or
3. Promote uniformity of development
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends denial of the appeal. Staff cannot
make any of the necessary findings to support the applicant's requests.
If the City Council determines that based on the evidence presented this project would
qualify under the necessary findings, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
1. A covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be filed with the City of
Arcadia to ensure that the subject guest house is intended to be an accessory use
of the main dwelling and not a second dwelling unit. The property owner shall be
responsible for providing any and all documents and fees necessary for the drafting,
execution, and recordation of the covenant.
2. The proposed guest house shall comply with all other Code requirements and •
policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, City
Engineer, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services
Director, and are to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans
submitted for plan check review and approval.
3. All necessary permits are secured within 60 days from the date of approval
4. The kitchen shall be removed and all food heating and cooking facilities shall be
removed.
5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
MP 2004 -010 Appeal •
January 18, 2005
Page 4
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and
agents in the defense of the matter.
• 6. The approvals of Modification No. MP 2004 -010 shall not take effect until the owner
and applicant have executed the Acceptance Form available from Planning
Services to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Denial of Appeal
The City Council should move to deny Modification Application No. MP 2004 -010,
based on the following findings that the Modification requests will not secure an
appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote
uniformity of development.
In addition, the illegal second unit shall be converted back into a hobby room
containing no more than one (1) room and a three - quarter (3/4) bathroom within
90 days from the date of the City Council's action.
Approval of Appeal
If the City Council intends to take action to approve Modification Application No. MP
2004 -010, the Council should make specific findings based on the evidence presented,
and move to approve, or conditionally approve the project based on the findings with
• specific reasons and the conditions set forth on page 4.
Approved by: t>xD e
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachments: Appeal Letter dated November 29, 2004
PC November 23, 2004 Minutes
Aerial Photo & Zoning Map
Land Use Map
Photographs,
Correspondence
• MP 2004 -010 Appeal
January 18, 2005
Page 5
LAW OFFICES OF
CA 91066 -6021
JULi,gn Q. W wR k
•
ATTORNEY AT LAW
11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
•
SUITE IB30
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
TELEPHONE (3101477-9200
FACSIMILE (310) 479 -0112
November 29, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL -
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Stephen Deitsch
City Attorney
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
Ms. Donna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia,
CA 91066 -6021
•
Re:
Modification
Application No. MP 04 -010
Dear Mr. Deitsch and Ms. Butler:
This letter shall constitute a formal Request for Reconsideration
of the determination made by the Arcadia City Planning Commission
on November 23, 2004, denying the above referenced Modification
Application. The grounds for this request are misapplication of
the law to the facts, as will be further explicated below.
In his Modification Application Mr. Rosado requested the
modification of the requirements of Sections 9252.2.9 et seq. of
the City of Arcadia R -1 Regulations dealing with the City's
regulation of "accessory buildings." During the course of the
November 23, 2004 hearing, Mr. Deitsch opined to the Commission
that Mr. Rosado's Application could not be granted as he was
requesting the legitimization of an illegitimate "dwelling," and
that this could not lawfully accomplished. Obviously, Mr.
Rosado's Application was for the modification of an "Accessory
Building," and not the modification of a "dwelling," as the
structure behind the main house was not to contain a separate
room for the "preparation of food, nor contain facilities for the
heating or cooking of food." 40
Mr. Stephen Deitsch
• Ms. Donna L. Butler
November 29, 2004
Page 2
Accordingly, an error was made when Mr. Deitsch advised the
Commission that it should apply regulations relating to dwelling
houses when considering Mr. Rosado's Modification Application,
rather than the City Regulations pertaining to accessory
buildings.. Therefore, I hereby respectfully request that a new
hearing be convened to reconsider Mr. Rosado's Modification
Application, so that the City Planning Commission may consider
Mr. Rosado's request after having been advised of the appropriate
law which should apply to the facts of the instant application.
Please advise me as to your determination of the request herein
made at your earliest convenience, and, in the meantime, I thank
you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation.
S ' ncerely, / n '
J ian R. Warner
• JRW:lmu
cc: Mr. Pedro Rosado (by mail)
Mr. Robert Katherman (by fax
and mail)
is
2. PUBLIC HEARING MP 2004 -010
1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
The Katherman Co.
Consideration of modifications for a 1,259 sq. ft. guest house that was illegally converted from
a hobby room.
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
Rob Katherman, 1218 El Parado, Torrance, was representing the applicant. He indicated that this is a
large lot. The subject property and the one to the east are the only similar sized lots in the area. The
guesthouse was originally a hobby room; therefore, it is unreasonable to request a reduction in size of
the structure. The homeowner's intent is to have his only daughter, who was recently married, stay on
the lot for a period of not to exceed 5 years to allow them to get on their feet. He asked that the status
quo be permitted for a period not to exceed 5 years and the conditions as proposed by staff are
reasonable and they will agree to them following the above time limit, i.e., they will remove the kitchen
and extra bedroom and return the structure back into a hobby room. There will only be 2 people
residing here and he noted that they have a petition, which was signed by the neighbors agreeing to the
proposal.
•
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Katherman said that the homeowner wishes to
have their daughter stay on the property because she is a newlywed and they want to help them get their
careers off the ground. The structure would be returned back to a hobby room at a later date.
In reply to a question by Commissioner Wen, Mr. Katherman said that the structure is connected to •
sewer with permits.
W. Deitsch asked what their plans were after the five year period and Mr. Katherman responded that
they did not intend to reduce the size because it was originally approved at that square footage but they
would make interior modifications to comply with code.
Roy Atwater, 1030 W. Foothill Blvd., was in favor of the structure, its proximity to the property line and
said it does not infringe on him. He feels more comfortable with this use because the structure will be
utilized. He reiterated that he did not object to the second structure nor having two families living on
site.
Pedro Rosado, 1050 W. Foothill, said he has owned the property for almost 25 years. He is requesting
to allow his daughter to stay there and want her on the property. It will not.be rented to anyone ever.
He asked that she stay for 5 years. In answer to a question by Chairman Baderian, Mr. Rosada said that
he was always under the impression that he could have guests stay there and he indicated that they did
not increase the size of the structure. He went on to say that he did not contact the City when it was
converted into a guesthouse but he is willing to get the appropriate permits to make it a legal structure.
They did this quickly because their daughter was getting married and they did not have much time.
Marcela Rosado, 1050 W. Foothill, asked the Planning Commission to allow her to stay on the property.
She indicated that she is an only daughter and her parents are older. She wishes to continue living in
•
Arcadia City Roams CommiSSim 4 11123/4
Arcadia for the next five years to allow them ample time to get situated. She would appreciate their
consideration.
• No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Wen to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
Commissioner Lucas asked if it would be practical to enforce the 5 -year request?
Mr. Deitsch replied that there are several ways to accomplish it. A covenant could be recorded that 5-
.years from the date of approval it would be unlawful to occupy the building as a guest house and that
immediate action must be taken to remove the second bedroom, in effect changing the use back to a
hobby room as permitted by the prior permit. The City can inspect the property for compliance. The
ordinance that was adopted in 1983 and has not been amended, clearly prohibits second units in single -
family zoned properties. He went on to say that this is a second unit on this lot and code clearly
prohibits such use. He feared that this might set a precedent for similar sized lots. He thought it would
be dangerous to allow even this limited use because a precedent would be set.
In reply to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler indicated that the lot could be split and she
explained the requirements.
. MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Wen to deny MP 04-010 and
find that it is illegal to have a second dwelling unit on R -1 zoned property. The illegal guest
house shall be converted back into a hobby room containing no more than one room and a .75
bathroom within 90 days from the date of denial.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hsu, Olson
Chairman Baderian noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by
December 2n d .
n
U
Arcadia City Planning Connieaion 5 11173/4
'
1 71
r . f
THILL'
� r y/��
�� R
f . ,. fJ �
1 I _
I / � �I l l i r •� - „� ry Jt i ran
(• O :4n it t � !! f
.]IY 1P' 'nom �� F ,1 VIII Y I
M-y
Am I i � nt Ito 1 i ,�1
I h r ens / _1` 71 ,M
I
rk
f l l ��.. IA Z•" .i11 fT �I
�f i. J r tp YI
1 ! eY r
I
41
I \
/ p
v
150 W Foothill tioulevara
MP 04 -010
Q �
0 N 100 Feet
(1041)
FOOTHILL BL
Y
(1�) 0 (1050)
/ Z
(1043) j (1042)
a
(1035) (1036)
1
(1031) I (1030)
• (1023) \ (1024)
FOOTHILL FRWY
(1031)
(1023)
S
W topment Services Department
Engineering Division
Repavd by R S Go alez. July, 2004
F oothill 1050 W Boulevard
MP 04=010
(1031)
(1030)
(1019)
(1049)
(1043)
(1035)
a>i -
Uw
Ub
r
loo
I ry m; ^x l g 4 I
I •
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
`J
s -Ig
<
-
,. ... ...: ..... .... A 3S
I 13501)
I
�
S
o
�
�
r
a
I R
n
rvl�
5
v
If s
W
I
��s
alg
e
I •
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
`J
•
1'
LAWN
awf
r� - -Till
I I'm
LL)
PLOT PLAN (EXISTING)
- SEE ENLARGED PLANS
I
rl . .
{ t
.. �� �..�
� zj
i i
i
try f
1
1
I;
1 �
�1
V
r
l °
I
I�
l
1 .
y�'
°
J r�tCl' r
IF
e
5 YfI�tHd - I i �
1
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST.
ANGELES, CA 90012
997 -0104
Pedro Rosado
1050 Foothill Blvd.
Arcadia, CA
•
11
AMN
P14 COP), November 17, 2003
RE. Notice of Stormwater Illegal Discharge, Connections, and Dumping
Dear Property Owner or Building Manager:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), has the responsibility for maintaining compliance with
Storm Water Pollution Prevention regulatory requirements within the properties of the State freeway and highway
. rystem. This program requires Caltrans to notify adjacent property owners of any illegal discharges onto Caltrans
property, or any illicit connection to the drainage facilities. Such discharge or connection air loss to highway nto
receiving waters during storms or restrict flow and cause damage to State property, g
function. Altho Caltrans has no resltlatory a uthoriri, we are required to notify the responsible regulatory
agencies of such an occurrence.
The basis for this letter is that state employees have observed an illicit connection out of Your P owner of onto the our
drainage channel on the 210 Freeway right -of -way, which is located next to your property.
property (at 1050 Foothill Blvd. ), you are advised that an infraction exists and that you have•an illicit connection
currently discharging onto State right of way. Such illicit connection is also an unlawful encroachment on the
state right of way and demand is hereby trade that it be abated.
For your information
• Illegal Discharges are any unauthorized material discharged into the Caltrans storm water drainage system.
• Illicit Connections are permanent, usually underground, pipe connections to the Caltrans storm water
drainage system that have not been approved by Caltrans under an encroachment permit.
Illegal dumping, is any unauthorized dumping of materials within the Caltrans right of way.
• Your early attention to this matter is required. Please make the necessary corrections to rectify this infraction. If
you need assistance in addressing this issue, you can contact Los Angeles County Department of Public Works at
(888) 253 -2652 or contact the City of Arcadia Public Works at 626 - 256 -665 If you Have any questions
regarding this letter, or wish to meet at the site, you may call me at (213) 620 -6318.
Sincerely,
Richard Gordon,
Maintenance Manager I
HazmattStormwater Unit
cc: NRDC
LARWQCB (Storm Water Unit)
.L.A. County Department of Public Works (Storm Water tint)
City of Arcadia
s '
CITY OF ARCADIA
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPT.
ityof
Arcadia
Public Works
Services
Department
Pat Malloy
1'uLli� work: Serrirct
11800 Goldring Road
Post Off ice Box 60021
Arcadia,CA 91066 -6021
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
November 26, 2003
Mr. Pedro Rosado ,>
1050 W. Foothill Blvd.
Arcadia, CA. 91006 -1940 Ar
Subject: Illicit Connectionlillicit Discharge to the Storm Drain
System.
1050 W. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia
Dear Mr. Rosado:
The storm drain
system was designed
to keep our freeways,
streets, and J Tt jT9 < .wNN
neighborhoods from
flooding during
storms. All types of xiw
pollutants and debris �+`'
are picked up by
water (from rain, w x`
hoses, sprinklers,
etc.) and carried from
freeway culverts,
streets, alleys and
driveways into the
storm drain system
where they can create blockages of the system, and contribute to the
pollution of our waterways. The storm drain system flows into the Los
Angeles River and subsequently the Pack Ocean where the pollutants
and debris are deposited without treatment. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Urban Runoff Permit
issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
City of Arcadia's Municipal Code prohibit connections to, and the
discharge of, urban runoff containing pollutants and sediments into the
storm drain system.
Recently, Cal Trans notified the City of Arcadia of an illicit connection from
your property discharging to a freeway culvert. An investigation was
conducted, and it was observed that a pipe, coming from your property, is
directed to a freeway culvert that runs adjacent to your location. The type
of waste observed further indicates that the connection may be carrying
raw sewage and associated waste products into the freeway culvert and
subsequently the storm drain system.
•
•
•
(626) 256 -6554
(626)159 -7028 fax
This connection, and its associated discharge(s), are illegal and must be
. abated immediately. The following sections of the City of Arcadia's
Municipal Code have been violated:
AMC Section 7820: "The discharge of non - stormwater discharges to
the City storm drain system is prohibited. "
AMC Section 7821: "Any discharge that would result in or contribute to
a violation of NPDES Permit No. CA0061654... is prohibited. "
AMC Section 7823: "Any person engaged in activities which will or
may result in pollutants entering the storm drain system shall undertake
all practicable measures to reduce such pollutants. "
You are hereby directed to:
1) Cease all discharges to the freeway culvert adjacent to your
property. Only rainwater (or exempt discharges as stated in the
NPDES Permit) are allowed to enter the culvert and storm drain
system.
• 2) Abandon this connection immediately by removing the pipe and
filling in the subsequent trench. Our City's Code Enforcement
and Building Departments should most definitely be used as
resources for these tasks.
3) Verify that all pipes associated with this property that carry
wastewater are legally connected to the sewer system, not the
storm drain system.
A follow -up inspection will be conducted approximately 2 weeks
from the date of this letter., Should you require assistance, or
have any questions whatsoever, please contact Hunter - Kennedy
& Associates, the City's environmental protection specialists at
(562) 802 -7880, extension 23.
ince�ely,
usannah Turney
nvironmental Services Officer
• Cc: John Hunter, Hunter - Kennedy & Associates
Kurt Keating, Code Enforcement, City of Arcadia
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Development Services Department, Code Services •
r 240 West Huntington Drive, Post Office Box 60021
C i ty Ol .Arcadia, CA 91066-6021,(
Arcad
Date
Subject Address
Dear Owner /Occupant:
During a site inspection, it was noted that the above property is currently being maintained in violation of the
following Arcadia Municipal Code, Section(s):
❑ 7220
Vegetation obstructing sidewalk, parkway, or roadway.
❑ 9405.8
Weeds or dead vegetation on premises or adjacent parkways.
❑ 9405.12
Lack of maintenance of buildings, structures, and landscaping.
❑ 9405.10
Debris/equipment not lawfully screened from public /private view.
❑ 4900
Abandoned, wrecked, dismantled/inoperative vehicle(s).
❑ 9405.14.a
Parking on an unpaved surface within a residential area.
❑ 9405.17.a
Parking on an unpaved surface within a commercial area.
❑5120.5.2
Trash container(s) visible to public view.
® 9405.5
Any structure that cannot be used in its existing condition. •
❑ 9262.4.1
Signs that do not meet City of Arcadia sign ordinances.
❑ 9262.6.8
Storage of wares, merchandise, and equipment shall be within a building.
❑ 6325
Garage/Backyard/Sidewalk Sale Permit is required.
❑ ,-6211
No persons shall engage in business without a City business license.
9405.1
Any condition in violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
9405.4
Any structure constructed not in ,compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code.
Other
l
F
Comments ,, - „� r r. ; ! 6 6.:
.^. /:
� /%% t-'< f•7` r I✓' T �
fi r'
. _ !!��
r
Please correct the above violations(s) before `
A subsequent inspection will be conducted after this date. Failure to correct the above violation(s) may result
in a citation. Should you have. any questions, please contact:
❑ (626) 574 -5436 (626) 574 -5421
Terry Moore Kurt Keating
Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer
❑ (626) 574 -5430
Tracey Zenaye
Business License Officer
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
I., @*",
Development Services Department, Code Services
240 West Huntington Drive, Post Office Box 60021
cy of Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021, (626) 574 -5415
Arcadia
1
Date
Subject Address
Dear Owner /Occupant:
During a site inspection, it was noted that the above property is currently being maintained in violation of the
following Arcadia Municipal Code, Section(s):
El
El
l
Storage of wares, merchandise, and equipment shall be within a building.
Garage/Backyard/Sidewalk Sale Permit is required.
No persons shall engage in business without a City business license.
Any condition in violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
Any structure constructed not in compliance, with the Arcadia Municipal Code.
Vegetation obstructing sidewalk, parkway, or roadway.
Weeds or dead vegetation on premises or adjacent parkways.
Lack of maintenance of buildings, structures, and landscaping.
Debris/equipment not lawfully screened from public /private view.
Abandoned, wrecked, dismantled/inoperative vehicle(s).
Parking on an unpaved surface within a residential area.
Parking on an unpaved surface within a commercial area.
Trash container(s) visible to public view.
Any structure that cannot be used in its existing condition.
Signs that do not meet City of Arcadia sign ordinances.
7220
9405.8
9405.12
9405.10
4900
9405.14.a
9405.17.a
5120.5.2
9405.5
9262.4.1
9262.6.8
6325
6211
9405.1
9405.4
Other
Comments ,, , ? r y
Please correct the above violations(s) before
A subsequent inspection will be conducted after this date' Failure to correct the above violation(s) may result
in a citation. Should you have any questions, please contact:
❑ (626) 574 -5436 (626) 574 -5421 ❑ (626) 574 -5430
Terry Moore Kurt Keating Tracey Zenaye
Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Business License Officer
0
March 16, 2004 •
�
City of Pedro M. Rosado and Mercedes L. Rosado
1050 W. Foothill Boulevard
Arcadia Arcadia, CA 91006
Re: Illegal and Non - Permitted Conversation of "Hobby Room" at
Office of the 1050 W. Foothill Boulevard in Arcadia
City Attorney Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rosado:
This office has received a report from the Development Services
Stephen P. Deiuch Department/Code Services Division that you have failed to restore the
City Attomey converted structure on your property to its original permitted use (i.e. Hobby
Room "). Notices regarding this matter have been sent to you, but you have
failed to take corrective action.
Please allow this letter to serve as final notice that you have until March 30,
2004 to restore the converted structure to its original permitted use. Failure to
comply with this notice will regretfully result in a complaint being filed
against you in court. A reinspection of the property will be conducted on or
about March 30, 2004.
We regret that the City has had to send this letter. However, code
enforcement in general is of importance to the City.
Please give this letter your prompt attention to avoid legal action. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (626) 574 -5407.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
c: Kurt Keating, Code Services
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
•
•
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
(626) 574-5407
(626) 446 -2991 Fax
j
r1
f�
The Katherman Company
19300 South Hamilton Avenue. Suite 175
Gmdemi. CA 90248
310 324 -1999 (Phone) 310 527.38.98 (Fax(
March 18, 2004
City Attorney
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Mr. Stephen P. Deitsch
Re: 1050 Foothill Boulevard- Non Permitted Conversion of a Hobby
Dear Mr. Dietsch,
We have been retained by Mr. Pedro Rosado to assist him in legalizing the
conversion of the hobby room into a second dwelling unit on the subject
property. To that end he would like to apply for any necessary entitlements
such as a Conditional Use permit or Zone Variance to legalize the hobby room
as a second dwelling unit rather than remove the interior improvements that
have been constructed.
0
The State Housing Law which was recently amended under Assembly, Sill 1866
• which among other things modified the California Government Code 965852.2,
which provides for the creation of second units in single - family and multifamily 1l
residential zones provided the second dwelling units meet specified
requirements. We believe the subject hobby room meets all of the State
Housing criteria for a second dwelling unit.
Moreover, our client's property is more than 1.5 acres in area and is one of the
last 2 remaining large lots in the neighborhood where the other lots are less
than V* acre. The purpose of the second dwelling unit will be to provide housing
for Mr. Rosado's grown daughter and her husband. As first generation
Mexican - American parents it is extremely important for the Rosado's to
maintain their family unit on their property.
It is our client's goal to comply with all of the City of Arcadia's zoning and
building code rcgulations. We look forward to working with you and the other
Arcadia City staff to legalize this hobby room as a second dwelling unit for the
Rosado family. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at 310 - 383 -0451.
