Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 17, 2009CITY OF ARCADIA CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENTRGENCY REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 77, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 p.m. Location: City Council Chamber, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION Reverend Larry Eckholm, Lutheran Church of the Cross PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Tony Trabbie, Fire Chief ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Robert Harbicht, Mayor/Agency Chair John Wuo, Mayor Pro Tem/Agency Vice Chair Peter Amundson, Council/Agency Member Roger Chandler, Council/Agency Member Gary Kovacic, Council(Agency Member SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation of a Proclamation designating March 17, 2009 as Arbor Day. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a "Public Comments" card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City ClerklAgency Secretary prior to the start of the 7:D0 p.m. Open Session. Ih order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City CouncillRedevelopment Agencyfrom discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. Any wdtings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the CHy Clerk's o>fice located at 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. Approve the Meeting Minutes of February 17. 2009 and March 3. 2009. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. Approve the Meeting Minutes of February 17. 2009 and March 3. 2009. Recommended Action: Approve c. and the related single-family design guidelines. Recommended Action: Adopt d. Adopt Ordinance No. 2255 adding Division 8 to Part 8 of Chanter 2 of Article IX to the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to regulation of wireless communication facilities. Recommended Action: Adopt e. Authorize the Citv Manager to execute an agreement with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department for repairs of Colorado bridge at Baldwin Avenue in the amount of $29,525. Recommended Action: Approve Approve Foothill Transit Joint Power Authoriv Agreement Amendment for inclusion of the Citv of Pasadena. Recommended Action: Approve Waive expenses related to traffic control services for the Fifteenth Annual Santa Anita Derby Dav 5K to be held of Saturday April 4, 2009 Recommended Action: Approve Authorize the Citv Manager to renew the annual Professional Services Agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems. Inc. for parking enforcement services from April 15 2009 to June 30, 2010 for an amount not to exceed X249, 878.31. Recommended Action: Approve 2. CITY MANAGER a. Adopt Resolution No. 6670 adopting prima facie speed limits other than those set forth by state law. Recommended Action: Adopt Any writings or documents provided to a majority o! the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's ofrce located at 240 W Huntington Odve, Arcadia, Cali/omia, during normal business hours. Approve the Design Development for the proposed new Citv Hall Project. Recommended Action: Approve the Design Development Package and pursue funding options. c. Report from Southern California Edison Company repardino the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Proiect. Recommended Action: Receive and file ADJOURNMENT The City Council/Redevelopment Agency will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modifcation or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5455. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority o/the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W Huntington Ddve, Arcadia, California, dudng normal business hours. 51:0024 CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENTRGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: None CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) None CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to confer with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation: Two (2) cases. STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction regarding Mid-Year Budget. Mr. Penman advised that at the Study Session on February 3rd it was reported that the General Fund revenue will be approximately $2 million dollars below estimates from the adopted budget assuming 100% of all appropriations were expended. At that time, the City Council directed staff to analyze a number of alternatives on how to close the budget shortfall which included a review of all vacant positions to determine the impacts on services and programs should those positions be frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year and to look at other operating expenses that could be reduced to address the shortfall. Mr. Penman advised that after further analysis, the City could achieve an estimated General Fund expenditure savings in the current fiscal year of $1,010,107 which represents approximately 2.2% reduction iri the operational budget. He noted the cancelation of the July 4th fireworks show by the City Council will represent $49,000 revenue transfer, a transfer from the Water Fund to the General Fund of $150,000 for the leasing of City property for water purposes and with an additional $8,000 to be paid to the City from Methodist Hospital for reimbursement of legal expenses the City incurred for work on their bond financing and other miscellaneous revenue will result in additional revenues of $207,000. He further noted the City has not received fourth quarter sales tax figures that show holiday sales and should be available in early April. He advised that with the $1 million dollars savings, $200,000 in new revenue which has been identified, the shortfall would be approximately $756,000. He reported