0
C l
�i
Arcadia City Council
1/18/05 Meeting
245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd,
Packet Summary
Pages 1 -3: Copy of Rich Development Company Presentation
Pages 4 -9: Pictures of rear property line area at 253 E. Foothill Blvd.
Pages 10 -12: Letters from owners requesting City Council to modify P zone line:
245 E. Foothill Blvd. — Shakeys
253 E. Foothill Blvd. - Noda
Page 13: Draft Summary of prior City zoning actions:
223 - 235- 245- 249 -253 E. Foothill Blvd.
I
I
m4 24
s
mn
o
�—
N fi
N-
H
n
ap
H
9'
i
d
399
®'
Ik
L _ 1
W
w<H U
N
q �pp q
fll l
61J
I
I
I I
L
L J
Q/ �
� i Q—
I
I I
i
- J�
� II
m I
I_ I
L I I
® I g
I I
I I
I N �
i I
� I
� I
n
�I7 7 T F
�Illlill —
� I
JI I
u
Xrc
W
m
r
U
3 9�
3
s � s
�3
1
G
o
I
o�
0
W
J
m
J
_J
^ =e
n �
�rf
�o
„n n
O
< N
n
5 H
'n ' s ss u
N
� m i
X
Q tu I
LU
pwU
L a
® g I I
� i I
— �SbLL q
T X
-WO7
CDP-
u
c
N
V
m
s
u
c 3 d �
5
a
a
W
J
D
m
J
_J
=
O
C c
LL
0-
co c.
L a
N
L a
v�
N a
N
X*nw
nN ,
1 i
t
Li I
,Y+
d
SyG d�r+� fi i iy.'4:! r rte q•+�. Q �' t.
Or
i *�4a. d°� 4 �'. ^ ate:.. { 1*r >'.� u M:a•Mw. L. f r
y .,
b
to t Pr•3'�� '
;i
'w.
t 4
m.*
mrtig.
'S ^✓.es.•s- i ti.g rte'- "s -.'�•� �k"��^•�. G� ».:r �\ � �i� "`4 «�
v
Q
t��.�h"ti1..1�� .+'�.�A r�l. A,41't! 1 4:'! J✓,i e'A. !+. » s t'<� \'
�wMEW�„ }
a2��1Y��� .� u Cy �.ft�'i� w.w�`ey
t ' �'
rt..'
{ l.. � 1,. �L�+ Y+' �" ~�V'��•`'� °�v <.r� <`d�vr� +}' A {�7,°,fy�"'i�`�t� °I
�. ,.. ., r ^,�`vs '"'� /�'o�' "t ��.SY • `4 { �,n \ Rr"'�,iF7'.v� '"�$"�,�"E
� �� ��< g "' �+�6•d try r��� "�eC� �
O .. - �}�"�. �. `1,?l, '^, < ��,�...n,.i r°*va ph +9 h - '+.��- .",�7.; 1{
To p
� � e. +,.r 'L �� "��•� �' , � q� t��lst � 1 ��,x_i" #�t�ry
`Y°'"'s�t���7' " a �i�i• -y �ilC'✓.,r�+. ��Qar]F+.� T»��~��t '"� '� a ^,�y�"`� S . C�'' ' °1�c
• J
� Ati . 3ti .
A
;5.�• �A �!,�j�J jh5 1 S F
b-
Lo ,
IV. 1117Y
ns
6 ? r
P.
d � T
\ 1
4 e : LT
p�
A ll
f 1 \
1 — A
I
t" '
Jan 18 05 12:15p STERLING FOODS,INC. 626 337 -3508 p.e
i U
STERLING FOODS, INC.
3813 DURBIN STREET
IRWINDALE. CALIFORNIA 91706
(626) 338 -5900 • FAX (628) 337 -3508
r. /y ✓U'.fOl /R. C!'f7r WG�Y1G� // II��(Os
re-'sr�ev,7
(Dear Cm n i W awl 6"-f,
rr84 'AS corNrrtl iirPMd, a wl I wv,/�� �l 4
411%1s edr ni n . PkasL o<zz f+ 4i4is notiee. as My Y'%ues+1s pp,*4,
4y -one, PMICILI Zone, -6 6e. vvv4f(d A, SS
►Nlai -'L +Le rise.
MC4 LL
JAN,-18 -2005 02:51PM FROM- T -199 P.002 /002 F -950
l/
January 18, 2005
To: Arcadia City.
Planning Commission
From: Kenichi Nod
FHdeko Noda
Re: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to:
253 East Foothill Blvd., Arcadia, CA 91006
We have been the owners of 253 East Foothill since 1978. On our property, We have
commercial building on the front half and 2 separate houses and swimming pool on the
back half. This back half is currently a Parking Zone. There is a chain link fence on the
property line that divides our back neighbor at the address of 250 E. Sycamore Ave,
The trees along the property line have hung over our property for many years. Year after
year, the leaves from the trees have caused damages to our swimming pool filtration
system. We have had to repair or replace the. pool pump many times. Several years ago,
we finally gave up on repairs. The swimming pool is currently drained and is not in use.
We have been waiting for the Development Company to re-develop our property as soon
as possible. We support Rich Development Company to develop commercial building
on our property as propose and ask and request city council to amend P -zone to 100 feet
from rear property line. We urge you to take your highest consideration of this zone
change as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Kenichi Noda
Mdeko Noda
Owners of;
253 East Foothill Blvd., Arcadia, CA 91006
0 * I
ff
Pll
11TAUIA z E S
Ok
10H M/100A W-1
,
"9 1 �7-49
a
.. �
a oT' A ALL LA) M,
-HOU NOV 60 ion-ii-w
13
Summary of Prior City Actions
223 -253 E. Foothill Blvd.
1. Ralphs Property: 223 -235 E. Foothill Blvd.
1959 -1960
Rezoned Westerly portion from PR1 to C2.
(consistent with Vons Center West of Second Street)
Reduced rear setback to 25 feet.
Deleted rear lot line landscaping requirement.
Easterly portion — reduced PR zone by 38 feet to 100 feet
from rear property line.
Approved 178 parking spaces in lieu of 209.
2. Shakeys Property: 245 E. Foothill Blvd.
1977
Variance to allow building in PR1 zone to 95 feet from rear property line,
subsequently modified approx. 1994 to 85 feet from rear property line to
allow 10 foot addition to rear of building.
Approved 45 parking spaces in lieu of 106.
Restricted deliveries to 7AM -1 OPM.
Approved sale of alcohol.
3. Noda Property: 249 -253 E. Foothill Blvd.
1978
Approved restaurant use.
Approved 17 parking spaces in lieu of 38.
Approved sale of alcohol.
January 18, 2005
1050 W. Foothill Boulevard Request for a Modification of the City
of Arcadia Guest house Requirements
Facts of the Case:
1. The subject property contains more than 64,500 sq.ft
2. This property is one of only 2 large unsubdivided lots on the
south side of Foothill Blvd. between Michillinda and Baldwin
Avenues.
3. The site is 6 times larger than all of the other lots south of
Foothill Blvd. except the adjoining lot.
4. This 1,200 sq. ft. accessory structure was built as a hobby
room more than 30 years ago.
5. The lot coverage of this accessory structure /guest house is
4
less than 2% of the lot. The total lot coverage of the main
house and the guest house is 6% of the lot area.
6. The guest house will not contain a kitchen.
7. 4 of the 6 abutting neighbors to the west have signed a
petition supporting the guest house use as long as it is not
rented out. The remaining 2 neighbors have verbally
expressed no objection to the proposed guest house.
January 18, 2005
Page 2
8. The neighbor to the east, Mr. Roy Atwater, spoke at the
Planning Commission hearing in favor of the structure and
the use.
9. The property owner, Mr. And Mrs. Pedro Rosado, have
owned the property for 24 years and have never had a
zoning violation.
10. The guest house will only be occupied by the owner's
daughter and husband and will not be rented out.
11. The property owner is seeking a 5 -year time limit on the
modification request. The non - conforming Improvements will
be removed at the end of 5 years.
12. The property owner agrees to annual inspections by the City
of Arcadia at the owner's expense.
13. The size and location of the guest house is in keeping with
the improvements of the neighboring lots.
14. Denying the proposed modification will create a hardship on
this family that wishes to have their only daughter living with
them on their property.
3
< IIIF I
I � � ✓ 'c'I `u �
u I
1
AVE e
8 mr _ � o( __ _ v•e__ crxl 7,_
( .V�OV � AR � LgGI I 04d WGY LfW
1' nsyf Q 6 '� 1
O ? L
1 10
� r
C + f il' o + 27 16
oil
rla.TC vt.0u saev W � �G
I w ? \
U _
0 y
' .. N[RITAOt OARS
�.` ORIY[ G
i• �I (1036) yi
;P e• " • N 0 8 4
tl.y u
' /55.6 9 . 1S.00 RO.00 , •.
Jab= 100
1 }-�
I w = � O ,es• e V u 8} rn '�
o I Z ITI
w N
�^ r WHI3PERIR3 OAK[ O_ p +s• ` l e N I
�< d (falls) 0090) O s
d z
10) (16JQ
i !:o`co /as is >r
W 0
- 389.87 w N
O N c
i 0 a
1 --
i ,
i u
l 1 W N L W
low
I 4 '@ 0
<in u° ru
a
T R A C T co
N T '
p •• �, _
.9 .L DASALLO DRIVE N e
its
t, ar 4
71.r O. ° DEXTER! AVE
y f.. w. •4r -r:Irf _ � �,1 3 GT
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
CW0.�tApp
I
uw
ITV
1
ywi P"N maONQ
swcyYAA
IIL OCT -e6 .7,004 06 7M SAKAMOTO 310 393 2404 P.01 .
r
j ..
PetWon for Hobby Room Conversion 10 Quest House
1050 Foothill Blvd.
Arcadla, CA
l have met With Pedro Rosado and h family w ho have shown ms their
pum to convert an extedng hobby room tutu a oueat:Jwrwr Aw Ala
daughter and her husband. I believe that this guesthouse Wand be a
nice addition to theirpropertg and the community at large. I support the
guesthouse conversion as long as it is not rented out
Address
Print Name
Signature
1030 Foothill Blvd,
y �
rDA
Oa k I D
{ D
. .
1030 Whispering
Oaks Dr.
1036 Whispering
O" Or.
1042 Whleperirg
Oaks Dr.
1050 Whispering
Oaks Dr.
d' 3Q O&DJ 13W '13
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
c
A .OlASfO •
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING will be held by and before the ARCADIA CITY
COUNCIL to determine whether or not the following request should be approved, conditionally
approved or denied.
APPLICATION: MP 2004 -010
APPLICANT: The Katherman Co. (property owner's representative)
LOCATION: 1050 West Foothill Boulevard
REQUEST: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the following
modifications for a 1,259 sq. ft. guest house illegally converted from a
hobby room:
1. A 14' -2" easterly side yard setback in lieu of 16' -2" required.
2. A 20' -4" rear yard setback in lieu of 25' -0" required.
3. A 1,259 sq. ft. guesthouse in lieu of 600 sq. ft. maximum allowed.
4.To exceed the number of bedrooms and bathrooms permitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL Notice of Exemption to be filed after the approval of this proposal.
DOCUMENT:
• TIME AND DATE Tuesday, January 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
OF HEARING:
PLACE OF HEARING: Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber
240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California
The application file and the proposed plans of the guesthouse are available for review at
the Planning Services offices.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or
testimony concerning the proposed guest house. You are hereby advised that should you desire to
legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed guest house, you
may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or
prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
Persons wishing to comment on the requested modifications may do so at the Public Hearing or by
writing to Planning Services prior to the January 18, 2005 Public Hearing. For further information
regarding this matter, or to submit comments, please contact Assistant Planner, Thomas Li, by writing
to Planning Services at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, or by calling (626) 574 -5447.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
the Public Hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (626) 574 -5455 at least three (3) working
days before the meeting. This notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to
provide you with access at the Public Hearing.
Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate
• Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on January 7, 2005.
Vida Tolman,
Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manager
0
7
DECLARATION
I, 07D , hereby declare that I am over 18
years of age and not a party to the within matter; that my business address is 240 West
Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California; that I am employed in Los Angeles County,
California; that I placed public hearing notice for IV1 aODc{ —O /D in
(application number)
is
envelopes addressed to property owners whose names appear on the attached list
supplied by the applicant, which envelopes were then sealed and postage fully paid
thereon and on T G, ZOOS , deposited in the U.S. mail at
Arcadia, California.
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: I, , Z Qom
eclarant
\0
// /til wi /e c'
MW C-� o q— () 1 0
5769006013
OLSON,JOANNA P
� 1031 W FOOTHILL BLVD
RCADIA CA 91006
5769028004
ROSADO,PEDRO M AND
MERCEDESL
1050 W FOOTHILL BLVD
ARCADIA CA 91006
5769028031
LI,VINCENTIA
1042 WHISPERING OAKS DR
ARCADIA CA 91006
5769006016 -
BALLWEBER,STEPHEN H AND
1055 W FOOTHILL BLVD
ARCADIA CA 91006
5769006017
CHAO,BEN
1041 W FOOTHILL BLVD
ARCADIA CA 91006
5769028030
AKAHORI,JUN AND OITEI
1036 WHISPERING OAKS DR
ARCADIA CA 91006
(ADDED TO LIST 1/6/05)
THE KATHERMAN CO
1050 W FOOTHILL BLVD
-- ARCADIA CA 91006
•
5769028028 5769028032
MATSUMOTO,YOSHI AND KATSUYO KO,CHENG C AND HSIU H TRS
1024 WHISPERING OAKS DR 8353 ELM AVE
ARCADIA CA 91006 SAN GABRIEL CA 91775
5769028029. 5769028003
HUDSON,SHIRLEY ATWATER,ROY S TR
1030 WHISPERING OAKS DR 0 P 0 BOX 662154
ARCADIA CA 91006 ARCADIA CA 91066
0
0
STAFF REPORT,
fNOO RPORA4ID 9. � e
Development Services Department
January 18, 2005
TO: Arcadia City Council
FROM: Don Penr}�an, Assistant City Manager /Development Services
Director C
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: C onsideration of General Plan amendments and Zone Changes to
properties throughout the City to provide consistency between the
Arcadia General Plan and the Zoning Ma GP 04 -0 and ZC 04-
003
• Recommendation:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 6456 a Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Arcadia, approving Amendments to the General Plan
Land Use Map of the Arcadia General Plan for certain
properties within the City; and
2. Introduce Ordinance No. 2203 an Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, California approving the rezoning of
certain properties within the City
SUMMARY
The proposed General Plan and Zone Changes were initiated by the
Development Services Department to bring the general plan and zoning into
consistency. The properties included in the changes were identified as part of a
study conducted approximately three years ago.
The changes recommended in this report are a result of this study and continued
review by the Development Services Department staff. The Planning
Commission at their November 9 and November 23, 2004 meetings
recommended approval of the proposed zone changes as outlined in the report
and adopted Resolution 1716 recommending to the City Council approval of the
• proposed General Plan amendments.
The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council •
approve the proposed changes as set forth in this report and recommend
adoption of Resolution No. 6456 approving the General Plan amendments and
introduction of Ordinance No. 2203 approving the proposed zone changes.
BACKGROUND
State law requires that the General Plan and the Zoning in General Law cities be
consistent. Although the City of Arcadia is a Charter City and not subject to this
requirement, in principle this dictum is encouraged in charter cities as well.
Three years ago the City hired a consultant to: (1) complete a General Plan
consistency analysis to determine the extent of consistency between the City's
General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Map; and (2) field check all of
the identified sites to document the actual use of the property.
Approximately 250+ properties were identified where the General Plan and
zoning designations are inconsistent. Staff reviewed each property, looking at
the existing use(s), surrounding uses, the General Plan designation and the
zoning and has made suggestions on changes either to the General Plan
designation, the zoning designation or, in some cases both. The changes were
primarily categorized in the following six (6) areas (see City Map, Figure 2):
Live Oak Corridor •
Baldwin Corridor (three specific areas)
Downtown Corridor
Colorado Corridor
Foothill /First Corridor
Marendale Subdivision
The Planning Commission at their September 14 and November 9, 2004
meetings considered the recommended changes. This report includes the
recommendations of the Development Services Department and the Planning
Commission.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 2
City Map
• Figure 2
�J
• GP /Zone Changes
1/18105
Page 3
PROPOSED AREA CHANGES
The following is a summary explaining the General Plan and zoning designations
included in the recommendations set forth in the following pages:
Zoriin .Desi ' "ation`
Dewn lion
GP
General Plan Amendment
ZC
Zone Change
GP /ZC
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change required
R-1
Single family residential — allows one dwelling unit on a
lot/ parcel
R -2
Multiple- family residential — allows a maximum of one
dwelling unit per 3,750 s . ft. of lot area
R -3
Multiple- family residential — allows a maximum of one
dwelling unit er'2,000 s . ft. of lot area
P
"P" is a parking overlay used in conjunction with a residential
zone, i.e., PR -1, PR -2, PR -3. — this allows the property to be
used for either parking for adjoining commercial uses or allows
uses permitted in the underlining zone
C -O & D
Professional office - permits office uses and the "D" is a design
overlay setting forth certain design parameters
CBD
Central Business District — permits general retail uses and
office /service activities
C -1
Limited Commercial Zone — allows limited retail uses as well
as office /service uses
C -2
General commercial — permits general retail uses as well as
office /service activities
C -M
Commercial- Manufacturing — allows general commercial as
well as very light industrial type uses
General- PlanDesi" nations
Desch tion:.i
SFR 0-4 du/ac
Single- family residential allowing a maximum of 4 dwelling
units per acre
SFR 0 -6 du/ac
Single- family residential allowing a maximum of 6 dwelling
units per acre
MF — 12 du/ac
Multiple - family residential allows up to a maximum of 12
dwelling units per acre
MF — 24 du/ac
Multiple- family residential allows up to a maximum of 24
dwelling units per acre
Commercial
General commercial and office
MU — C/MF
Mixed use Commercial/Multiple Family provides opportunities
for development of commercial and residential mixed use. Up
to 22 du/ac for family house and up to 50 du/ac for senior
market rate and up to 63 du/ac for senior affordable housing in
conjunction with commercial at a maximum of .50 FAR
MU — C/I
Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial provides areas which office,
light manufacturing services and support retail may be
develo ed
r 1
U
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 4
As noted, the proposed changes are categorized into six general areas:
• Live Oak Corridor
Baldwin Corridor (three specific areas)
Downtown Corridor
Colorado Corridor
Foothill /First Corridor
Marendale Subdivision
Some of the proposed changes are as simple as changing the General Plan
designation from Single - Family Residential 0-4 du /ac (dwelling units per acre) to
Single - Family Residential 0 -6 du /ac which reflects existing densities. Others
involve changing both the General Plan and the zoning to address the uses that
currently exist on a site.
The property address, existing development and ; land use designations and
proposed recommendations for each property have been identified in the
following maps and tables.
LIVE OAK CORRIDOR
r1
LJ
• GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 5
Figure 3 on City map
Live Oak Corridor Properties
•
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 6
Existing�
Proposed,
StreetAddress
Comments �
Type'
General "'
- .Zoning
"General�Rlan
Zoning
Plan
174 -180 W. Live
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Commercial building on
GP
Oak Avenue
(MU -C /I)
SE comer -El MontelLive
Oak
170 -172 W. Live
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
SG Valley Glass & Mirror
GP
Oak Avenue
(MU -C /I)
& Fitness Club -SS Live
Oak btwn El
Monte /Persimmon
166 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Dandy Door -SS Live Oak
GP
Avenue
MU -C /I
btwn El Monte /Persimmon
164 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C M
Mixed Use
C -M
Com- bldg -SS Live Oak
GP
Avenue
MU -C /I
btwn El Monte /Persimmon
158 W: Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Acupuncture and Herbs-
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /q
SS Live Oak btwn El
Monte /Persimmon
154 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Johnny's Auto repair -SW
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
comer of Live Oak &
Persimmon
146 -146 W. Live
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Sunstar Stereo and
GP
Oak Avenue
(MU-C/))
Alarm -SE comer of Live
Oak/Persimmon
142 -144 W. Live
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C-M
Able Embroidery Center-
GP
Oak Avenue
(MU -C /I)
SS of Live Oak bwtn
Persimmon/Wash
119 W. Live Oak
Commercial
GM
Mixed Use
C -M
Tech Line Auto at Las
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
Tunas &Live Oak bwtn
Santa Anita &Arcadia
Wash creates legal
nonconformin
86 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Hay bales -SE comer of
GP
Avenue
MU -C /I
Live Oak & McCullough
84 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Sam's Upholstery shop-
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
SS of Live Oak &
McCullough.
80 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Kelly's Pub -SS of Live
GP
Avenue
MU - C /I
Oak & McCullough
74 W. Live oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Buster's Lawnmower
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
shop/ Redline Motorsports
SS of Live Oak &
McCullough
60 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C-M
Comm. building -SS of
GP
Avenue
MU -C /I
Live Oak & McCullough
58 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Vacant/storage — WS of
GP
Avenue
M -1
MU -C /I
Welland, S of Live Oak
40 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C-M
Mixed Use
C -M
Bill's Auto Body — SE
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
corner of Live Oak &
Welland
36 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Comm. building - SS of
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
Live Oak btwn Welland &
Santa Anita
28 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Car Wash - SS of Live
GP
Avenue
(MU -C /I)
Oak btwn Welland &
Santa Anita
•
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 6
•
E
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 7
Existing
Proposed
Street Address
General, Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
Comments
Type
Plan
22 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Comm. building - SS of
GP
(MU- C /I)
Live Oak btwn Welland &
Avenue
Santa Anita
16 W. Live Oak
Commercial
C -M
Mixed Use
C -M
Auto repair center - SS of
GP
(MU- ) C1
Live Oak btwn Welland &
Avenue
Santa Anita
12 W. Live Oak
Avenue
2619 Greenfield
SFR
C -O & D
MF
R -3
8 units, WS of Greenfield,
GP '
Avenue
0 -6 du /acre
24 dulacre
N of Live Oak
ZC, .
5705 Lenore
Mixed Use
R -2
MF
R -2
Church located on the WS
GP
Avenue
MU -C /I
12 dulacre
of Lenore. N of L nrose
5700 Lenore
Commercial
PR -2
SFR
R -1
Parking lot for church &
GP
0 -6 du /acre
house — ES of Lenore, S
ZC
Avenue
of Live Oak
450 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R3
35 units on the W of
GP
Avenue
C/l
24 du /acre
Lenore, S of Live Oak
521 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R -3
13 units on No of Live
GP
Avenue
C /MF
24 du /acre
Oak bwtn 6 and 4'.
511 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R -3
17 condos, NS of Live
GP
Avenue
C /MF
24 dulacre
Oak,
501 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R -3
26 units on NS of Live
GP
Avenue
C /MF
24 du /acre
Oak bwtn 6"
435 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R -3
21 units on NS of Live
GP
Avenue
C1MF
24 du /acre
Oak bwtn 6`" and 4".
417 E. Live Oak
Mixed Use
R -3
MF
R -3
60 units on NS of Live
GP
Avenue
C /MF
24 dulacre
Oak bwtn 6`" and 4� .
510 E Sandra
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
12 units located W of 6
GP
Avenue
0 -6 dulacre
24 du /acre
btwn Sandra /Live Oak.
2517 S. 6
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
4 units located W of 6
GP
Avenue
0 -6 dulacre
24 du /acre
bwtn Sandra Ave & Live
Oak
2521 S. 6
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
5 units located W of 6
GP
Avenue
0 -6 dulacre
24 du /acre
bwtn Sandra /Live Oak
225 E. Live Oak
Commercial
R -3
Commercial
C -1
Church - NS of Live Oak
ZC
between 2 & 3 itl
Avenue
2610S.2 "
Commercial
R -3
MF
R -3
5 units - NS of Live Oak
GP
Avenue
24 dulacre
on E side of 2 Ave
2635 Louise
Commercial
PR -1
SFR 0 -6 du /ac
R -1 (F)
Restaurant parking -rear,
GP
'
Avenue
R -1
(Front)
C -0 (R)
dwelling- front. WS of
ZC
Commercial
Louise, N of Live Oak
Rear
2607 S. Santa
SFR
R -2
SFR
R -1
Arcadia Congregational
ZC
Anita Ave.
0 -6 dulacre
0 -6 dulacre
Church located on WS of
Santa Anita, S. of
Woodruff
50 Las Tunas
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
C -M
Arcadia Country Garden
GP
Drive
Mixed -Use
Restaurant at Las Tunas
& Live Oak btwn Santa
Anita & Arcadia Wash
46 Las Tunas
Commercial
C-M
Commercial
C-M
Multi- tenant commercial at
GP
Drive
Mixed -Use
Las Tunas & Live Oak
bwtn Santa Anita &
Arcadia Wash
82 Las Tunas
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
C -M
Burger King restaurant at
GP
Drive
Mixed -Use
Las Tunas & Live Oak
bwtn Santa Anita &
Arcadia Wash
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 7
Most of the changes in the Live Oak Avenue corridor relate to General Plan
amendments, changing the General Plan to be consistent with both the zoning
and land use of the property. .
r 1
There are two rip mare "housekeeping" changes in the Live Oak corridor:
1. A proposed General Plan amendment for the properties on the north and •
south side of Live Oak and the south side of Las Tunas Drive west of Santa
Anita. This area is currently zoned C -M (Commercial- manufacturing) and the
General Plan designation is commercial. Staff is recommending that the
General Plan be changed to mixed -use commercial /industrial consistent with
the current zoning.
2. The second primary change is to properties on the north side of Live Oak
between Fourth and Sixth Avenue. The current General Plan designation is
Mixed Use Commercial / Multiple Family; the proposed change is to Multiple -
Family.
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 8
Existing
Proposed
Street Address
comments
Type
General
Zoning
General +Plan
Zoning
Plan
102 Las Tunas
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
C -M
Equipment rental at Las
GP
Drive
Mixed -Use
Tunas & Live Oak bwtn
Santa Anita & Arcadia
Wash
108 Las Tunas
Commercial
GM
Commercial
C -M
Las Tunas Animal
GP
Drive
Mixed -Use
Hospital at Las Tunas &
Live Oak bwtn Santa Anita
& Arcadia Wash
120 -124 Las
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
GM
Cenco Auto body at Las
GP
Tunas or and
Mixed -Use
Tuna s& Live Oak bwtn
123 -125 W. Live
Santa Anita &Arcadia
Oak Avenue
Wash Carpet Care/Tattoo
fronting on Las Tunas
132 -142 Las
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
C -M
C &L Auto Collision /Italian
GP
Tunas Drive
Mixed -Use
Rest. at Las Tunas/Live
Oak bwtn Santa Anita &
Arcadia Wash
114 Las Tunas
Commercial
GM
Commercial
C -M
office Use
GP
Mixed -Use
Most of the changes in the Live Oak Avenue corridor relate to General Plan
amendments, changing the General Plan to be consistent with both the zoning
and land use of the property. .
r 1
There are two rip mare "housekeeping" changes in the Live Oak corridor:
1. A proposed General Plan amendment for the properties on the north and •
south side of Live Oak and the south side of Las Tunas Drive west of Santa
Anita. This area is currently zoned C -M (Commercial- manufacturing) and the
General Plan designation is commercial. Staff is recommending that the
General Plan be changed to mixed -use commercial /industrial consistent with
the current zoning.
2. The second primary change is to properties on the north side of Live Oak
between Fourth and Sixth Avenue. The current General Plan designation is
Mixed Use Commercial / Multiple Family; the proposed change is to Multiple -
Family.
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 8
BALDWIN CORRIDOR (Figures 4A and 4B)
Figure 4A on City map
i ,
1 j MOTWIL FAW 5
ST
p q � 1 cT �,.7 x-f
; > } CATALPA nO
1
v I R -I
I
1
1
1 Align TgA
•
7nm Change
frmnl Plan Change
G..enl Plan mdl d Change
\� dry Sound y
FI Panel Adce.
R -I Inn.
`J .
�J
rA I R -1
6S
ue.1.
�M "Ad
Baldwin Corridor
Roure 4A
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 9
»t
Figure 4B on City map
C/ 6
Legend
855 G.nmIPYn LMnw.
rw � fxn.nlPMn.ne bn. GSanp.
`• 1w0 W .l Aeenu
]u i3 R -1 bm Wbin
70
515
b }5
1+ G]
Ht
612 5 ca
r
e GI
b=
p Ai R/
3j ca
5 rc]
w/
i
er4 ! Baldwin Corridor -
G]� Wa ../ t� Agure 4B
Baldwin Corridor Properties
0
•
GP /Zone Changes
1118105
Page 10
KI
Existing .
Proposed_
Street Address .
Comments
Type
General Plan ?:
Zoning -`.
General:Plan
Zoning
1150 W.
Commercial
PR -1 &
Commercial
G4
Parking lot on ES of
ZC
Colorado Street
D
PRA &
Michillinda, S. of Colorado
(south and east
D
p ortion )
650 W.
MF -24 du /ac
C -O
MF -24 du /ac
R -3
SS of Huntington Dr, E of
ZC
Huntington Dr.
Baldwin.
855 S. Baldwin
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C -2
Parking lot with
ZC
Ave
commercial buildings on
(rear portion)
NS of Fairview, W of
Baldwin
GP /Zone Changes
1118105
Page 10
KI
•
0
Many of the changes in the Baldwin Avenue corridor relate to zoning and
removal of the "P" parking overlay from numerous properties in the area.
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 11
Existing
-`
Proposed
Street Address
Comments
Type
General 'Plan
Zoning
General'Plan
Zoning'
665 -661
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C-2
Parking lot with
ZC
Fairview Avenue
commercial buildings on
NS of Fairview, E of
Baldwin
653 Fairview
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
Condos located E. of
ZC
Avenue
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
Baldwin, NS of Fairview
Rear portion of:
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C -2
Commercial buildings on
ZC
1003 S. Baldwin
NS of Arcadia Ave, W of
1011 S. Baldwin
Baldwin.
720 Fairview
Sliver of parcels
1015 S. Baldwin
1025 S. Baldwin
1027 S. Baldwin
1035 S. Baldwin
Rear portion of
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C -2
o
Parking lt with
ZC
1107 S. Baldwin
commercial buildings – SS
of Arcadia, W of Baldwin
Rear portion of
Commercial
C -2 (f)
Commercial
C -2 (f)
ES of Baldwin, between
ZC
1010 S. Baldwin
PR -3 r
C -2 r
Fairview and Arcadia
660 Fairview
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C -2
Parking and dry cleaner
ZC
Avenue
on SS of Fairview, E of
Baldwin.
652 Fairview
Commercial
R -3
Commercial
C -2
E of Baldwin, SS of
ZC
Avenue
Fairview Avenue.
612 W. Duarte
Commercial
PR -1
Commercial
C -O
WS of Lovell Avenue, S of
ZC
Road (southerly
Duarte. ZC automobile
ortion of lot
arkin lot south half).
674 W. Camino
SFR
R -2
MF
R -2
9 units - condominiums on
GP
Real
0 -6 dulacre
12 dulacre
SS of Camino Real, E of
Baldwin.
661 W. Camino
SFR
R -2
SFR
R -1
North side of Camino
ZC
Real
0 -6 du /acre
0 -6 du /acre
Real, E of Baldwin.
City of Arcadia
Existing use is a single
lot
family dwellings
1425 and 1429
Melanie Lane
2633 S. Baldwin
Commercial
PR -3
Commercial
C-2
Parking lot – WS of
ZC
Avenue (north
C -2
Baldwin, N of Las Tunas
p ortion )
9974 Las Tunas
Commercial
C-2
Commercial
C -2
Commercial and parking
i, GP '
Drive (south
MF
PR -3
lot on WS of Baldwin, S of
ZC
p ortion)
24 du /acre
Las Tunas
556 Las Tunas
SFR
PR -1
Commercial
C -2
Parking, multi- tenant
GP
Drive
0 -6 dulacre
commercial – SS of Las
ZC '
Tunas, E of Baldwin
P- overlay on parking lot.
2728 S. Baldwin
SFR
C -2 — &D
SFR
R -1
NS of Workman, E of
ZC
Avenue
0 -6 dulacre
0 -6 dulacre
Baldwin. Existing use is a
(south of Pic'n'
single family dwelling
Save
529 Las Tunas
SFR
PR -1
Commercial
C -O
Home for deaf on NS of
GP S
Drive
0 -6 dulacre
Las Tunas, E of Baldwin
ZC'
Many of the changes in the Baldwin Avenue corridor relate to zoning and
removal of the "P" parking overlay from numerous properties in the area.
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 11
Two properties.in this area were subject of major discussion at the Planning
Commission meetings: 1150 West Colorado Street, the location of Coco's •
Restaurant and 650 West Huntington Drive (highlighted in above table). These
properties have been discussed separately below.
"P" Parking Overlay
In the 1950's and 60's the City created a parking "P" overlay zone that typically
was added to an underlying residential zone, i.e., (R -0, R -1, R -2 or R -3) adjacent
to commercially zoned properties. The purpose of the "P" overlay was to allow
for either the development of property per the underlying zone or to allow for
improvement as a parking lot to supplement parking on the adjoining commercial
property.
The parking overlay also provided a "buffer" for commercial uses adjacent to
residentially zoned areas. The "P" overlay area does not permit the construction
of commercial uses within the designated area, but does allow for parking.
However, in some instances along Baldwin Avenue, commercial uses have
encroached into the "P" overlay areas.
Parking overlays are not typically utilized in planning practice anymore because
most cities, :including Arcadia, have developed commercial standards that
address commercial uses adjacent to residential properties and also have design
guidelines that help to reduce the impact of commercial uses abutting residential •
properties. -
The Development Services Department staff has recommended that the parking
overlay be removed from the parcels identified in the table and that the zoning be
changed to the underlying commercial zone; i.e., C -1 or C -2, with the exception
set forth below.
1150 W. Colorado Street
The subject property is developed with Coco's Restaurant. In 1974, the site was
subdivided and the zoning for the property was changed to C -1 for the northwest
portion of the property and the easterly 95.6' and the southerly 100' of the
property were zoned PRA to provide a buffer for the newly developed residential
properties to the east and south.
The General Plan designation for the site is Commercial and the zoning located
adjacent to the corner is C -1 and the parking (PR -1) overlay is located along the
east and south portion of the property. The Development Services Department
originally recommended that the zoning of the entire site be changed to C -1.
However, at the September 14, property owners along Altura Road and Altura
Terrace presented a petition in opposition to the zone change requesting that the
parking overlay remain because it provides a "cushion" between the residential .
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 12
property and the restaurant. The petitioners noted that the "P" overlay provides
reasonable protection and privacy. The Development Services Department is
not opposed to keeping the parking overlay at this time. If, in the future, the
owrier of this property wishes to request a change to the existing uses or zoning,
a specific proposal can be addressed at that time.
650 West Hun tington Drive
The property is zoned C -O with a General Plan Designation of Multiple - Family
Residential 24 du /ac (this includes a density bonus for low income units). The
Development Services Department is recommending rezoning this. property to
R -3, Multiple - Family Residential. The site is 73,616 square feet in area (1.69
acres) and is developed with an office building.
In May 2004, Jimmy Lee on behalf of the property owner filed a zone change
application to change the zoning from C -O to R -3, consistent with the existing
General Plan designation. The applicant indicated that if approved they would
construct residential condominium units. The maximum building height in the
R -3 zone is two stories, 35 feet. The maximum density,allowed by the General
Plan is 22 dwelling units per acre (du /ac) for market'rate units and 30 du /ac for
senior units.
If the property remains C -O, the General Plan designation should be changed to
"Commercial" consistent with the C -O zoning. The C -O zone primarily allows
office uses, however, senior housing is permitted with an approved conditional
use permit. Based on the General Plan floor area ratio the site could be
developed with a three (3) story office building with up to approximately 37,000
sq. ft. of office area. The "Commercial' General Plan designation also permits
GP /Zone Changes
1/18105
Page 13
senior housing only with maximum densities of 50 dwelling units per acre for
market rate senior housing and up to 63 dwelling units per acre for affordable
senior housing units. Housing units could be three (3) stories with a maximum
building height of 40'.
Properties to the east and south of the site are zoned R -3 and developed with
multiple- family units. This Zone Change would bring the property into
conformance with the multiple - family land use designation of the General Plan.
The Planning Commission at its June 22 meeting recommended approval of this
zone change with the comment that the proposed rezoning of the property would
bring the subject property into consistency with the General Plan. On July 20,
2004, the City Council held 'a public hearing to consider the requested zone
change. Upon receiving public testimony, the City Council tabled its
consideration of the zone change and recommended that the item be discussed
as part of the City -wide General Plan and Zoning consistency review.
The Planning Commission reconfirmed their original recommendation that this
property should be zoned R -3.
n
Ij
661 W Camino Real, 1425 -1429 Melanie Lane
These properties are part of a subdivision developed in 1977. The westerly
portion of the subdivision was zoned R -2 and the easterly., portion R -1. The
single - family subdivision was approved with the consideration that the lots would
be developed with single- family dwellings.
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 14
• The General Plan designation for these properties is SF 0 -6 du /ac. The
Development Services Department is proposing to rezone the above lots from R-
2 (medium density residential) to R -1 (single - family residential).
Continued on next page
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 15
DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR
Figure 5 on City map
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 16
•
•
•
0
•
CJ
Downtown Corridor
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 17
Existing
Proposed
Street Address
Comments
Type
General Plan
Zoning
General.Plan
Zoning
119 S. 3` Ave.
MF
R -3
MF
R -3
ApartmenUCondos east of
GP
125 S. 3rd Ave.
12 du /acre
24 du /acre
2 " and west of 3
m
201 S. 3' Ave.
between Bonita and
207 S. 3 Ave.
California alif
211 S. 3'
Ave.
The area and adjacent
215 S. 3" Ave.
area are currently
Ave.
217 S. 3rd
developed with
221 S.3 Ave.
apartments and condos.
237 California
nd
Existing zoning is R -3 that
204S.2 Ave
is appropriate for this type
212 Bonita St.
nI
of land use density. The
200S.2 Ave.
124S.2 nd Ave.
General Plan designation
120S.2 Od Ave.
is proposed to be changed
205 California
to MF 24 du /ac to better
225 -227
reflect and maintain the
California St.
uses onsite and provide
298S.2 nI Ave.
consistency with existing
219 -223
zoning.
California St.
200 S. V Ave.
MF
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments /Condos north
GP
206 S. 3 Ave.
12 dulacre
24 du /acre
of California between 3 rtl
212 S. 3` Ave.
and 5".
Ave.
216 S. 3`ry Ave.
220 S.3
The area and adjacent
315 California
area are currently
319 California
developed with
327 California
apartments and condos.
347 California
Existing zoning is R -3 that
415 California
is appropriate for this type
Rear of 415
of land use density. The
California St.
General Plan designation
417 California
is proposed to be changed
211 -213 S. 5th
to MF 24 du /ac to better
419 California
reflect and maintain the
425 California
uses onsite and provide
427 California
consistency with existing
215 S. 5 1n Ave.
zoning.
302 S. 2" Ave.
MF
Apartments /condos south
GP
216 California
12 du /acre
of California between 2 "d
226 California
and 3rd
230 California
Same as above
306 California
MF
Apartments /condos south
GP
314 California
1 2 du /acre
of California between 3
".
320 California
7 MF
and 5
334 California
Same as above
402 California
310 -422
California St.
311 S. 5 hh Ave.
317 S. 5 d ' Ave.
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 17
•
•
Proposed changes in the Downtown Corridor include both General Plan changes
as well as zoning changes. •
GP /Zone Changes
1118/05
Page 18
Existing
Proposed
Street Address
Comments
Type
General Plan `
Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
15 Alta St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
NS of Alta between Santa
ZC
17 Alta St.
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
Anita Ave. and I ".
21 Alta St.
Existing parking lots for .
25 Alta St.
commercial buildings.
29 Alta St.
33 Alta St.
37 Alta St.
41 Alta St.
45 Alta St.
51 Alta St.
55 Alta St.
MF
PR -3
Commercial
CBD
Parking lot on NS of Alta,
ZC
24 dulacre
W of 1�
54 Alta St.
MF
PR -3
Commercial
CBD
Parking lot on SS of Alta,
GP -'
24 du /acre
W of 1
- .ZC- �-
53 Bonita St.
MF
PR -3
MF 24 /du /ac
R -3
Single family residence
ZC
24 du /acre
113 Califomia
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
Commercial
CBD
Parking lot on NS of
GP
St. arkin lot
California, E of 1�`
ZC
115 California
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
Commercial
CBD
Parking lot on NS of
GP' '
St. arkin lot
California, E of 1�'
ZC-
117 Califomia
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
MF -24 du /ac
R -3
Apartments on NS of
ZC
St. a artments
California, E of 1
120 Alta St.
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
MF -24 du /ac
R -3
SFR — SS of Alta, E of 1
ZC
SFR
Avenue.
118 Alta St.
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
MF -24 du /ac
R -3
SFR —SS of Alta, E of 1
ZC
SFR
Avenue.
116 Alta St.
MF -24 du /ac
PR -3
Commercial
CBD
Parking lot— SS of Alta, E
GP
(p arking lot.
of f s '
'`_ZC'.'.
139 Alta St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
Condominium — NS of
ZC
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
Alta, E of 1�' .
125 Alta St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
Parkin Lot — NS of Alta,
ZC
(p arking lot
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
E of 1� .
113 Bonita St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
NS of Bonita, E of 1
ZC
119 Bonita St.
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
118 Fano St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
of Fano St, E
ZC
116 Fano St.
24 du /acre
24 du /acre
of
112 Alice St.
MF
PR -3
MF
R -3
s for church
Ecated
ZC
118 Alice St.
24 du/acre
24 du /acre
f 1 ". SS of
206 E. Duarte
Comme rcial
R -2
Commercial
C -1
Tutoring school and
ZC
Road
parking lot — SS of Duarte
between 2 n and 3 rtl
SFR
R -2
SFR
R -1
ES of 2" S of Duarte,
ZC
0 -6 du/acre
0 -6 du /acre
developed with a single -
family dwelling.
EDuarte
Commercial
C -2
Commercial
C -2
E of Santa Anita Ave,
ZC
PR -1
between Duarte &
Christina.
Rear portion of pro
Commercial
C-2
Commercial
C -2
W of 1 Ave, between
ZC
Road
PR -1
Duarte & Christina.
56 E. Duarte
Rear portion of property.
Road
•
•
Proposed changes in the Downtown Corridor include both General Plan changes
as well as zoning changes. •
GP /Zone Changes
1118/05
Page 18
1. One major change includes a proposed General Plan amendment between
Bonita Avenue on the north, Second Avenue on the west, Fifth Avenue on the
east and the south side of California Street on the south. Properties in this
area are zoned R -3 multiple - family residential and developed at an R -3
density (maximum 22 dwelling units per acre). However, the General Plan
designation in this particular area is Multiple - Family Residential 12 du /ac.
The Development Services Department is recommending a General Plan
designation of Multiple - Family Residential 24 du /ac consistent with the
existing zoning and development.
2. As done in the Baldwin Avenue corridor, staff is also recommending removal
of the "P" overlay on several properties on Alta Street and abutting
commercial properties along First Avenue. In most cases the change
involves removing the parking overlay from the underlying residential zoning,
however, there are several properties adjacent to First Avenue that are zoned
R -3 with a parking overlay and used as parking for the adjoining commercial
uses fronting on First Avenue. These properties are proposed to be rezoned
commercial, compatible with the adjoining commercial properties.
3. The rear portions of the properties fronting on Duarte Road east of Santa
Anita and west of First Avenue are proposed to be rezoned from PR -1 to C -2.
This area is developed with parking for the commercial uses fronting on
• Duarte Road.
• GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 19
COLORADO PLACE CORRIDOR
Figure 6 on City map
I s
Legend
Im
R -1 Zom Chanpn
Gvxral Rnn GTanp�
yG�mnl Rnn and Zone CMnpe
R -1 J %j O(Y&a .de
R -1 1® P .f Add '.
R -I R -I Zonn Ole 0
r
a A -/
R4 C 0 y R -J
216 3
% 126
Y
@ $
A -1
R -1 TL ��w - i R-1
r s R -1
vi -
";"k, 'i• 215 221
216
t zoo
R -!
C-1
Colorado Place Corridor
Figure 6
s ios
•
•
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18/05
Page 20
.
Colorado Place Corridor
Street Address
Existing Proposed
Comments
Type
General Plan
Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
225 Colorado
Commercial
R -3
Commercial
C -2
Motel 6 —zone change
ZC
Pi. Motel
226, 240, 250,
Commercial
R -3
MF 24 du /acre
R -3
GP change to Church and
GP
251,287
School. Zone change to
Colorado Blvd
Commercial
R -3
MF -24 du /acre
R -3
Motel. ES of Colorado PI,
(Church)
N of San Juan Dr.
275 Colorado
PI. School
200 Santa Rosa
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments — ES of Santa
GP
Road
0 -6 du /acre
24 dacre u/
Rosa, N of San Juan
216 Santa Rosa
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments — ES of Santa
GP
Road
0 -6 du /acre
24 du /acre
Rosa, N of San Juan
222 Santa Rosa
Road
224 Santa Rosa
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments — ES of Santa
GP
Road
0 -6 du /acre
24 du /acre
Rosa, N of San Juan
201 Colorado
Commercial
R -3
Commercial
C -0
California Thoroughbred
ZC
Place
Assn.
225 Santa Rosa
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments, WS of Santa
GP
Road
0 -6 du /acre
24 du /acre
Rosa, N of San Juan.
245 W.
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
Apartments on NS of
GP
Colorado Blvd.
0 -6 du /acre
24 du /acre
Colorado Blvd, W of Santa
Maria Rd.
Major changes in the Colorado Place corridor include:
1. Rezoning the Motel 6 and the California Thoroughbred Association from R -3
to C -2 and C -O respectively, consistent with the General Plan designation of
Commercial.
2. Changing the General Plan for the Church and the school on Colorado
Boulevard and Colorado Place from Commercial to Multiple - Family residential
24 du /ac. Churches and schools are permitted uses in the residential zone
with an approved conditional use permit. Both the school and church have
approved conditional use permits.
3. Changing the General Plan for the properties on Santa Rosa Road and
Colorado Place from SFR to Multiple - family residential consistent with the
apartment uses and R -3 zoning of the properties.
GPIZone Changes
1118/05
Page 21
FOOTHILL AND FIRST CORRIDOR
Figure 6 on City map
f
E R-1 R -I
GZ GZ ``I
romIILLM awnALLx fWMI.t6_
rwMla _..
mus 4 GZ GZ Q GZ 8 GZ p GZ. -...
GZ R4 F R4
W
B -I
° ,naL.L AK µKL AK
MAL AK P R -f � C
R -f _
RI
9
a h AK
R -f
Mi-783
b
B °Y
°Jr � wV(Y YL 8-j MV. AK
8-Z a NAKxAK R -1
R-f S i
R.l Gj 4 Foothill and First Corridor
Figure 7
•
YIEL .K
R -f
�l
naaL
R-f
N
W�E
5
Legend
O Zma change -
O Crneal Wen Chang.
ME Wnaral Wan and Zane Chang.
CRy Rcunda
100 Pon! .
R -I Zan DiSM f
Foothill and First Corridor
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
•
Page 22
Existing
Proposed'-
Street Address
Comments
Type
,General Plan `
Zoning 'I
General Plan
Zoning
333 -341 E.
SFR
C -2
Commercial
C -2
Multi- tenant commercial
GP:
Foothill Blvd.
0 -6 du /acre
building at NE corner of
1001 W. Foothill
Foothill and Valencia
Blvd.
1115 Highland
SFR
R -3
MF
R -3
An existing apartment
GP°
Oaks Drive
0 -4 du /acre
24 du /acre
complex located on WS of
Highland, N of Foothill.
67 E. Floral Ave.
SFR
R -2
MF
R -2
An existing single family
GP
0 -6 du /acre
12 du /acre
dwelling located on the
NW corner of Floral and
1 St
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
•
Page 22
Major changes within the Foothill and First Corridor include:
1. General Plan change for properties fronting on First Avenue north of the
Foothill Freeway. The properties are zoned R -2 and the General Plan
designations range from SFR 0 -6 du /ac to MF 24 du /ac. Staff is proposing
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 23
Existing
Proposed
Street Address
Comments
Type
General Plan
Zoning"
General
Zoning
1001 N. 1 Ave.
Commercial
R -2
MF
R -2
A SF dwelling on the WS
GP
12 du/acre
of 1�` between Floral &
Foothill.
1009 N. 1 Ave.
Commercial
R -2
MF
R -2
A SF dwelling on the WS
GP
12 du /acre
of 1 between Floral &
Foothill.
805 N. First
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
International Church-
GP
International
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
vacant / parking lot. W of
Church
1 Ave, N of 210 Fwy, S
vacant arcel
of Forest.
701 N. 1� Ave.
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
A SFR and 2 -unit condo
GP
705 N. 1 Ave.
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
onsite. WS of 1" between
711 N. 1 Ave.
210 FWY and Forest
715 N. ' l Ave
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
A SFR onsite. WS of 1"
GP
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
between 210 FWY &
Forest
721 N. 1 Ave.
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
A SFR onsite -part of
GP
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
church? W of 1" between
210 and Forest
723 N. 1 Ave.
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
Part of church. W of 1
GP
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
between 210 fwy and
Forest
805 N. 1 Ave.
MF
R -2
MF
R -2
A church located on SW
GP
24 du /acre
12 du /acre
corner of 1" and Forest
1111 Valencia
Commercial
PR -1
SFR
R -1
TSF dwelling located on the
Ave.
0 -6 du /acre
WS of Valencia, N of
Foothill
# ZC
1110 Valencia
SFR
PR -1
SFR
R -1
A SFR onsite. I of
ZC
Ave.
0 -6 du /acre
0 -6 du /acre
Foothill, E of Valencia
225 E. Foothill —
Commercial
PR -1
Commercial
G 2
Parking lot for wmmercial
ZC
east portion of
PR -1
building on NS of Foothill
Ralph's site
btwn 2 ntl and Valencia.
245 E. Foothill
(rear portions of
Blvd.
properties)
253 E. Foothill
Blvd.
301 E. Foothill
Blvd.
317 E. Foothill
Blvd.
905 N. 1 Ave.
SFR
R -2
MF
R -2
SFD & Apartments — SW
GP
60 E. Floral Ave.
0.6 du /acre
12 du /acre
corner of Floral and 1
109 E. Colorado
Commercial
C -M
Commercial
C -2
Multi- tenant commercial —
ZC
Blvd.
NE of 1" at 210 F
1112 Highland
Commercial
PR -3
SFR
R -1
WS of Highland Oaks, N
GP /.•`s
Oaks Drive
0 -6 du /ac
of Foothill
ZC =
single - family
dwellin
Major changes within the Foothill and First Corridor include:
1. General Plan change for properties fronting on First Avenue north of the
Foothill Freeway. The properties are zoned R -2 and the General Plan
designations range from SFR 0 -6 du /ac to MF 24 du /ac. Staff is proposing
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 23
that the General Plan designation in this area be changed to MF 12du /ac
which is consistent with the zoning of the properties.
2. 331 -1001 Foothill Boulevard are zoned
buildings, however, the General Plan is
proposed to be changed to Commercial.
C -2 and developed with commercial
SFR 0 -6 du /ac. The General Plan is
3. Rear portions of 245 -317 Foothill Boulevard. These properties range in depth
from 279' to 198'. The front portion (approximately 125' ±) of the lots fronting
on Foothill Boulevard are zoned C -2 and the rear portions of the properties
are zoned PR -1 (R -1 with a parking overlay). The depth of the PR -1 zoning
ranges from 106' to 155' +. Only parking is allowed in the "P" overlay area.
The General Plan designation for the properties is Commercial.
In December 2003, an application was submitted by Rich Development
Company to rezone the approximate 155.5 -foot wide strip of property at the
rear portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 to C -2 /General
Commercial. The General Plan designation of the property is Commercial.
The Planning Commission at its January 27, 2004 meeting voted 5 -0 to
recommend approval of the requested Zone Change to the City Council. On
March 2, 2004, the City Council after receiving public testimony tabled its
consideration of the zone change and recommended that the item be
discussed as part of the City -wide General Plan and Zoning consistency
review.
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 24
•
•
•
At the September 14 meeting there was considerable opposition from
• adjoining properties to the north regarding the proposed change of zoning
from PR -1 to C -2. Residents expressed concern regarding the potential
impact of a commercial development within possibly 20' -0" of their residential
property. A petition was submitted by property owners within this area in
opposition to the proposed change to C -2.
In order to provide consistency with the General Plan staffs original
recommendation was to rezone the rear portion of these properties to C -2.
However, as shown on the above map, it is possible to construct commercial
uses within the front portion of the properties along Foothill Boulevard and
utilize the rear portion for parking as shown on the properties east of Noda.
Based on concern of the adjoining residents and the fact that it is possible to
build commercial on the front portion of the properties, staff is recommending
that the PR -1 zoning remain as it currently exists.
• GP /Zone Changes
1118(05
Page 25
MARENDALE SUBDIVISION
Figure 8 on City Map
a
OV
',��.,
roxxamxEOa
R-
153 1;
152 15
'
1520
a
oxnwE xG
R -1
h5 1'-,,I54y-"f548
20
)88'
R -1 4 10I 16 I22 I30 136 14
...- CMFLEGMVEAI£
R -1
R -0 _...._...._
GRMIGEGMIVE AYF G,GNGE G.YOVf AVE
R -1
Marendaie Subdivision
HACFNGA GR pew e
1537 .
1529
1523
1517
1509 8
150
Legend
� G.a.�IPon a..o.
G mlPlan avd Tun. fJanp.
,., dp eaunde
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 26
n
U
0
L J
•
Marendale Subdivision
Street Address
Existing
Proposed
Comments
Type
General Plan
Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
3 Yorkshire Dr.
SFR
R -1
SFR
R -1
Single family residents
GP
9 Yorkshire Dr.
0 -4 du /acre
7,500
0 -6 du /acre
7,500
along Ontare Rd,
15 Yorkshire Dr.
Marendale Lane, and York
12 Yorkshire Dr.
Shire Drive
20 Yorkshire Dr.
1536 N. Santa
Existing residential
Anita Ave.
subdivision requiring clean
1528 N. Santa
up item for GP
Anita Ave.
designation. This area is
1520 N. Santa
surrounded by residential
Anita Ave.
uses that are zoned R -1
1521 Marendale
and have a General Plan
Lane
designation of single
1535 Marendale
family residential (0 -4
Lane
du /ac). The area is
1541 Marendale
currently developed with
Lane
single family homes,
1548 Marendale
however, the homes in
Lane
this area are on smaller
1542 Marendale
lots, more reflective of the
Lane
General Plan designation
1536 Marendale
of single family residential
Lane
(0 -6 du /ac). This change
1530 Marendale
would provide continuity in
Lane
land use intensity for this
1524 Marendale
area and would better
Lane
reflect the current uses
1520 Marendale
onsite.
Lane
5 Ontare Road
35 Ontare Road
51 Ontare Road
57 Ontare Road
65 Ontare Road
75 Ontare Road
85 Ontare Road
94 Ontare Road
88 Ontare Road
82 Ontare Road
74 Ontare Road
64 Ontare Road
56 Ontare Road
4 Ontare Road
SFR
R -1
SFR
R -1
Single family residents
GP
10 Ontare Road
0-4 dulacre
7,500
0 -6 dulacre
7,500
along Ontare Rd,
16 Ontare Road
Marendale Lane, and York
22 Ontare Road
Shire Drive
30 Ontare Road
36 Ontare Road
44 Ontare Road
50 Ontare Road
GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 27
Street Address
Existing
I I Proposed
Comments
Type
General Plan
Zoning
General Plan
,Zoning
1537 Highland
SFR
R -1
SFR
R -1
Single family residents
GP
Oaks Dr
0-4 dulacre
7,500
0 -6 du /acre
7,500
along Ontare Rd,
1529 Highland
Marendale Lane, and York
Oaks Dr
Shire Drive
1523 Highland
Oaks Dr
1517 Highland
Oaks or
1509 Highland
Oaks or
1503 Highland
Oaks Dr
1501 Highland
Oaks Dr
LA Co
Metro olitan
The Development Services Department is proposing that the General Plan
designation within the Marendale Subdivision be changed from SFR 0-4 clu /ac to
SFR 0 -6 du /ac. Lots in this area range from a little over 7,380 square feet to over
39,000 sq. ft., with the average around 8,000+ sq. ft. The typical lot size in the
area is compatible with a General Plan designation of SFR 0 -6 du /ac.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
•
Pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the •
Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the
record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any
potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the
General Plan amendments and zone changes as proposed. In regards to the
parking overlay, it is the Development Services Department's opinion that
removal of the "P" overlay and changing the zoning on properties not utilized for
commercial parking to the adjoining zoning is appropriate. However, where
petitioned by adioininq residents the Council may wish to maintain the "P"
parking overlay to provide additional buffer for the adjoining residential
properties.
GP /Zone Changes •
1/18105
Page 28
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council move to adopt the Negative Declaration and
1. Adopt Resolution No. 6456 for the General Plan amendments setting
forth the City Council's recommendations and findings; and
2. introduce Ordinance No. 2203 setting forth the City Council's
recommendations and findings for the proposed zone changes.
Approved by:
i s
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachments: City Council Resolution 6456
City Council Ordinance 2203
Minutes of the 9/14/04 and November 9, 2004 PC meeting
Planning Commission Resolution 1716
Petition from property owners along Altura Road and Altura Terrace
Petition from property owners regarding the parking overlay on
Foothill Boulevard
Negative Declaration
• GP /Zone Changes
1/18/05
Page 29
RESOLUTION NO. 6456 •
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
LAND USE MAP OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, a certain General Plan amendment was initiated by the
Development Services Department to amend the General Plan Land Use
Designations for certain properties throughout the City as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A, Community Development Division Case No. GP 04 -001; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on said matter, at which time all interested persons were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and is
WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission continued its
consideration until November 9, 2004, at which time the Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan changes proposed in
GP 2004 -001; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on
said General Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed
and considered:
-1- 6456
1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the
• Community Development Division of the Development Services Department to
the City Council;
2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing and deliberations
regarding General Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 and zone change ZC 04 -003;
3. All information and material and documentation presented as part of
the public testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing on September 14,
2004 and the Commission's deliberation on November 9, 2004, including the staff
report, and the environmental documents (including the Negative Declaration);
MM
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration for General
Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 at its meeting of January 18, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the
findings set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council finds:
-2- 6456
1. That State law requires that the general plan and the zoning in general law
cities be consistent. Although the City of Arcadia is a Charter City and not subject
to this requirement, in principle this dictum is encouraged in charter cities as well.
The Development Services Department completed a citywide study identifying
properties where the General Plan and zoning designations were inconsistent.
Development Services Department staff reviewed each property, identifying the
existing use(s), surrounding uses, the General Plan designation and the zoning and
made suggestions on changes either to the General Plan designation, the zoning
designation or in some cases both. The recommended changes are a result of this
study and will bring the City's General Plan and zoning into consistency with one
another. •
2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 004 -001 will not be
detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in applicable zones or vicinity
3. That the granting of General Plan Amendment 04 -001 will not have a
significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
approved for the proposed General Plan amendments and related zone changes.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the City Council approves the
General Plan Changes as set forth in attached Exhibit A.
9
-3- 6456
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this of
TWIN
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
6 ; - nor, G'. t (�
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
G
-4- 6456
EXHIBIT A
Live Oak Corridor
0
•
0
-5- 6456
Property "" '
Existing Generale
Proposed General
Ad`d'ress <'.
Assessor'!TUm6er -.
. Plan' .
Plan
174 -180 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1001
Commercial
Mixed Use
C
170 -172 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1026
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU -C /I
166 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1004
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C /I
164 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1005
Commercial
Mixed Use
C/I
158 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1006
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C /I
154 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -00 -1007
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/1
146 -148 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -0001
Commercial
Mixed Use
C
142 -144 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -0013
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C /1)
119 W. Live Oak Avenue
5788 -02 -1003
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C/I
86 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -3044
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C
84 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -3045
Commercial
Mixed Use
8573 -01 -3046
MU C
80 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -3047
Commercial
Mixed Use
( MU-C /1)
74 W. Live oak Avenue
8573 -01 -3048
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/1)
60 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -5001
Commercial
Mixed Use
8573 -01 -5002
(MU -C/1)
8573 -01 -5003
58 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -5023
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C
40 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -9001
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C
36 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -9002
Commercial
Mixed Use
C/
28 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -9003
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU -C/I
22 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -01 -9004
Commercial
Mixed Use
MU -C
16 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573 -02 -0056
Commercial
Mixed Use
12 W. Live Oak Avenue
MU -C /I
2619 Greenfield Avenue
5789 -02 -1014
SFR
MF
0 -6 du /acre
24 du/acre
0
•
0
-5- 6456
9
6456
Property
Existln'g General ?
Proposed General;•
Address `I .. ;», ,
Assessor Nnmber ".
„ P,'lan
Plan ,..
5705 Lenore Avenue
8572 -00 -1027
Mixed Use
MF
MU -C
12 du/acre
5700 Lenore Avenue
8572 -00 -9040
Commercial
SFR
0 -6 du/acre
450 E. Live Oak Avenue
8572 - 00-1028
Mixed Use
MF
C/n
24 du/acre
521 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0016
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
511 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0052
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
501 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0013
Mixed Use
MF
(C/MF
24 du/acre
435 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0012
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
417 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0053
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
510 E Sandra Avenue
5790 -03 -0033
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2517 S. 6 A,Avenue
5790 -03 -0020
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2521 S. 6` Avenue
5790 -03 -0019
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2610 S. 2" Avenue
5790 -02 -7029
Commercial
MF
24 du/acre
2635 Louise Avenue
5789 32 -8013
Commercial
SFR 0 -6 du/ac
(Front)
Commercial Rear
50 Las Tunas Drive
5788 - 02-1011
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
46 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1016
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
82 Las Tunas Drive
5788 - 024017
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
102 Las Tunas Drive
5788 - 024003
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
108 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1012
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
120 -124 Las Tunas Dr and
5788 -02 -1001
Commercial
Commercial
123 -125 W. Live Oak Avenue
Mixed -Use
132 -142 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -2007
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
114 Las Tunas
5788 -02 -1018
Commercial Commercial
Mixed -Use
9
6456
Baldwin Corridor
Downtown Corridor
"Address � .'�
Property
Enshng General;
Proposed General
Address F
Assessor. Numtier
Plan
,-
674 W. Camino Real
5785 -00 -1095
SFR
MF
201 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6022
0 -6 du/acre
12 du/acre
9974 Las Tunas Drive (south
8587 -03 -3019
Commercial
Commercial
p ortion)
5773 -01 -6024 .
MF 24 du/acre
556 Las Tunas Drive
8586 -00 -1027
SFR
Commercial
217 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6026
0 -6 du/acre
529 Las Tunas Drive
5787 -02 -4021
SFR
Commercial
237 California St.
5773 -01 -6028
0 -6 du/acre
Downtown Corridor
"Address � .'�
Property, °'
AssessoiNnmb`er-
EAsting General
n "Pla
Proposed General
n ' -
,119 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6020
MF
MF
125 S. 3r Ave.
5773 -01 -6021
12 du /acre
24 du/acre
201 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6022
207 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6023
211 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6024 .
215 S. 3` Ave.
5773 -01 -6025
217 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6026
221 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6027
237 California St.
5773 -01 -6028
204 S. 2" Ave,
5773 -01 -6035
212 Bonita St.
5773 -01 -6036
200S.2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6037
124S.2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6038
120S.2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6039
205 California St.
5773 -01 -6043
225 -227 California St.
5773 -01 -6050
298S.2 nI Ave.
5773 -01 -6155
219 -223 California St.
5773 -01 -6031
L-J
i
•
7 - 6456
H
6456
Property
�xrsting General
Proposed General
Address '
Asie996i, a'umla6i
I
an -
200 S. 3` Ave.
5773 -01 -6019
MF
MF
206 S. 3" Ave.
5773 -01 -6018
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
212 S. 3.d Ave.
5773 -01 -6017
216 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6016
220 S. P Ave.
5773 -01 -6083
315 California St.
5773 -01 -6066
319 California St.
5773 -01 -6091
'327 California St.
5773 -01 -6118
337 California St.
5773 -01 -6098
347 California St.
5773 -01 -6142
415 California St.
5773 -01 -6072
Rear of 415 California St.
5773 -01 -6071
417 California St.
5773 -01 -6125
211 -213 S. 5' Ave.
5773 -01 -6107
419 California St.
5773 -01 -6005
425 California St.
5773 -01 -6078
427 California St/
5773 -01 -6111
215 S. 5" Ave.
5773 -01 -6002
302 S. 2 Ave.
5779 -00 -4029
MF
MF
216 California St.
5779- 004043
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
226 California St.
5779- 004004
230 California St.
5779 -004005
306 California St.
5779 -00 -5001
MF
MF
314 California St.
5779 -00 -5002
12 du/acre
24 du /acre
320 California St.
5779 -00 -5101
334 California St.
5779 -00 -5060
402 California St.
5779 -00 -5043
310.422 California St.
5779 -00 -5080
311 S. 5" Ave.
5779 -00 -5011
317 S. 5'" Ave.
5779 -00 -5012
54 Alta St.
5773 -01 -8017
MF 24 du /ac
Commercial
113 California St. (parking lot
5773 -02 -2004
MF -24 du/ac
Commercial
115 California St. (parking lot
5773 -02 -0005
MF -24 du/ac
Commercial
116 Alta St. (parking lot.
5773 -01 -7032
1 MF -24 du/ac
Commercial
H
6456
Colorado Place Corridor
Foothill/First Avenue Corridor
•Property
, msti enerate;
Proposeii General
Add`reas.::"
AssessorNumber
an :
Plan
226, 240, 250, 251, 287
5775 -01 -1016
Commercial
MF 24 du/acre
Colorado Blvd (Church)
5771 -03 -1020
0 -6 du/acre
275 Colorado Pl. School
5775 -01 -1002
Commercial
MF -24 du/acre
200 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4008
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
216 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4007
SFR
MF
222 Santa Rosa Road
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
224 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4006
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
225 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -1021
SFR
MF
0 -6 du /acre
24 du/acre
245 W. Colorado Blvd.
5775 -01 -2025
SFR
MF
International Church
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
Foothill/First Avenue Corridor
i
F - I
L A
•
-9- 6456
Property
Existing General"
Proposed General
Address.
Assessor Number`
Plan _ "
plan , "i-
333-341 E. Foothill Blvd.
5771 -03 -1003
SFR
Commercial
1001 W. Foothill Blvd.
5771 -03 -1020
0 -6 du/acre
5771 -03 -1021
1115 Highland Oaks Drive
5771 -02 -0019
SFR
MF
0-4 du/acre
24 du/acre
67 E. Floral Ave.
5772 -00 -2015
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
12 du/acre
1001 N. 1 5 'Ave.
5772 -00 -1005
Commercial
MF
12 du/acre
1009 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -1004
Commercial
MF
12 du/acre
805 N. First
5772 -00 -6030
MF
MF
International Church
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
vacant parcel
701 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -6033
MF
MF
705 N. 1" Ave.
24 du /acre
12 du/acre
711 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -6018
715 N. 1 3 ` Ave.
5772 -00 -6034
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
721 N. 1" Ave.
5772 -00 -6022
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
723 N. 1 5 ` Ave.
5772 -00 -6023
MF
MF
24 du /acre
12 du/acre
805 N. l Ave.
5772 -00 -5001
MF
MF
24 du /acre
12 du/acre
i
F - I
L A
•
-9- 6456
F_j
Marendale / Ontare Subdivision
0
Ad "dress, , .
Property ;;
Exrstrug General
Proposed General
Address Flsseseoi
-1 umber;
Rlan -,
iPlan
1111 Valencia Ave.
5771 -02 -9026
Commercial
SFR
15 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2003
0 -6 du/acre
905 N. V Ave.
5772 -00 -3001
SFR
MF
60 E. Floral Ave.
5772 -00 -3002
0 -6 du/acre
12 du/acre
1112 Highland Oaks Drive
5771 -02 -1009
Commercial
SFR
- single-family dwelling
5771 -01 -2006
0 -6 du/ac
Marendale / Ontare Subdivision
0
Ad "dress, , .
Property
Assessor °Number
Existing General
Plan- . `.
4 Proposed.General
Plan
3 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2001
SFR
SFR
9 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2002
0 -4 du /acre
0 -6 du/acre
15 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2003
12 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2004
20 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2010
1536 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2005
1528 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2006
1520 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2007
1521 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2009
1535 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2011
1541 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2012
1548 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2013
1542 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2014
1536 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2015
1530 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2016
1524 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2017
1520 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2018
5 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2008
35 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2019
51 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2020
57 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2021
65 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2022
75 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2023
85 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2024
94 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3009
88 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3010
82 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3011
74 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3900
64 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3013
56 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3014
-10-
6456
' Address`,
Property _ '.
Assessor NumUe "r,`
Ex�sfing Generate
Ylan . ,
Proposed General
flan
4 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4015
SFR
SFR
10 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4014
0 -4 du/acre
0 -6 du/acre
16 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4013
22 Ontare Road
5771- 014012
30 Ontare Road
5771- 014011
36 Ontare Road
5771 - 0111010
44 Ontare Road
5771 - 014009
50 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3015
1537 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3008
SFR
SFR
1529 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3007
0 -4 du/acre
0 -6 du/acre
1523 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3006
1517 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3005
1509 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3004
1503 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3003
1501 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3002
LA Co Metropolitan
5771 -01 -3900
0
n
U
-11- 6456
• ORDINANCE NO. 2203
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REZONING CERTAIN
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY, ZONE CHANGE CASE
Z -04 -003
WHEREAS, certain zone changes were initiated by the Development
Services Department to rezone the properties set forth in attached Exhibit A;
Community Development Division Case No. Z -04 -003; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on said matter including the related General Plan
amendments, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission continued its
consideration until November 9, 2004 at which time the Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council approval of the zone changes proposed in Z -04-
003; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on
said zone changes and related General Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed
and considered:
11
I . All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the
Community Development Division of the Development Services Department to the •
City Council;
2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing and deliberations
regarding General Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 and zone change Z -04 -003;
3. All information and material and documentation presented as part of
the public testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing on September 14,
2004 and the Commission's deliberation on November 9, 2004, including the staff
report, and the environmental documents (including the Negative Declaration); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration for Zone
Change Z -04 -003 and General Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 at its meeting of •
January 18, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the
findings set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council finds:
0
-2- 2203
1. That State law requires that the general plan and the zoning in general law
cities be consistent. Although the City of Arcadia is a Charter City and not subject
to this requirement, in principle this dictum is encouraged in charter cities as well.
The Development Services Department completed a citywide study identifying
properties where the general plan and zoning designations were inconsistent.
Development Services Department staff reviewed each property, identifying the
existing use(s), surrounding uses, the general plan designation and the zoning and
made suggestions on changes either to the general plan designation, the zoning
designation or in some cases both. The recommended changes are a result of this
study and will bring the City's general plan and zoning into consistency with one
another.
2. That approval of Zone Change Z -04 -003 will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in applicable
zones or vicinity.
3. That the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the
environmental checklist form are appropriate; that a Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project which adequately addresses all potential environmental
impacts; that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that this project
f1
l_J
-3- 2203
will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves zone
change Z -04 -003 with respect to those certain properties described in attached
Exhibit A.
Section 5 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said
City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
Passed, approved and adopted this
day of
, 2005.
9
0
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. () . bto t'
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
-4- 2203
0
EXHIBIT A
Live Oak Corridor
!'
Pr a use sor
F. Existrng K'
Pr
Address"
'�lY>iinber
h
IJOAM ltane`°E :k:
..._! Y . .. , .',
650 W. Huntington Drive
5778 -00 -1135
C -0
R -3
2619 Greenfield Avenue
5789 -02 -1014
C -O & D
R -3
5700 Lenore Avenue
8572 -00 -9040
PR -2
R -1
225 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -02 -7001
R -3
C -1
2635 Louise Avenue
5789 -02 -8013
PR -1
R -1 (F)
653 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -2026
R -1
C -O R
2607 S. Santa Anita Ave.
5788 -02 -0029
1 R -2
R -1
Baldwin Corridor
n
U
-5-
2203
Proper Assessor:
Existrng
proposed
Address"
'�lY>iinber
..._! Y . .. , .',
650 W. Huntington Drive
5778 -00 -1135
C -0
R -3
855 S. Baldwin Ave.
5783 -01 -3032
PR -3
C -2
rear portion
661 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -2005
PR -3
C -2
655 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -2006
653 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -2026
PR -3
R -3
Rear portion of the following:
PR -3
C -2
1003 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1025
1011 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1026
720 Fairview Avenue
5783 -01 -1027
1015 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1028
1025 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1029
1027 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1030
1035 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -01 -1031
1107 S. Baldwin Avenue
5783 -00 -8045
PR -3
C -2
rear Portion
1010 S. Baldwin Avenue
5778 -00 -6009
C -2 (f)
C -2 (f)
( rear portion)
PR -3 (r )
C -2 (r
660 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -6006
PR -3
C -2
652 Fairview Avenue
5778 -00 -6005
R -3
C -2
612 W. Duarte Road
5784 -00 -3041
PR -1
C -O
( southerly portion of lot
661 W. Camino Real
5784 -00 -1050
R -2
R -1
City of Arcadia lot
5784 -00 -1903
1425 Melanie Lane
5784 -00 -1046
1429 Melanie Lane
5784 -00 -1047
2633 S. Baldwin Avenue
8587 -03 -2019
PR -3
C -2
N. portion
C -2
9974 Las Tunas Drive
8587 -03 -3019
C -2
C -2
( sou th er l y ortion of lot
S. portion of parcel
PR -3
-5-
2203
Downtown Corridor
PropertyAssessor +
Extsttng
r $Pro osed
�A
s
«
Pin „y
LonirE
t „Address.!
�•... , 'Nnnpber
on rn x .'.:
�.`=
556 Las Tunas Drive
8586 -00 -1027
PR -1
C -2
2728 S. Baldwin Avenue
8586 -00 -1026
C -2 & D
R -1
next door to B Lots)
5773 -01 -3007
529 Las Tunas Drive
5787 -02 -4021
PR -1
C -0
Downtown Corridor
11
to
-6- 2203
Propert'Assessor "i
P Existing
Troposed,i
Ad`dres's
Nurimber.. ,
.` . Zomn
,.. ,.
Zomn
15 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3004
PR -3
R -3
17 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3005
21 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3006
25 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3007
29 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3008
33 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3009
37 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3037
41 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3011
45 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3012
51 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3013
55 Alta Street
5773 -01 -3014
PR -3
CBD
54 Alta Street
5773 -01 -8017
PR -3
CBD
120 Alta Street (SFR )
5773 -01 -7030
PR -3
R -3
118 Alta Street (SFR )
5773 -01 -7031
PR -3
R -3
116 Alta St. ( lot. )
5773 -01 -7032
PR -3
CBD
139 Alta St. (Condo)
5773 -01 -4050
PR -3
R -3
119 Alta St. (parking lot)
5773 -01 -4912
PR -3
R -3
121 Alta St. (parking lot)
5773 -01 -4913
125 Alta St. (parking lot
5773 -01 -4005
PR -3
R -3
113 California Street
5773 -02 -0004
PR -3
CBD .
(p arking lot
115 California Street
5773 -02 -0005
PR -3
CBD
(p arking lot
117 California Street
5773-02 -0006
PR -3
R -3
( apartments )
53 Bonita Street
5773 -01 -8053
PR -3
R -3
113 Bonita Street
5773 -01 -7005
PR -3
R -3
119 Bonita Street
5773 -01 -7006
118 Fano Street
5779 -00 -9032
PR -3
R -3
116 Fano Street
5779 -00 -9033
112 Alice Street
5779 -01 -6028
PR -3
R -3
118 Alice Street
5779 -01 -6026
208 E. Duarte Road
5781 -01 -9041
R -2
C-1
215 Ellen Way
5781 -01 -9046
R -2
R -1
8 E. Duarte Road
5781 -00 -5002
C -2 and PR -1
2
40 E. Duarte Road
5781 -00 -5003
C -2
L±-2
56 E. Duarte Road
5781 -00 -5020
PR -1
11
to
-6- 2203
0
Colorado Place Corridor
225 Colorado Pl. (Motel 6 5775 -01 -1031 R -3 c -Z
201 Colorado Place (California 5775 -01 -1032 R -3 C-O
Foothill /First Avenue Corridor
0
r
Assssor''+
Property e
y
Existing, - r
Proposed
.I 1L'.t
�,.
- 3i0n
.Nnmbex
1111 Valencia Avenue
5771 -02 -9026
PR -1
R -1
1110 Valencia Avenue
5771 -03 -1006
PR -1
R -1
109 E. Colorado Blvd.
5773 -00 -3033
C -M
C -2
1112 Highland Oaks Drive
5771 -02 -1009
PR -3
R -1
single-family dwelling (1946)
-7-
2203
3. PUBLIC HEARIN GP 2004 -001 and ZC 2004-003
Consideration of general plan amendments and zone changes to various properties providing
consistency between the City's General Plan and Zoning Map.
The staff report was presented.
In response to a question by Commissioner Olson, Ms. Butler indicated that if the properties with
the PR -1 zone were to be changed, the difference would be that any potential building could be
constructed closer to the property line. Code requires various setback and angle requirements as
well as building envelope and window locations for commercial buildings adjacent to residential.
Buildings could potentially be closer to the property line. She explained that any commercial
building over 20,000 square feet would require a conditional use permit when located adjacent to
residential property. Also, any development would be subject to architectural design review.
There are no provisions to allow modifications for a building to encroach into a PR -1 zone.
Chairman Pro Tem Lucas though that they should discuss each different area one at a time.
The public hearing was opened.
No one spoke regarding the Live Oak Corridor, Baldwin Corridor 4B, Colorado Corridor and
Marendale Subdivision.
Baldwin Corridor, Section 4A,
Jack Schmidz, 1153 Altura Tern, said that his property backs up to Coco's restaurant. The parking
overlay was placed there to keep any commercial building from encroaching but changing the
zoning on this could potentially bring commercial buildings closer to the residential uses. The
parking overlay gave the residents the maximum protection while the zone change would not.
Their property values have increased and he did not want to see a commercial building 20' from
his backyard. He wanted the property to maintain the current zoning and said that they would
object to any change that could encourage a commercial building being closer to their homes.
Baldwin Corridor Section 4B including the Property at 650 W. Huntington Dr.
Annick Dolonhower, 634 W. Huntington, did not want to change the zoning and feared that would
increase the density. Currently, there is a parking problem in the area and allowing a multiple -
family use at 650 W. Huntington Dr. would exacerbate the parking problem in the area. There are
many older units in this area that do not have ample parking so the parking overflows onto
Huntington. In addition, a multiple - family use would encourage rodents due to they type of waste,
but keeping it as an office use would not because the waste is mostly paper.
Downtown Corridor
Julia Sun, 217 S. Third Ave., objected to any change in the General Plan density along California,
Second Ave., Third Ave. and Bonita area because of the potential increase in traffic and noise. to
Arcadia City Planning Commission 1 9/1414
i s They have approached the City Council and asked that something be done regarding the growth of
the area and the increased density and population.
Foothill and First Corridor
Jim Wright, 250 E Sycamore, said that they moved to this home due to the ambiance. Their home
is private and surrounded by other homes. They received this notice 3 -weeks ago and are
concerned about any zone change that would disrupt their privacy and peace. He did not want
Shakey's torn down for a Walgreen's, which appears to be a very tall building that would be
constructed very close to the property line. Currently, there is a parking lot behind the building but
the plans for Walgreen's showed a loading dock in that same area as well as a drive- through
window. They would have never purchased this property had they thought this was possible.
He cited the following concerns, which included fear for his family's safety and security from
vandalism and vagrants, that are always seen in the alley behind Ralph's. The buildings would be
too close to their properties and would increase noise and ruin their privacy and view from their
backyards. He felt that there would be constant noise from the parking lot traffic, radios from cars
parked in the rear lot, the existence and location of a drive- through window, which would force
traffic to the rear parking lot, the location of the loading dock and the constant delivery of goods,
the loitering of people in the rear parking lot.
Michael Ruyl, 307 E. Foothill Blvd., concurred with Mr. Wright. He objected to any change and
said that a portion of his property is zoned PR -1 and if this was approved then his property would
be zoned half residential and half commercial.
Ms. Butler checked and said that Mr. Ruyl's property is zoned residential. She noted that none of
his property is within the "P" overlay zone.
Ed Litty, 236 E. Sycamore, agreed with comments made by his neighbors. He admired how this
was presented to the Planning Commission. He thought this change would devaluate their
property values and he will be impacted. He was opposed to this change.
No one else spoke regarding this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baderian
Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 911414
Commissioner Hsu commended staff on a thorough report. He was in agreement with all of the
recommended changes with the exception of the parking overlay zone changes.
Commissioner Olson did not want to change the parking overlay zone unless there is a good reason
for it.
Ms. Butler remarked in regard to the properties in the Downtown Corridor they are zoned R -3.
Properties could be improved if they comply with code requirements. There is potential for
change in this area and they are finding that most of the time less units are being built. A brief
discussion ensued regarding the building at 650 W. Huntington Dr. and Ms. Butler briefly
explained the City Council's action on this item. She went on to say that in regard to the "P"
overlay on Foothill Blvd., Walgreen's submitted plans for architectural design review. Walgreen's
would require a conditional use permit because of the drive - through.
Commissioner Wen commended staff's work on this project and agreed with Commissioner Olson.
He was in favor of many of the proposed changes. He agreed that there should be consistency
between the General Plan `and the zoning. He asked how this would affect the schools and the
population of the City? He suggested continuing the public hearing to allow them more time to
review this.
Ms. Butler replied that the City Council met with the School Superintendent and she did not think
there would bean impact from the residential development in the City and felt the school district
could handle the change. The PR -1 zone impacts the location of any commercial building. If this
zoning is removed, commercial buildings could be constructed closer to the property line. The
main reason for this process is housekeeping and making sure that the General Plan and the zoning
are consistent with one another. She explained what could be constructed at 650 W. Huntington
Dr. if it was zoned R -3.
In answer to a question by Chairman Pro Tern Lucas, Ms. Butler said that the properties that are
inconsistent and are not being addressed tonight are City properties. These will be done at a later
date. She also explained that the proposed General Plan and Zone Change applications will
require City Council approval and will be forwarded to the City Council at the same time because
they did not want to hold separate hearings for each application. If the Planning Commission
continues this discussion, new notices will not be mailed.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Olson to continue the
deliberation on the subject matter to November 9
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baderian
•
Arcadia City Plamning Commission 3 9/14/4
5. PLANNING COM)VIISSION DISCUSSION
GP 2004001 and ZC 2004 -003
Consideration of general plan amendments and zone changes to various properties providing
consistency between the City's General Plan and Zoning Map.
The staff report was presented.
Live Oak Corridor
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the Live
Oak Corridor as presented.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Baldwin Corridor
MOTION:
0 It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to approve the
Baldwin Corridor as presented and that staff's revised recommendations be approved for the
Baldwin Corridor as well as all changes as previously recommended and leaving the existing
zoning at Michilinda and Colorado.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Downtown Corridor
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to approve the
Downtown Corridor as presented
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
40
1 11/)14
Arcadia City Ple®ing Commission
Colorado Corridor
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the
Colorado Corridor as presented.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Foothill/First corridor
With regard to the property on Foothill, Ms. Butler stated that Walgreen's could be moved closer to
the street, and the parking placed behind the building. She went on to say that the properties along
Valencia are developed with single- family homes. Any use encroaching into the PR zoned area would
need a zone change. With respect to Mr. and Mrs. Noda and their property, they would be able to
develop it because the property has adequate depth. It is possible to place a building within the first
150' of the property and locate the parking to the rear. She noted that this zone allows a 3 -story
building or one that is up to 40' in height. She indicated that the City would not benefit from either
situation. These are unique homes with private streets and there is not much buffer between them and
the commercial use.
Commissioner Olson preferred to have parking near the homes instead of having a building. 0
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve the
Foothill/First Corridor as presented.
Chairman Baderian complimented staff for listening to the concerns of the neighbors and coming up
with a solution that addresses all issues.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Marendale Subdivision
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by. Commissioner Olson to approve the
Marendale Subdivision as presented.
s
Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 11/9/4
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
Ms. Butler indicated that the General Plan application requires a resolution. Both applications will go
to the City Council at the same time and will not be separated. She anticipated having the Resolution
before the Planning Commission at their first meeting in December and hearings being scheduled in
January before the City Council.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to recommend
approval of the General Plan and Zone Change amendments to various properties providing
consistency between the City's General Plan and Zoning Map direct staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
•
Arcadia City Plmming Commission 3 11/9/4
NOV 0 3 2004
Neighborhood Petition
Neighborhood Petition opposed to change the zoning of an
approximate 155.5 foot wide strip of property at the rear portion of
245 and 253 E. Foothill Blvd. from PR -1 /Second One - Family
Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 /General
Commercial.
We the person(s) by signing this petition are opposed to any
zone change and would like to keep the above mention properties
zoned as is: a PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile
Parking Overlay. We feel this is the best interest for the entire •
neighborhood.
Print Name: Signature: Address:
X , l J
d/ 57 ` G 4f L "li'lc zi' % klnf f : z 1C �:, .y C
l j
F3 L
10/18/04
r�
Print Name:
40 11 _ � �„
ZZ-
cl
Nov 0 31004
Address:
X2 t. you A e ,
•
itl,
C, L,
0
��An.✓Jr /fun..
Print Name: Si re: Address: NOV 0 3 2094
W01, T
Zte E Sy A-VC
julh �00 *t
,�o C
I ePJ
S
'-D
14,
1 5 �
,
z - 77 7
4-:�
2
julh �00 *t
,�o C
I ePJ
S
• Print Name:
M lit l �
Signature:
NDV Q 3 1D04
Address:
A r �,11
( I1_I`
G �
0
Print Name:
IV 3f l llrlson
Signature:
Address:
1 1� F Sc J t
S
Np y D 3 2DD4
Cei
0
PETITION AGAINST THE ZONIlrG CHANGE
AT 1150 W. COLORADO STREET
• We the residents of the Lower Rancho subdivision, including the residents of Altura Road and Altura
Terrace, are against the proposed zoning change at 1150 W. Colorado Street from PR -1 & D to C -1.
Current PR -1 & D zoning allows only parldng spaces. This gives us a reasonable "cushion" between
our neighborhood and residences and the C -1 zoning which also exists at 1150 W. Colorado Street.
The proposed zoning change would allow commercial structures to be built within this "cushion"
which would not give us adequate protection and privacy. The PR -1 & D zoning was put in place to
give the homeowners reasonable protection and privacy. We would like this zoning of PR -1 & D to
remain the same. We, as homeowners, need protection from the encroachment of possible commercial
development. Such encroachment would decrease our property values, decrease security and limit the
enjoyment of our property.
4
4
Page 13
C V&h J l f ....•. " -) -,
- 01-M
S.27
�Ev 7:� J td 7�e
a 4,
—C
- 3 , d 1 (4
0
Page 14
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
0 0 4 0 011 5 13
Notice is hereby given that THE CITY OF ARCADIA has completed an
Initial Study for the proposed changes in land use and zoning designations for selected properties
within the City to provide consistency between the City of Arcadia's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project
may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's
Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has
therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent
judgment of the City. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at
City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, and are available for public review. Comments
will be received until September 14, 2004. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must
submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible
Agencies are also requested.
At its meeting on September 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the evening the Planning
Commission will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. If the Planning
Commission finds, that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may
adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the Planning Commission may proceed to
consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Date Received��
for Filing: Donna L. Butler
Staff
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Community Development Administrator
Title
OCT 0 4 2004 FILED
AUG g 0 20 4
. �ta$g apt w �s am
TM NOTICE WAS POSl'I�D CONNY B. McG CLERK
� AUG 3 0 20�
3 Q ZDOri I BAR DEPUTY
AE�LSTRAR- R EWRDERJCOUNTYCLERK BAKER
EFQAFORMS/NOTOFINTENT 08/24/04
4i
File No.: GP /04 -01 and Z -04 -03
CITY OF ARCADIA •
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
,�RPOgATB��o' ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Name, if any, and a brief description of the project:
Proposed General Plan land use changes and Zone Change to properties listed on the attached sheet
to provide consistency between the City of Arcadia's General Plan and Zoning Map
B. Location of Project:
See attached exhibit A
C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project:
X A. City of Arcadia
1�2
Other (Private)
(1) Name
(2) Address_
The Planning Commission ❑ City Council ❑, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project •
and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Planning
Commission /City Council, including the recommendaiton of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare
that the proposed project will not have a siginificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the
reasons supporting the Planning Commission's /City Council's findings are as follows:
The City Council ❑ Planning Commission ❑, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its
independent judgement.- A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at:
Community Development Division
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574 -5423
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record of
proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declartion are as follows:
Community Development Division
City o
240 W. H
Arcadia,
(626)
Date:
Date Received for
Form "E"
RESOLUTION NO. 6456
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
LAND USE MAP OF THE ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, a certain General Plan amendment was initiated by the
Development Services Department to amend the General Plan Land Use
Designations for certain properties throughout the City as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A, Community Development Division Case No. GP 04 -001; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on said matter, at which time all interested persons were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission continued its
consideration until November 9, 2004, at which time the Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan changes proposed in
GP 2004 -001; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on
said General Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed
and considered:
-1- 1 6456
1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the
Community Development Division of the Development Services Department to
the City Council;
2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing and deliberations
regarding General Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 and zone change ZC 04 -003;
3. All information and material and documentation presented as part of
the public testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing on September 14, .
2004 and the Commission's deliberation on November 9, 2004, including the staff
report, and the environmental documents (including the Negative Declaration);
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration for General
Plan Amendment GP 04 -001 at its meeting of January 18, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the
findings set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council finds:
-2- 6456
1. That State law requires that the general plan and the zoning in general law
cities be consistent. Although the City of Arcadia is a Charter City and not subject
to this requirement, in principle this dictum is encouraged in charter cities as well.
The Development Services Department completed a citywide study identifying
properties where the General Plan and zoning designations were inconsistent.
Development Services Department staff reviewed each property, identifying the
existing use(s), surrounding uses, the General Plan designation and the zoning and
made suggestions on changes either to the General Plan designation, the zoning
designation or in some cases both. The recommended changes are a result of this
study and will bring the City's General Plan and zoning into consistency with one
another.
2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 004 -001 will not be
detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in applicable zones or vicinity
3. That the granting of General Plan Amendment 04 -001 will not have a
significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
approved for the proposed General Plan amendments and related zone changes.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the City Council approves the
General Plan Changes as set forth in attached Exhibit A.
-3- 6456
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this .18th of January, 2005,
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
JAMES He BARRO
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
6t, n �,,, R
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
-4- 1 1 6456
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, he certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6456 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 January, 2005 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
I S/ JAMES ji S Am. RK S.
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
F
EXHIBIT A
Live Oak Corridor
A yk, , ii
R
e
174-180 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1001
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/l)
170-172 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1026
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/I)
166 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1004
Commercial
Mixed Use
164 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1005
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU
158 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1006
Commercial
Mixed Use
154 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-00-1007
Commercial
Mixed Use
-C/I)
146-148 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-0001
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/ r)
142-144 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-0013
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU
119 W. Live Oak Avenue
5788-02-1003
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU
86 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-3044
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/1)
84 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-3045
Commercial
Mixed Use
8573-01-3046
(MU-C/
80 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-3047
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/
74 W. Live oak Avenue
8573-01-3048
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/ l)
W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-5001
Commercial
Mixed Use
8573-01-5002
(MU -C/l)
8573-01-5003
78 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-5023
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MTJ-C/I)
40 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-9001
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/
36 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-9002
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/1)
28 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-9003
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/l)
22 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-01-9004
Commercial
Mixed Use
(MU-C/I)
16 W. Live Oak Avenue
8573-02-0056
Commercial
Mixed Use
12 W. Live Oak Avenue
(MU-C/I)
2619 Greenfield Avenue
5789-02-1014
SFR
MY
0-6 du/acre
24 du/acre
-5- 6456
-6- 6456
`
r� e 8
LL�eP,t,y
n
i �l" '��Pi
o �osEd ene�
N .
�+.�
w
� ��
5705 Lenore Avenue
8572 -00 -1027
Mixed Use
MF
-C
12 du/acre
5700 Lenore Avenue
8572 -00 -9040
Commercial
SFR
0 -6 du/acre
450 E. Live Oak Avenue
8572 -00 -1028
Mixed Use
MF
C
24 du/acre
521 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0016
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
511 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0052
Mixed Use
MF
( CNM
24 du/acre
501 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0013
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
435 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0012
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
417 E. Live Oak Avenue
5790 -03 -0053
Mixed Use
MF
C/MF
24 du/acre
510 E Sandra Avenue
5790 -03 -0033
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2517 S. 6 Avenue
5790 -03 -0020
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2521 S. 6 Avenue
5790 -03 -0019
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
2610 S. 2 Avenue
5790 -02 -7029
Commercial
MF
24 du/acre
2635 Louise Avenue
5789 -02 -8013
Commercial
SFR 0 -6 du/ac
(Front)
Commercial (Rear
50 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 =1011
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
46 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1016
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
82 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1017
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
102 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1003
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
108 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -1012
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
120 -124 Las Tunas Dr and
5788 -02 -1001
Commercial
Commercial
123-125 W. Live Oak Avenue
j
Mixed -Use
132 -142 Las Tunas Drive
5788 -02 -2007
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
114 Las Tunas
5788 -02 -1018
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed -Use
-6- 6456
Baldwin Corridor
ke." j'a L`Y IA'\ 3' 41.,1 M ; \ v
t n r ,ft�� ,
x t°
' A es Ufa �°
650 W. Huntington Drive
aMY' [W. A' En
4 r pro 'e� x
chi Lr6` n
¢Ap PAR MIUMbera
5778 -00 -1135
a.� A " ➢5: J 3'A ;
EY13t g' feral „
'rot. s ya,SiB
MF 24 /6/acre
jf N tlUA'11 7WY W.YT'L f k j'
Propob Genoral
i': y.d
su F� u'r; a C,
Commercial
674 W. Camino Real
5785 -00 -1095
. SFR
MF
119 S. P Ave.
5773 -01 -6020
0-6 du/acre
12 du/acre
9974 Las Tunas Drive (south
8587 -03 -3019
Commercial
Commercial
p ortion)
5773 -01 -6022
MF 24 du/acre
556 Las Tunas Drive
8586 -00 -1027
SFR
Commercial
211 S. 3" Ave.
5773 -01 -6024
0 -6 du/acre
529 Las Tunas Drive
5787 -02 -4021
SFR
Commercial
217 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6026
0 -6 du/acre
Downtown Corridor
air r� -vat k 1 � "9u I
x� > ,a +� � 3 asr aa
t+ ^w:ervussoc+m x b t
� S ?v'
u n nx
ri�S�is ene,ah,
www L
m ro os ener
, bnA.�l Ju
119 S. P Ave.
5773 -01 -6020
MF
MF
125 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6021
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
201 S. P Ave.
5773 -01 -6022
207 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6023
211 S. 3" Ave.
5773 -01 -6024
215 S. 3 Ave.
5773 -01 -6025
217 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6026
221 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6027
237 California St.
5773 -01 -6028
204 S. 2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6035.
212 Bonita St.
5773 -01 -6036
200 S. 2" Ave.
5773 -01 -6037
124 S. 2" Ave.
5773 -01 -6038
120S.2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6039
205 California St.
5773 -01 -6043
225 -227 California St.
5773 -01 -6050
298S.2 nd Ave.
5773 -01 -6155
219 -223 California St.
5773 -01 -6031
-7- 6456
zu°YFa % 4 r , "'WM,x �4 t �!.
S?Yi�,yU]1 e�'J]IUSEIAM ene�(al,, < 1PYO a &1
�&. rtl'aaer W , tl d a P a 1� [i-
s4�'�tA4nl�e�-a� �
200 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6019
MF
MF
206 S. 3r Ave.
5773 -01 -6018
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
212 S. 3r Ave.
5773 -01 -6017
216 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6016
220 S. 3' Ave.
5773 -01 -6083
315 California St.
5773 -01 -6066
319 California St.
5773 -01 -6091
327 California St.
5773 -01 -6118
337 California St.
5773 -01 -6098
347 California St.
5773 -01 -6142
415 Califomia St.
5773 -01 -6072
Rear of 415 California St.
5773 -01 -6071
417 California St.
5773 -01 -6125
211 -213 S. 5 Ave.
5773 -01 -6107
419 Califomia St.
5773 -01 -6005
425 California St.
5773 -01 -6078
427 California St/
5773 -01 -6111
215 S. 5 Ave.
5773 -01 -6002
302S.2 d Ave.
5779 -004029
MF
MF
216 Califomia St.
5779- 00.4043
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
226 Califomia St.
5779 -00 -4004
230 California St.
5779- 004005
306 Califomia St.
5779 -00 -5001
MF
MF
314 Califomia St.
5779 -00 -5002
12 du/acre
24 du/acre
320 California St.
5779 -00 -5101
334 Califomia St.
5779 -00 -5060
402 California St.
5779 -00 -5043
310 -422 Califomia St.
5779 -00 -5080
311 S. 5 Ave.
5779 -00 -5011
317 S. 5 Ave.
5779 -00 -5012
54 Alta St.
5773 -01 -8017
MF 24 du/ac
Commercial
113 California St. (parking lot
5773 -02 -2004
MF -24 du/ac
Conmiercial
115 Califomia St. (parking lot
5773 -02 -0005
MF -24 du/ac
Commercial
116 Alta St. (parking lot.
5773 -01 -7032
MF -24 du/ac
Commercial
-8- 6456
Colorado Place Corridor
Ni >"w ei v<
'YNVA va
.vT` �'
f
a kggglek
�w S.tMx 4 N
a1 �
+1 mAw
tt +F d'
Poo ose r epe al
� rP�osed neralrs
c w �gpgyp
O 1
G
e}i.i ix
S., �l
:r °.
cF
>,
226, 240, 250, 251, 287
5775 -01 -1016
Commercial
MF 24 du/acre
Colorado Blvd (Church)
SFR
Commercial
1001 W. Foothill Blvd.
275 Colorado Pl. School
5775 -01 -1002
Commercial
MF -24 du/acre
200 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4008
SFR
MF
5771 -02 -0019
SFR
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
216 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4007
SFR
MF
222 Santa Rosa Road
SFR
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
224 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -4006
SFR
MF
5772 -00 -1005
Commercial
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
225 Santa Rosa Road
5775 -01 -1021
SFR
MF
5772 -00 -1004
Commercial
0 -6 du/acre
24 du/acre
245 W. Colorado Blvd.
5775 -01 -2025
SFR
MF
5772 -00 -6030
MF
0-6 du/acre
24 du/acre
FoothiffIrst Avenue Corridor
t {^ i�
�rS'^ a a
a ter, r
ay7Y:
J erns ^Me zssn
�E� tin �Genera�
tw l^4�i
� rP�osed neralrs
c w �gpgyp
f AO y
,r�$
y �ta. �'p
<t
333 -341 E. Foothill Blvd.
5771 -03 -1003
SFR
Commercial
1001 W. Foothill Blvd.
5771 -03 -1020
0 -6 du/acre
5771 -03 -1021
1115 Highland Oaks Drive
5771 -02 -0019
SFR
MF
0-4 du/acre
24 du/acre
67 E. Floral Ave.
5772 -00 -2015
SFR
MF
0 -6 du/acre
12 du /acre
1001 N. 1 ° `Ave.
5772 -00 -1005
Commercial
MF
12 du/acre
1009 N. 1 "Ave.
5772 -00 -1004
Commercial
MF
12 du/acre
805 N. First
5772 -00 -6030
MF
MF
International Church
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
vacant parcel
701 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -6033
MF
MF
705 N. I" Ave.
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
711 N. 1" Ave.
5772 -00 -6018
715 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -6034
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
721 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -6022
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
723 N. 1" Ave.
5772 -00 -6023
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
805 N. I" Ave.
5772 -00 -5001
MF
MF
24 du/acre
12 du/acre
-9- 6456
Marendale /Ontare Subdivision
Y Y5 k. Y lV lt =Y YYY M"
' ' 3t1 "x rosTi G a la, ��p sed Cie el
Ad y d� 2� ..R -,.. �'iw1� lY,b ° k�JT�,�fi
.3 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2001
SFR
SFR
9 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2002
0-4 du/acre
0 -6 du/acre
15 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2003
12 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2004
20 Yorkshire Dr.
5771 -01 -2010
1536 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2005
1528 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2006
1520 N. Santa Anita Ave.
5771 -01 -2007
1521 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2009
1535 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2011
1541 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2012
1548 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2013
1542 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2014
1536 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2015
1530 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2016
1524 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2017
1520 Marendale Lane
5771 -01 -2018
5 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2008
35 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2019
51 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2020,
57 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2021
65 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2022
75 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2023,
85 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -2024
94 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3009
88 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3010
82 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3011
74 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3900
64 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3013
56 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3014.
-10- 6456
-11- 6456
� + g
N xis Ce a
5 t4AL` A3.+
j v .,axu uve rl
aP PP se eras
'��Cf Tom'
,�P1A?ltla.r
4 Ontare Road
5771- 014015
SFR
SFR
10 Ontare Road
5771- 014014
04 du/acre
0 -6 du/acre
16 Ontare Road
5771- 014013
22 Ontare Road
5771- 014012
30 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4011
36 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4010
44 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -4009
50 Ontare Road
5771 -01 -3015
1537 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3008
SFR
SFR
1529 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3007
04 du/acre
0 -6 du/acre
1523 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3006
1517 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3005
1509 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3004
1503 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3003
1501 Highland Oaks Dr
5771 -01 -3002
LA Co Metropolitan
5771 -01 -3900
-11- 6456
1�
U"
e.
STAFF REPORT
Ca �� r aaity of L
Police Department
DATE: January 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: David H. Hinig, Chief of Police 4/
By: Nancy Chik, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6455 authorizing the Arcadia Police Department to
• Summary
This staff report explains the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program
and requests approval of Resolution 6455, which will authorize expenditure of
funds for specific law enforcement purposes.
Backaround
Each year, the State Legislature considers supplemental funding for local police
departments under the COPS program. The annual decision to fund the COPS
program is based upon budget priorities and available funds. Although the
program has been funded the past eight years, the COPS program funding
continues on a year -to -year basis.
The intent of the COPS program is to enable local police agencies to enhance
public safety by purchasing equipment and /or services otherwise unavailable to
them through their respective budgets.
The COPS program distributes State funds to local cities on a per capita basis.
Recipient cities are required to deposit the State funds in a local Supplemental
Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) to be expended only for equipment
and services requested by the chief of police and approved by the City Council.
•
EXHIBIT "A"
Recommendation: Adopt
Each year, the 'police chief submits a list of the items and/or services to be .
expended with COPS -SLESF funds. The City Council reviews and approves the
expenditures. The State has placed the following limitations on the funds:
1. They must be used for front line police services in
accordance with a plan submitted by the chief of police;
2. Their use must not supplant what has been or should be
general fund expenditures, and;
3. The spending plan must be submitted to the State for audit
purposes.
Discussion
In November, we received $100,000 in COPS -SLESF funds, and by the end of
December 31, 2004, we will have a balance of $123,284. The timing of the State
fund allocation coincides with our mid -year budget; therefore, the new funds
received will'be integrated with our current account balance. Even though there
is not enough money to fund our positions requested below, the State will be
making another $100,000 allocation to the City next year, which will provide
enough funds to pay for the salaries and benefits.
We propose to use the grant to fund the following positions:
1. Continue the existing Crime Analyst position ...... ........................$89,000
2. Continue the existing Court Liaison position ........ ......:................$48,000
Total ......................................... - ............. - ............................... $137,000
Crime Analyst Position With Council approval in 1997, the Department created
a Crime Analysis Unit with COPS -SLESF funds. Since that time, the position has
proven itself to be highly effective in evaluating crime patterns and trends as well
as tracking criminal activities of known offenders and recidivists. The
Department proposes to continue funding the crime analyst position's salary and
benefits from the COPS -SLESF fund.
Court Liaison Position The City Council, in the 1997 COPS funding, also
authorized the court liaison officer position. The Department staffs the position
with a non -sworn Community Service Officer (CSO) and proposes to continue
funding the position's salary and benefits from the COPS -SLESF fund.
This position is responsible for coordinating the filing of criminal cases with the
District Attorney's Office, monitoring the status of cases, and ensuring that
dispositions of cases are properly recorded for reporting to the Department of
Justice. The liaison position is critical because it frees police detectives to
dedicate their time to case investigation and follow -up. Without a court liaison
officer, detectives would have to spend valuable hours filing cases, tracking
dispositions, and the overall effectiveness of the Investigations Bureau would be •
diminished.
Fiscal Impact
None. These expenditures have no impact upon the City's General Fund.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 6455 to use funds allocated from the Citizens' Option
for Public Safety - Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund (COPS- SLESF) for
the purpose of front line police services.
Attachment: Resolution No. 6455
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 6455
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT TO USE FUNDS
ALLOCATED FROM THE CITIZENS' OPTION FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY- SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCE-
MENT SERVICES FUND (COPS - SLESF) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FRONT LINE POLICE SERVICES
WHEREAS, Citizens' Option for Public Safety - Supplemental Law Enforcement
Services Fund (COPS- SLESF) allocates funds from the State to the City of Arcadia for
front line police services and requires the Chief of Police of the local jurisdiction to
submit a plan for using the funds; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has submitted a written request (attached Exhibit
A) to the City Council specifying front line law enforcement programs that are necessary
to meet the needs of Arcadia, with information as to the personnel, equipment, and
programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A duly noticed public hearing was conducted on January 18, 2005,
to consider the Police Chief s request for needed front line law enforcement services.
SECTION 2. Having conducted a public hearing, the City Council authorizes the
expenditure of funds allocated from COPS -SLESF to continue funding the existing
1
crime analyst and court liaison positions.
SECTION 3. The City Council determines and finds that the requests as set forth
in Section 2 above comply with the requirements of Sections 30061 et seq. of the
Government Code.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 18th d o f January , 2005
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
■
'■
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 Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6455 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 January, 2005 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
Q
•
=°'1311'ti�a3a
DATE: January 18, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager / DevelopmeN Services Director
Prepared by: Brian Saeki, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution 6457 establishing a permit fee for door -to -door peddling,
soliciting and canvassing
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
Attached for the City Council's consideration is Resolution 6457 establishing a
processing permit fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting and canvassing.
• The City Council at its July 20, 2004 meeting adopted Ordinance 2191 amending the
Arcadia Municipal Code regarding door -to -door peddling, soliciting and canvassing.
The revised Ordinance requires that all solicitors be able to provide proper identification
at all times and prohibits any person from representing in any manner that the City has
endorsed the permit holder or products, services or causes on behalf of which they are
soliciting.
The City currently does not charge a fee for door -to -door peddling, soliciting and
canvassing. Resolution 6457 establishes a $125 fee for door -to -door peddling,
soliciting and canvassing.
This fee has been determined based on an analysis using the City's Cost Allocation
Program. The analysis in establishing the cost is attached for the City Council's review.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 6467 ESTABLISHING A PERMIT
FEE FOR DOOR -TO -DOOR PEDDLING, SOLICITING AND CANVASSING.
Approved: "=- -'A
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachment: Resolution 6457
Cost allocation analysis
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY WORKSHEET
FISCAL YEAR 2004 -2005
RVICE -
REFERENCE NO.
SOLICITATION PERMIT
DS -010.4
PRIMARY DEPARTMENT
UNIT OF SERVICE
SERVICE RECIPIENT
DEV.SVCS -BUS LIC
Permit
Business
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
Issue a solicitation permit
CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE
None
REVENUE AND COST
COMPARISON
UNIT REVENUE:
$0.00
TOTAL REVENUE:
$0
UNIT COST:
$125.80
TOTAL COST:
$1,258
UNIT PROFIT (SUBSIDY):
$(125.80)
TOTAL PROFIT (SUBSIDY):
$(1,258)
TOTAL UNITS:
10
PCT. COST RECOVERY:
0.00%
SUGGESTED FEE FOR COST RECOVERY OF:
100%
January 10, 2005
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
COST DETAIL WORKSHEET
FISCAL YEAR 2004.2005
SERVICE
REFERENCE NO.
SOLICITATION PERMIT
DS•010.4
NOTE
- TOTAL UNITS
Unit Costs are an Average of Total Units
10
DEPARTMENT POSITION TYP
UNIT TIME UNIT COST ANN. UNITS TOTAL COS
POLICE INVESTIGATIOI POLICE LIEUTENANT
0.50 $52.76 10
$528
POLICE INVESTIGATIOI POLICE OFFICER -
0.50 $34.24 10
$342
D.S. BUS.LICENSE BUSINESS LIC. OFFICER
OSO $38.80 10
$388
TYPE SUBTOTAL
1.50 $125.80
- $1,258
- - TOTALS
1.50 $125.80
$1,258
•
•
January 10, 2005
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 6457
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A
PERMIT FEE FOR DOOR -TO -DOOR PEDDLING, SOLICITING
AND CANVASSING
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia is lawfully empowered to charge a fee for
issuance of permits for door -to -door peddling, soliciting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arcadia has determined that a fee for
said services should be charged to cover the City's expenses; and
WHEREAS, based upon certain cost analyses provided to the City Council by
staff, the City Council hereby determines that the fee referenced in this Resolution does
not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is
charged.
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 adopts the following fee:
a. A fee of $125 for the issuance of a permit for door -to -door peddling,
soliciting and canvassing.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption and shall,
as of that date, repeal all prior inconsistent resolutions, or sections of resolutions.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 18 day of January 2005.
Mayor
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
ISl JAMES H, B ARR OWS
City Clerk
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�'� P 44"V
Stephen P. Deitsch
Arcadia City Attorney
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. 6457 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 January, 2005 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
MOMS H. BARROW
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
3
Z
sz��
DATE: January 18, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Administrative Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director"'
Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: 2005 -06 Statement of Objectives and Proiect Use of CDBG Funds
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) has advised the
• City that we will receive approximately $498,032 in Community Development Block
Grant Funds for fiscal year 2004 -05. Costs and project summaries must be submitted
to the County by February 2, 2004. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
projects as set forth below for fiscal year 2004 -05.
DISCUSSION
The City has been a participant in the Community Development Block Grant program
for approximately 31 years. Criteria for participation in the program has changed during
the years, becoming more restrictive in order to encourage programs that meet the
goals and objectives for use of the funds. As a result of these changes, Federal
regulations require that a maximum of 15% of a grantee's aggregate funds ($468,150)
are to be used for public service programs and a minimum of 70% of the total funds are
to be designated for projects which support activities that benefit low and moderate
income families (in previous years, the public services threshold was set at a maximum
of 25 %).
The following is a summary of this year's projects (FY 2004 -05) and the proposed
projects for FY 2005 -06:
•
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
Page 2
Housing Rehabilitation*
Congregate Meals **
Sr. Citizen Social Services **
Meals on Wheels **
Youth Program **
Administration
Total
Current Projects
Fiscal Year 2004 -05
$438,348
$ 26,663
$ 27,346
$ 5,127
$ 13,673
23,000
$534,157
Proposed Projects
Fiscal Year 2005 -06
$426,893
$ 26,016
$ 26,699
$ 4,481
$ 13,026
23,000
$520,115
* The 2005 -06 Housing Rehabilitation budget reflects $51,966 remaining from last FY.
** Public Service Program subject to only 15% of the 2005 -06 allocation.
The following is a list of current projects that are being undertaken during this fiscal
year:
Meals On Wheels - $5,127 (Public Service Program)
The funds for this .program helped offset operating expenses incurred by the
American Red Cross to deliver two meals a day to approximately 40 homebound
residents in Arcadia.
Program Administration - $23,000 (Planning /Administration)
These funds offset the cost of annual general management, oversight, and
coordination of the CDBG programs.
Youth Services Program - $13.673 (Public Service Program)
This is an ongoing program directed to help youths 18 years and under who
come from low- income families. This program sends youths to day camp, music
club, educational field trips, summer camp and may subsidize band equipment
and uniforms.
Congregate Meals For Seniors $26.663 (Public Service Program)
This is an ongoing program providing senior citizens with a nutrition program that
features hot noon -time meals, Monday through Friday at the Community Center.
is
•
•
Mayor and City Council
• January 18, 2005
Page 3
Information and Referral Program - $27,346 (Public Service Program)
This ongoing program provides senior citizens with essential information to
maintain independent living and healthy lifestyles. Specific services include:
government benefits assistance (Medicare, social security, income tax, Medi -Cal,
SSI), housing, transportation, legal assistance, in -home services, health services,
and educational opportunities.
Housinq Rehabilitation - $438,348 (Low /Mod)
This is an ongoing program assisting low /moderate income homeowners for
necessary home improvements. A maximum grant of $10,000.00 is available per
household.
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS FY 2005 -06
Due to the success of the fiscal year 2004 -05 programs, staff is recommending the
ongoing programs be continued and funded as represented in Table 1.
• Table 1
Project Name
Fiscal Year
2004 05 Pao "posetl
Pko ecfs
Meals on Wheels
$ 4,481
Program Administration
$ 23,000
Youth Services Program
$ 13,026
Congregate Meals Program
$ 26,016
Information /Referral Program
$ 26,699
Residential Housing Rehabilitation
$426,893
Total
$520,115
This is a public hearing. The City Council should open the public hearing and receive
testimony from the public as to the types of projects which the public feels should be
undertaken by the City.
•
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005 •
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
There is not a financial impact to any City funds to Implement CDBG programs.
However, staff does include CDBG program appropriations in the operating budget and
is required to seek City Council approval prior to expenditure of funds.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the allocation of funds as outlined in Table 1; or as modified by
the City Council
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandums of
Understanding, which are submitted to the County at a later date.
Approved:
TLH:CL:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
0
• �... ....e
wa•..'s.vm
==Y°S� STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
January 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct r
By: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Mana er
Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement - Update Pavement Manaaement
Program
Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam
& Associates, Inc. in the amount of $32,414 to Update Pavement
Management Program.
i��Piliil>1�
• Many state and federal funding sources for local roadway infrastructure improvements
(e.g. Proposition A, Proposition C, and Intermodal Surface Efficiency Act of 1991)
require that the City maintain an updated Pavement Management Program (PMP). The
Metropolitan Transit Authority also requires cities to update its PMP requirements for
primary/secondary streets for this fiscal year. Annually, as part of the City's PMP, one
third (113) of the City streets are re- inspected to monitor pavement conditions and
identify any changes in the pavement surface, i.e., distress type and rate or cause of
deterioration.
Staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year Professional Services
Agreement to Bucknam & Associates, Inc., with annual extensions in the amount of
$32,414 for the update of the City's Pavement Management Program.
DISCUSSION
To receive State and Federal funding, jurisdictions are required to certify that a
Pavement Management Program had been maintained when proposing to do street
repair and maintenance projects. Pavement management systems are used as a
planning tool to assist in making cost - effective decisions related to pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation. This program facilitates the planning, scheduling and
budgeting of day -to -day roadway maintenance projects, as well as serving as a long
• term planning tool that can result in improvements of the City's entire pavement
infrastructure. This system integrates detailed pavement condition data collected from
the field with advanced software technology and compiles and analyzes the data to
determine optimum repair, replacement and maintenance schedules.
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
Page 2
New surveys on pavement conditions must be collected at three (3) year intervals, and
include annual maintenance activities. Collecting and inputting this data is extremely
labor intensive, time - consuming and cost - prohibitive for staff. The firm selected for this
project is. well versed in the PMP's operation and is familiar with the data, which speeds
the process of its update. Bucknam & Associates will be responsible for supplying,
customizing and installing the necessary software applications, collecting field survey
data, inputting the data and all aspects of updating the PMP including staff training.
On December 8, 2004, request for proposals were sent to four (4)'qualified engineering
firms. Two (2) proposals were received, reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by staff in
accordance with Chapter 10 of the California Government Code, Section 4526 -4529
with the following results:
RANK FIRM LOCATION
1 Bucknam & Associates Laguna Niguel, CA
2 MACTEC Engineering Rend, NV
Staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year Professional Services
Agreement to Bucknam & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $32,414, with annual
extensions for the City's Pavement Management Program.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $36,500 are budgeted in the 2004 -05 Capital Improvement
Program for the update of the City's Pavement Management Program.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Bucknam & Associates, Inc.
in the amount of $32,414 to update the citywide pavement management
program.
2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Approved: "—=—'
William R. Kelly, City Manager
PM:GFL:MA:dw
•
u
COm Ity of 0 STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
January 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director
Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Man ger
Ken Herman, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Award — Construction Manaaement and Material Testina Services for
Santa Anita Reservoir No. 4
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into Professional
Services Agreements with Metcalf & .Eddy, Inc. for construction
management and inspection services, in the amount of $270,000, and with
Ninyo and Moore Consultants for material testing services, in the amount
• of $55,120 for services provided during the construction of the Santa Anita
Reservoir No.4.
SUMMARY
The 2003 -04 Capital Improvement Program provides for the construction of a new
reservoir to replace two (2) one million gallon reservoirs. Current staff work loads will
not allow for proper construction management and inspection services with a project of
this magnitude will require the assistance of outside professional engineering firms. To
properly manage a project of this size, construction management/inspection services
and material testing services are necessary to ensure compliance with the
specifications regarding materials and construction practices used for construction.
Requests for Proposals were solicited and distributed to three (3) firms, to perform
construction management /inspection services. On December 17, 2004 two (2) firms'
submitted proposals and one (1) firm declined. Staff has reviewed the proposals
submitted and has determined Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. is the most qualified firm to provide
construction management and inspection services for this project. Therefore, staff
recommends that a contract in the amount of $270,000 be awarded to Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc. for this project.
is
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
Page 2
On December 28, 2004 staff also received proposals to perform material testing
services during the ; construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No.4. Requests for
Proposals were solicited and distributed to three (3) firms. On December 28, 2004 all
three (3) firms submitted, proposals. Staff reviewed the proposals submitted and has
determined Ninyo and Moore Consulting as the most qualified firm to provide the work
consistent with' project specifications to provide material testing services for this project.
Therefore, staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $55,120 be awarded to
Ninyo and Moore Consulting for this project.
DISCUSSION
•
The replacement of Reservoirs No. 1 and 2 with Reservoir No. 4 is the third phase and
final phase of an overall program of facility improvements at this site. Phase 1 was
completed in 2001 and ,involved upgrading the Santa Anita Booster Pump Station.
Phase 2 was recently completed and involved the seismic rehabilitation of Santa Anita
Reservoir No. 3.
Phase 3 involves the construction of a new reservoir with a capacity of 3.5 million
gallons_(MG), replacing the two existing 1.0 MG reservoirs at this facility. The size of the
new reservoir and the ability to maximize the full storage capacity of the site was limited
by the geography of the property and is governed by its close proximity to the Sierra •
Madre earthquake fault.
In the 2003 -04 Capital Improvement Program, a budget was established for the
construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No.4, and for the inspection of work during
construction. Inspection of work for a project of this magnitude typically involves the
tasks of construction management to insure daily adherence to the contract
specifications, schedule, safety, and site management. Inspection to insure compliance
on the part of the contractor to the materials, dimensions, tolerances, and compliance
with applicable codes and standards; and material testing to confirm adherence to
specifications through laboratory and field testing, is critical in the construction of the
reservoir meet the requirements of the specifications.
Staff believes separate contracts for construction management/inspection services and
for material testing services will maintain the highest level of objectivity for those firms
supplying these services, and for the level of reporting necessary to keep City's Project
Manager properly informed.
Requests for proposals for construction management and inspection for this project
were sent to three (3) firms. Two firms submitted proposals, with the following results:
RANK FIRM
1 Metcalf and Eddy, Orange, CA
•
2 RBF Consulting, Irvine, CA
r
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
• Page 3
Staff has reviewed the information submitted and held interviews with both firms to
discuss the terms of their proposals. Staff has concluded that Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
would be,.best suited to provide the construction management and inspection services
required for this project. Staff recommends that the City Council award a professional
services agreement in the amount of $270,000 to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. for construction
management and inspection services during the construction of the Santa Anita
Reservoir NoA project.
Requests for proposals for material testing for this project were also sent to three (3)
firms with the following results:
RANK FIRM
1 Ninyo and Moore Consulting, Irvine, CA
2 Heider Engineering Services, Ontario, CA
3 Hushmand and Assoc., Orange, CA
Staff has reviewed the information submitted by all firms and measured them against
the requirements as stated in the request for proposal. Staff has concluded that Ninyo
• and Moore Consulting would be best suited to provide the material testing services
required for this project. Staff recommends that the City Council award a professional
services agreement in the amount of $55,120 to Ninyo and Moore Consulting for
material testing services during the construction of the Santa Anita Reservoir No.4
project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project on November 21, 2000,
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff did not find
substantial evidence that this project would have a significant or potentially significant
adverse effect on the environment. As a condition of the federal grant approval, the
USEPA also completed an Environmental Assessment under the National
Environmental Policy Act and did not find this project to have a significant environmental
impact. Therefore, no further action is necessary for approval of entering into a
professional services agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $5,750,000 are budgeted in the 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement
Program for construction, project management and inspection. The distribution of funds
provides $5,000,000 towards Construction and $750,000 towards Inspection, Material
• Testing and Contingencies. On January 4, 2005, City Council appropriated additional
funds in the amount of $250,000 to the project budget to support the construction
portion of work.
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a professional services agreement in the amount of $270,000.00 to
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the construction management and inspection of
the Santa Anita Reservoir No.4 project.
2. Award a professional services agreement in the amount of $55,120.00 to
Ninyo and Moore Consulting, for material testing during the construction of
the Santa Anita Reservoir No.4 project.
3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute contracts in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Approved by:
PM:GL:KH:dw
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
•
Administrative Services Department
January. 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services
A eement with Johnson & Associates for a total compensation stud
Recommendation: Approve
.. ul�f rJX,VIV4
The City of Arcadia has solicited proposals from qualified professional consultants to
conduct a comprehensive total compensation study, including a survey of selected City
benchmark classifications using the established labor markets for various employee
groups. The purpose of this study is to determine where the City stands in the regional
market for similar public sector positions.
• The City received eights proposals and interviewed three consultants. All the proposers
were qualified to complete the work; however staff is recommending the firm of Johnson
& Associates to complete this project. The flexibility and customization this firm has
indicated will be provided in their work product will best fit the City's needs at this time.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the City completed a comprehensive classification and compensation plan for
the first time in a number of years and that plan was updated in 2001 and 2003. When
establishing compensation recommendations, the plan only considered salary and did not
take into consideration benefits such as retirement programs, health insurance and leave
accruals. During labor negotiations last spring, it became apparent to staff that a total
compensation analysis would be a more accurate comparison of Arcadia's compensation
levels with other public sector labor markets.
DISCUSSION
Proposals were requested for a scope of work that includes 1) Review classification
specifications for all classes, 2) Conduct a survey of base salary and total compensation
data for selected City benchmark classifications to assess the City's compensation in
comparison to the defined market, 3) Develop salary recommendations for all
classifications based on the results of the compensation survey and an analysis of internal
•
relationships and, 4) Prepare and present preliminary and final total compensation reports •
of all findings and recommendations.
All proposers were qualified to complete the project, however Johnson & Associates
brings to the City of Arcadia the ability to design and implement creative and tailored
compensation systems and successfully study engagements involving study committees,
management staff and general employees. This firm recognizes the importance of
building a consensus among all participants.
It is anticipated this study will be completed in approximately 14 weeks. The
recommendations made in the' final report will be utilized in labor negotiations this
spring. .
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for this study will not exceed $26,000. There are sufficient appropriations
included in the 2004 -05 FY Budget to complete this project.
RECOMMENATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement
with Johnson and Associates for a total compensation study for an amount •
not to exceed $26,000.
Approved: "J
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
•
STAFF REPORT
Police Department
n
LJ
DATE: January 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: David H. Hinig, Chief of Polic
Robert P. Sanderson, Captainl
SUBJECT: Additional Appropriation for Police Department Firearms Training Range
Recommendation: Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure
Funds to complete the firearms training range project.
SUMMARY
On September 21, 2004, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a
contract with Meggitt Defense Systems Caswell (MDS Caswell) for range construction in
the amount of $433,942.66, with an additional allocation of $23,702 for engineering
review, building contingency, and GSA contract participation fees from Asset Seizure
Funds,
MDS Caswell commenced work on this project following the awarding of the contract.
In the process of constructing and installing the range equipment it was discovered that
the range building roof concrete was not sufficiently strong to hold the weight of the steel
baffle system that was to be anchored to that concrete.
A new design was developed wherein the ceiling baffling system would be anchored to
steel bridges. The cost of additional steel and installation of the bridges totals
$37, 165.00. Secondarily, it was found that a back -draft damper and door alarm sensor
also needed to be installed as part of the project. These two items totaled $2,650, thereby
bringing the cost of modifications to $39,815.00.
The Police Department previously received approval from the United States Department
of Justice to expend local "Asset Seizure Funds" to complete construction of the range.
Costs associated with this modification will also be charged to that account.
•
Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005 •
Page 2
DISCUSSION
On September 21, 2004, the City Council approved the award of a contract to MDS
Caswell to complete the police firing range at a cost of $433,942.66. An additional
allocation of $23,702 was provided for engineering review, building contingency, and
GSA contract participation fees. Costs for the project were charged to the Department's
Asset Seizure Funds.
MDS Caswell fabricated and delivered range building materials and commenced
installation of the firing range components during the last week of December 2004. In
the first week of January 2005, the installation of steel baffles was to begin. The process,
as designed, required the anchoring of 300 lb. steel baffles into the concrete roof of the
firing range thereby, allowing for their suspension from the ceiling. Ceiling baffling
deflects rifle and pistol rounds, protects the roof and fixtures, and prevents rounds from
otherwise penetrating the structure.
When the process of anchoring the baffles began, it was discovered that the concrete roof
was not sufficiently strong enough to hold the weight of the baffles. The roof of the
firing range was constructed to specifications that it be four and one -half inches thick and
made from a lightweight concrete mixture. The contractor determined that the lightweight •
concrete did not have sufficient aggregate strength to ensure that the baffles were safely
anchored in place. This became a significant concern when considering the facility's
proximity to earthquake faults.
Prior to submission of bids, MDS Caswell and their competitor, Action Target, were
provided access to the range design plans, however neither MDS Caswell nor Action
Target noted or detected that there would be a problem with the roof concrete as the
"total load bearing" specifications were met. The issue only became apparent at the time
of installation, thus modifications for the suspension system and the costs associated with
the change would have been necessary regardless of which contractor would have
undertaken the project.
As a result, MDS Caswell engineers developed a new plan to anchor the baffles. The
plan provides for the installation of steel beams acting as cross bridge support to the
existing steel support beams in the structure. The baffles are then attached to the new
support beams ensuring maximum safety.
Secondarily, the VCA group, code compliance consultants for the City, requires a back -
draft damper be installed in the exhaust unit. The existing unit is not equipped with a
back -draft or electric damper. MDS Caswell is capable of installing the damper as part of
the air circulation system to ensure full compliance with applicable codes.
n
U
ri
. Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2005
Page 3
Finally, the firing range has an access door behind the bullet trap for purposes of
inspecting and servicing the bullet trap. Installation of the door was completed after the
range building was constructed and was not part of the original design. The door changes
the dynamic of airflow and introduces a safety concern, i.e. if the door were to be opened
inadvertently while firearms are being discharged inside. To maximize safety and to
avoid any sudden changes in airflow, MDS Caswell has proposed the installation of a
door sensor that will sound an alarm and disable firearms targets thereby effectively
ceasing range operations if necessary. The cost of the alarm and installation is $825.00
and the Department believes this to be a very prudent modification when evaluating
overall safety.
FISCAL E"ACT
Will result in an additional expenditure of $39,815.00 from the Police Department's
Asset Seizure Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve an additional $39,815.00 from Asset Seizure Funds to complete the firearms
• training range project
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
•
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 18, 2005 Office of the City Manager
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager
By: Linda Garcia, Communications, arketing and Special
Projects Manager
SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION TO THE ARCADIA MUSIC CLUB TO HELP
WITH THEIR TRIP TO WASHINGTON, DC TO MARCH IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL PARADE
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
At the January 5, 2005 City Council meeting, staff was directed to place on a future
• agenda the matter of providing a contribution of $500.00 to the Arcadia High School Music
Club to help with the costs they will incur to travel to Washington, DC to march in the
Presidential Inaugural Parade.
DISCUSSION
The Arcadia High School Apache Marching Band and Color Guard have been invited to
march in the 2005 Presidential Inaugural Parade on January 20. Participants in the
parade were chosen from hundreds of applicants by the Joint Congressional Committee
on Inaugural Ceremonies. Only one band from each State was selected.
At its January 5, 2005 meeting, the City Council directed staff to place on a future agenda
the matter of providing a contribution of $500.00 to the Arcadia High School Music Club to
help with some of the costs of their trip to Washington. The City Council has traditionally
been very supportive of youth activities and in the past has provided funding to the Arcadia
High School Constitution Team and the Arcadia Girls Senior Softball team to assist with
expenses associated with traveling to an advanced level of competition. Contributing
money to the Music Club in this instance would be consistent with prior action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this contribution will require an appropriation from the General Fund Reserve
Account.
• RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $500.00 from the General Fund
Reserve and approve a contribution in the same amount to the Arcadia High School
Music Club.
A
0RpORAT�9 STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
January 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Proposed Boundary Reorganization between the City of Arcadia and the
City of El Monte
Recommendation: Conceptually approve the proposed reorganization
SUMMARY
On October 5, 2004, the City Council considered a request by Western Pacific
• Development & Construction Company, Inc. to annex to the City of El Monte a 5± acre
parcel fronting on Durfee Avenue currently located in the City of Arcadia (see attached
map). The City Council tabled its consideration of this item for three months in order to
further analyze the impacts of the annexation on the City of Arcadia.
The site is currently used for outdoor storage and was recently purchased by Western
Pacific. Western Pacific would like to develop the site with market rate single - family
detached homes. El Monte has approved the concept of the boundary reorganization
(annexation), but prior to proceeding with the formal process through LAFCO (the Local
Agency Formation Commission), El Monte would like some assurance from the Arcadia
City Council that the City supports the proposed reorganization.
It is the Development Services Department's opinion that the proposed boundary
reorganization is appropriate because of the location and surrounding development, and
recommends that the City Council approve, in concept, this request.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Approximately two years ago, Western Pacific Development & Construction (i.e. Western
Pacific or applicant) contacted the City with a proposal to develop approximately three (3)
acres of property located in Arcadia on the east side of Durfee Avenue, south of Clark
• Durfee Reorganization
Page 1
January 18, 2005
Avenue with medium density residential. Since Western Pacific's initial contact with the
City, the project site has been increased to 5.19 acres.
The properties are zoned M -1 (light industrial) and the General Plan designation is •
"Industrial." The site is currently used for outdoor storage. Properties to the northwest
along Clark Street are located in Arcadia and developed with industrial uses.
Property to the east is a quarry operation primarily located in the City of Irwindale with a
small portion located in Arcadia. Properties to the west and south are located in the City
of El Monte and developed with single - family residences. Property to the southeast of the
site is located in Arcadia and is the site of the Arcadia Reclamation Project (old Rodeffer
Quarry). The Arcadia City boundary is adjacent to the easterly side of Durfee Avenue.
The street, Durfee Avenue, is within the City of El Monte jurisdiction.
During the initial meetings, the Development Services Department advised Western
Pacific that it was not likely that staff would support residential development in this area of
the City of Arcadia. It was mentioned that residential would be inconsistent with the
Arcadia General Plan designation of industrial as well as the M -1 zoning.
Because Western Pacific wanted to construct housing, they presented the idea of
annexing the property into the City of El Monte. They pointed out that Durfee Avenue is
in the City of El Monte as well as the residential properties to the west and south. of the
subject site. After discussion with other Arcadia City departments, staff advised Western
Pacific that a boundary reorganization (annexation) might be considered if the City of El
Monte agreed to the idea. It was mentioned, however, that a direct connection would •
have to be maintained between the Arcadia City limits along Clark Street and the Arcadia
Reclamation site located in Arcadia to the southeast of the subject property.
Since the applicant's initial proposal, Arcadia and El Monte staff have met regarding this
possible annexation. Because of the proximity of homes along Durfee Avenue in the City
of El Monte, both city staffs agreed that the annexation of this area into El Monte seemed
appropriate. Conversely, developing residential in this area of Arcadia would be
inconsistent with the Arcadia General Plan, the zoning and the typical industrial
development to the north along Clark Street.
There are no industrial uses fronting on Durfee Avenue. Industrial development of this
property in conformance with Arcadia's General Plan and zoning could be considered
incompatible with the residential properties located on Durfee Avenue in El Monte.
Industrial uses tend to generate more noise and truck traffic which may be disruptive and
inappropriate when located immediately adjacent to residential properties.
Residential development in this area would be more compatible with the single - family
residential properties located within El Monte to the south and west of the subject
properties than industrial uses. Because of the property location, both Arcadia and El
Monte City staff agree that this property could be better served by.the City of El Monte
and in all appearances appears to be located with El Monte.
Durfee Reorganization •
Page 2
January 18, 2005
Impacts of Reorganization
• If the subject property is developed with industrial uses, Arcadia would I benefit from an
increase in property taxes as a result of development. Although there are some industrial
uses that generate sales tax, most industrial uses do not create additional revenues over
and above the property taxes. So for purposes of this discussion, staff would assume
that any industrial development would not generate sales tax.
In regards to services, in August 2003, the Development Services Department circulated
a memo to Police, Fire and Public Works Services regarding the potential
"detachment/annexation" of the property on Durfee Avenue. The departments noted that
there were "no strong" reasons to oppose such an action. However, it was noted that
because this property abuts "industrially zoned property in Arcadia and Irwindale to the
north and east respectively, future property owners should be made aware of potential
noise and proximity issues prior to purchasing a home in this area so that neither Arcadia
or El Monte police are burdened by nuisance complaints related to such industrial uses."
As a note, the industrial property to the north that is accessed from Clark Street is
developed with small warehouse units with no manufacturing so the impact on potential
residential uses is minimal.
In reviewing the pros and cons of the City reorganization, there are no disadvantages to
maintaining. this property within the City of Arcadia. The property is privately owned and
currently used for outdoor storage, which is a legal nonconforming use. However, the
• property generally is poorly maintained. The site is accessible only from Durfee Avenue
which is entirely located within the City of El Monte. If the property was developed with
industrial uses, the City would benefit from some increase in property taxes, though the
amount is difficult to determine.
Another option would be to allow development of residential uses within the City of
Arcadia. Residential is inconsistent with the Arcadia's General Plan and zoning and
logically does not make sense when there are no other properties in this area of the City
of Arcadia developed with residential uses. It would be difficult to service this residential
area, particularly Arcadia public safety services.
Western Pacific has made it clear that they wish to develop the property with market rate
housing units to complement and enhance the existing residential properties within the
City of El Monte.
In a letter to the City of El Monte, the Development Services Department commented that
in theory "Arcadia would support a residential project compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood along Durfee Avenue" if the property were annexed to the City of El Monte.
It was noted, however, that the equestrian easement located within the site should be
maintained across the property to provide access from Durfee Avenue to the horse trail
located north of the Arcadia Reclamation site.
• Durfee Reorganization
Page 3
January 18, 2005
The City received the attached letter dated December 13, 2004 from the City of El Monte
supporting the annexation and noting that in June 2003 the El Monte City Council granted •
conceptual approval to the reorganization proposal presented by Western Pacific
Development to develop the site with single- family detached units ranging in size from
2,200 -2,700 sq. ft. with sales prices between $500,000 and $600,000. It is El Monte's
opinion that development of the site with residential uses will serve as a transition
between the industrially zoned properties in Arcadia and the residential horse properties
in El Monte.
Applicant's Proposal
The proposed area of the boundary reorganization is 5.19 acres. The applicant is
proposing to construct a planned residential development with a maximum of 34 dwelling
units (approximately 6.6 dwelling units per acre). At this time, the, plan is tentative
pending the annexation. According to the applicant as the project progresses
modifications to the plan may be necessary as required by the City of El Monte.
If the reorganization is approved, the easterly portion of the site adjacent to the City of
Irwindale will remain within the City of Arcadia, providing a connection to the remainder of
the City located along Lower Azusa Road including the Arcadia Reclamation site and the
industrial complex on the south side of Lower Azusa Road. The narrowest portion of this
connection within Arcadia would be 30' -0 ". A portion of this area is comprised of slopes
for the adjoining quarry. " The horse trail would be relocated at the northerly boundary of
the parcel and along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse riders in the
area. This trail proceeds east between Irwindale and Arcadia north of the Arcadia •
Reclamation site.
LAFCO
LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) is the regulatory agency responsible for
reviewing and approving jurisdictional boundary changes. A routine application that is
non - controversial typically takes approximately 3 to 4 months to process after a complete
application is submitted to the LAFCO office.
It is anticipated that the landowner (Western Pacific) would initiate the boundary
reorganization although an agency, in this case the City of El Monte, may also initiate a
petition.,
Prior to annexation to a city, the property must be pre - general planned and pre- zoned. In
addition the applicant may be required to submit information for an environmental
assessment.
In order to proceed with the boundary reorganization, Western Pacific Development &
Construction is requesting that the City Council approve the concept of the boundary
reorganization to the City of El Monte.
Durfee Reorganization •
Page 4
January 18, 2005
If the Council approves this concept, Western Pacific will proceed with the appropriate
pre - General Plan and pre- zoning of the property to residential with the City of El Monte.
• Once that has been completed and the appropriate resolutions adopted, the applicant
may proceed with filing for boundary reorganization with LAFCO.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council approves the concept for boundary reorganization, staff would
recommend that the applicant pay any costs to the City of Arcadia that might be incurred
as a result of this de- annexation, including staff time.
From a revenue standpoint, because the properties involved in the annexation from the
City of Arcadia to the City of El Monte are essentially, current property tax receipts to the
City of Arcadia are minimal. However, this was prior to the recent sale of the properties
to Western Pacific so staff is not aware of the new property tax base. If the site were
developed with a 110,000 sq. ft. industrial building (50% FAR), the City might receive
approximately $10,000± in property taxes a year.
There are no direct costs to the City associated with the annexation.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve in concept the request for a boundary reorganization
as illustrated on the attached maps to permit approximately 5.19 acres of land in
• the City of Arcadia to be annexed into the City of El Monte with the conditions:
(1) that the horse trail be relocated to the northerly boundary of the parcel and
along the easterly boundary to provide access to the horse riders in the area,
(2) that Western Pacific pay all City of Arcadia costs for the processing and (3) that
the density of the proposed project not 'exceed approximately 6.6 dwelling units
per acre or 34 dwelling units.
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
cc: December 13, 2004 letter from the City of El Monte
Maps of the proposed boundary reorganization
• Durfee Reorganization
Page 5
January 18, 2005
O p EL MO
CITY OF EL MONTE
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
�
December 13, 2004
Mr. William R. Kelly, City Manager
City of Arcadia
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 92006 -6021
Subject: Proposed Durfee Avenue /Clark Street, Detachment /Annexation
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Juan D. Mireles
City Manager
James W. Mussenden
Assistant City Manager
t4 ek ' b y v. 0
to et�
A9 *�4u-
This letter is intended to provide you and the Arcadia City Council additional information about
the proposed detachment/annexation of a —5 acre site located near the intersection of Durfee
Avenue and Clark Street in Arcadia.
In June of 2003, the El Monte City Council granted conceptual approval to the
detachment/annexation proposal presented by Western Pacific Development. Western Pacific
currently owes the site and they are proposing to build 34 single - family detached units ranging in
size from 2200 -2700 square feet, with a corresponding sales price between $500,000 and
$600,000.
Development of the site with residential uses will serve as a transition between the industrially
zoned properties in Arcadia and the large lot, horse properties in El Monte. At this point, the
property owner and El Monte staff are seeking conceptual approval before proceeding with a
formal application to LAFCO. We understand that this conceptual approval is non - binding and
that your City Council will have at least two opportunities to take formal action on the project
before the annexation is approved.
We hope this letter will clarify issues that 'he Arcadia City Council raised in October and that
this item can again be presented to your City Council for their consideration. If you have any
further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
J AN D Manager
•
r1
LJ
11333 VALLEY BOULEVARD, EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91731 -3293 / (626) 580 -2001 /FAX (626) 453 -3612
EMAIL: CitvManaeertalci.el- monte.ca.ns WEBSITE: www.ci.el- monte.ca.us
/ 4
�
W j
i ll IT
e I!
r
i
zi
ip5 e
� - . j q
� f
�
f ,i•.„�
�
rr� Y R s
j
Y r R
a .i r
rj�, k`�ti
y C
s
h
`r
I�kli
STAFF REPORT
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: January 18,2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council qI,
FROM: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager q7— r
SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of
Emergency Services' issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
SUMMARY:
Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency Services to
proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is affected
or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session.
The Director of Emergency Services (Director) of the City of Arcadia found that conditions of
extreme peril to the safety of persons and property arose within Arcadia caused by torrential
rain, which began on January 8, 2005. The Director signed and issued a local emergency
proclamation on January 13, 2005 (see attached).
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1432, Section 2213.2.1., whenever a local emergency is proclaimed
by the Director, the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven (7)
days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staffs recommendation that the City Council adopt a Resolution that ratifies the Director of
Emergency Services' issuance of a local emergency proclamation.
APPROVED: uln4
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT I
CITY OF ARCADIA
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency
Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is
affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session, and;
WHEREAS, the,Director of Emergency Services of the City of Arcadia does hereby find; that
conditions of extreme peril to the safety. of persons and property have arisen within said City
caused by torrential rain; which began on the 8` day of January, 2005. and;
That these conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services; personnel,
equipment and facilities of said City, and;
That the City Council of the City of Arcadia is not in session and cannot immediately be called
into session;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMS that a local emergency now exists
throughout said City, and;
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local .
emergency the powers, functions and duties of the emergency organization.of the this City shall
be those prescribed 'liy state law, by ordinances and resolutions' of this City, and that this
emergency proclamation shall expire in 7 days after issuance unless confirmed and ratified by
the governing body of the City of Arcadia.
January 13,2005
an
t1JLU A
William R. Kelly
City Manager/Director of Emergency Services
•
RESOLUTION NO. 6459
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE
PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL
EMERGENCY WITHIN SAID CITY PERTAINING TO THE
TORRENTIAL RAIN AND RELATED MATTERS
COMMENCING ON JANUARY 8, 2005
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the
Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence
of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to ratification
by the City Council within seven (7) days; and
WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property have. arisen within this City, caused torrential rain commencing on
January 8, 2005, at which time the City Council was not in session; and
WHEREAS, said City Council does hereby find that the aforesaid conditions
of extreme peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a
local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services did proclaim the existence
of a local emergency within said City on the 13 day of January, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1
SECTION 1. That said local emergency proclamation is hereby ratified
and confirmed by the Arcadia City Council and shall be deemed to continue to
exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Arcadia,
State of California.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 18th day of January , 2005.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
IS JAMES H. BARROWS`
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
2
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. 6459 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 January, 2005 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
JAMES E H. RARR ®!�
ity er cTof the City of Arcadia
3