that if the 17 vacant positions remain vacant or frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year the cost savings would be approximately $366,312 making the shortfall about $389,000. He suggested that the City Council consider directing staff to continue to explore cuts and expenses without dramatically affecting programs for about $1,000,000 and approve the transfer from the Water Fund to pay the City property which houses water facilities. He noted that the City will likely face similar or greater fiscal challenges next fiscal year and recommended that staff commence working on developing alternatives for program cuts that the 02-17-2009 51:0025 City Council can consider as part of the 2009-10 budget process. He further noted that reserves would be needed to address the shortfall this year, but would allow for a more deliberative process of weighing options for balancing the budget. Mayor Harbicht commented on the services offered by the City and the excellent services the employees provide to the public. Mr. Penman reported that each department will be asked to prepare a 5% reverse priority cut of their entire budget for next fiscal budget which will be shared with the City Council. He noted that with $46 million dollars budget, that could result in $2.4 million dollars in savings. Due to lack of time, the City Council continued this item in open session which is posted on the agenda under City Manager items and adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. to the Open Meeting. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Harbicht called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Terry Keenan, The Santa Anita Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Arcadia Police Chief Robert Sanderson ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: None REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION/CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Steve Deitsch reported that the City Council met in a closed session to consider the one (1) item listed under closed session on the posted agenda, no reportable action was taken. Mr. Deitsch also reported that the City Council met in a Study Session and discussed the mid- yearbudget which is also on the regular agenda for discussion. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None 02-17-2009 51:0026 MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Amundson seconded by Council/Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation of a Proclamation designating March as American Red Cross Month. b. Presentation to City Employees by the Arcadia Chinese Association. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Appeal of business license revocation for non-compliance with the Citv of Arcadia Massaoe Identification Card and Business License requirements by Sunshine TCM Healino Center at 650 West Duarte Road. No. 168. Recommended Action: Approve appeal and overturn revocation Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director provided background information of the October 8, 2008 Study Session held regarding the large number of massage establishments in the City. He noted that massage parlors are not a direct permitted use in the City, however, can be ancillary massage uses to existing uses such as an established medical office, day spa/salon or the office of an acupuncturist. He explained the results of 30-40 inspections conducted of those establishments by Code Services and the Police Department and noted that almost all of them had some type of violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code. He advised that the City Council passed a moratorium on massage uses which allowed staff time to look into alternative methods of operation, regulations and enforcement including State legislation on massage uses and licensing of massage therapists. Mr. Kruckeberg further advised that in January, the Business License Division revoked five (5) business licenses, two (2) of those businesses never responded to the revocation letter and have since gone out of business and the other three (3) appealed the revocation. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator explained the revocation of the business license for Sunshine TCM Healing Center for violations of the Massage Therapy Regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Mr. Kasama noted that Sunshine TCM Healing Center was issued a business license on May 6, 2008; and based on Internet advertisements that massage services were available the Arcadia Police Department requested a revocation of the business license since no massage identification cards had been issued for the location. He further noted that on January 9th a letter of revocation was mailed to the establishment and appealed on January 13th. He explained that the Business License Review Board met on January 22nd and January 29th at which time the appellant confirmed that the business is limited to a medical practice and that no massage services were being offered. Mr. Kasama advised that based on documentation provided by the appellant the Business License Review Board recommends the City Council sustain the appeal and overturn the revocation. 02-17-2009 51:0027 Detective John Bonomo of the Arcadia Police Department provided information regarding the investigation process which lead to the revocation of the business license by the Business License Review Board. He explained that originally inspections were never conducted due to the hours of operation and further explained that because Internet advertisements of massage service were being offered they were in direct violation of what the business license allowed. He noted that when the Police Department was able to inspect the business on January 27th, there was no evidence of massage services being performed. Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing. Alexander Waluszko appeared and spoke in favor of Sunshine TCM Healing Center. He explained what the business represents and further explained the advertisements placed on Craig's List were done in error. In response to various questions raised by the City Attorney, Mr. Waluszko responded accordingly. City Attorney Steve Deitsch explained that the recommendation of the Business License Review Board is not to revoke the business license. He further explained the City Council may agree with the recommendation and may impose a requirement that the business does not advertise massage therapy on the Internet or any other form of advertising and that massage therapy be removed from the business letterhead. At the request of the City Attorney, Lihua Sun, owner/operator of Sunshine TCM Healing Center appeared and explained the difference between acupressure and Tui-na and noted that she has never provided massage therapy at her business. Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Kovacic and carried on roll call vote to approve the appeal and overturn the decision of the Business License Review Board and reinstate the business license for Sunshine TCM Healing Center with the conditions that (1) the licensee shall immediately remove the words "massage therapy" from its letterhead and shall not indicate on its letterhead that massage therapy is provided unless the licensee obtains a massage therapy license; and (2) the licensee shall not advertise massage therapy services on the Internet or any other form of advertising' unless the licensee obtains a massage therapy license. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Amundson, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None b. Appeal of business license revocation for non-compliance with the Citv of Arcadia Center Beauty Care at 556 West Las Tunas Drive. No. 106. Recommended Action: Deny appeal and uphold revocation Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator explained the appeal of the business license for Arcadia Center Beauty Care which was revoked for violations of the Massage Therapy Regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Mr. Kasama noted that a business license was issued on July 22, 2008; and on September 3, 2008 the Police Department conducted an 02-17-2009 51:0028 inspection which disclosed violations of the City's Massage Therapy Regulations and Building Code violations and requested the business license be revoked. He further noted a letter of revocation was mailed on January 9th and the revocation was appealed on January 12th. He reported that on January 22nd, the Business License Review Board met and recommended that the appeal be denied and uphold the revocation. Detective John Bonomo, Arcadia Police Department reported on the inspections and investigations conducted which lead to the revocation of the business license. He noted that inspections revealed the primary business being conducted was massage therapy. He further noted the primary source of business according to their business license should be a beauty care center where hair cuts are performed. He did explain that as part of his inspections, it was learned that hair cuts are conducted by appointment only and the facility is primarily set up for foot and body massages. He further explained that based on signs in the window advertising massages and evidence gathered, massage services appear to be the primary business which is a violation of the business license. Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing Shi Hua Gao, owner/operator of Arcadia Center Beauty Care appeared and spoke through a translator (Saloman Wong) regarding the inspection conducted by the Police Department and the operation of the business including the record keeping of hair cuts and massages. Jason Wong appeared and spoke in support of Arcadia Center Beauty Care and explained the reason for putting the massage advertisement on Craig's List. Mr. Sung, a business owner/neighbor to Arcadia Center Beauty Care, appeared and spoke in support of Arcadia Center Beauty Care. Mr. Chan, a partner of the Arcadia Center Beauty Care appeared and spoke in support of Arcadia Center Beauty Care. Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Mayor Harbicht, seconded by Council Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to uphold the decision of the Business License and Review Board and revoke the business license. AYES: Council/Agency Member Harbicht, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None c. Recommended Action: Deny appeal and uphold revocation Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator explained the appeal of the business license for Ocean Health Center which was revoked for violations of the Massage Therapy Regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Mr. Kasama noted that a business license was issued on January 27, 2007; and based on inspections conducted by the Police Department which disclosed violations of the City's Massage Therapy Regulations and Building Code 02-17-2009 51:0029 violations requested the business license be revoked. He further noted a letter of revocation was mailed on January 9th and the revocation was appealed on January 12th. He reported that on January 22nd, the Business License Review Board met and recommended that the appeal be denied and uphold the revocation. Detective John Bonomo, Arcadia Police Department reported on the inspections and investigations conducted which lead to the revocation of the business license. He noted that inspections revealed violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and Fire and Building Code violations including illegal walls, unfinished sprinkler systems which were subsequently corrected upon reinspection. He further noted the inspections revealed that massage was the primary business however business license records indicated that acupuncture was the primary business; he advised that the establishment was subsequently closed down due to several state Employment Development Department violations; he explained the Internet advertisements and information found on the websites, believed that prostitution was being conducted within the location and therefore recommended that the business license be revoked. Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing. Paul Chang, Attorney representing Xiu Qin Sun the owner/operator of Ocean Health Center appeared and presented testimony on behalf of Ms. Sun discussed the operation of her business and the revocation of her acupuncture business license. (Mr. Chang translated for his client, Ms. Sun.) Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to uphold the decision of the Business License and Review Board and revoke the business license. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None A five minute recess was called by the Mayor. REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK Council Member Chandler thanked and complimented Chief Sanderson and the Police Department for all their hard work on the investigations and getting the massage business licenses revoked. Mayor Pro Tem Wuo also thanked the Police Department and staff for all their hard work and efforts put into the investigations of the massage businesses and getting the licenses revoked. He urged everyone for their own safety to wear reflective gear in the evening hours when walking or riding a bike. 02-17-2009 51:0030 Council Member Kovacic thanked the Arcadia Chinese Association for honoring the City employees. He provided an update regarding sound wall projects around the City and encouraged citizens to attend the Joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting on January 24, 2009. Council Member Amundson also commended staff and the police department regarding the massage businesses. He commented on the City firework show cancelled at the last City Council due to budget constraints and noted that in an effort to keep the fireworks show alive, he encouraged anyone interested in donating money or volunteer services should contact Scott Hettrick at scott(c~arcadiasbest.com or 626-485-8799. Mr. Amundson requested the City Council agendize the 4th of July event and placed on a future agenda in order to get an update from Mr. Hettrick. The City Council requested City Manager Don Penman contact Mr. Hettrick to convey specific questions which will need to be addressed regarding a proposed fireworks show at a future City Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Wuo added that he attended Independent Cities Association Winter Conference in Santa Barbara in early February and noted that the main topic of discussion was public safety. City Clerk Barrows had no comments. Mayor Harbicht noted that he also attended the Independent Cities Association conference in Santa Barbara and advised that new crime technology was introduced including license plate readers which Arcadia already uses. He commented on the amount of money being spent by surrounding cities on graffiti removal i.e. City of Monterey Park spent $600,000 last year. He noted that Foothill Transit is seeking approval from member cities approving the City of Pasadena to become a member of the Joint Powers Authority and requests that this matter be placed on a future agenda no later than March 30th. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve the Reoular Meeting Minutes of February 3. 2009. Recommended Action: Approve b. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: c. Approve the Reoular Meeting Minutes of February 3. 2009 Recommended Action: Approve d. Adopt Resolution No 6668 declaring the Annual Weed Abatement Program and scheduling the protest Public Hearing for March 3, 2009. Recommended Action: Adopt 02-17-2009 Recommended Action: Approve 51:0031 e. Adopt Resolution No. 6669 updating the membership coverage groups with CaIPERS to continue allowing the Citv to offer employees a ore-tax payroll deduction Dlan for CaIPERS service credit purchases. Recommended Action: Adopt final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. Recommended Action: Approve 9• Recommended Action: Approve h. Accept $1.500 gift from the Arcadia Chinese Association for programs and materials for the Library. Recommended Action: Approve A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Wuo, seconded by Council/Agency Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.a through 2.i on the City Council/Agency Consent Calendar. AYES: Council/Agency Member Wuo, Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None 3. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ITEMS: a. Consideration of adding a General Tax Measure to be placed on the ballot at a Special Municipal Election on June 9, 2009 and appropriate $130,000 from the General Fund's Reserve Fund Balance for costs related to the Special Municipal Election. Adopt Resolution No. 6664 declaring an emergency under Proposition 218 and calling for the placement of a General Tax Measure to be placed on the ballot at a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday. June 9. 2009 for the Recommended Action: Adopt Adopt Resolution No. 6666 setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a Citv Measure and directing the Citv Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Recommended Action: Adopt 02-17-2009 Recommended Action: Approve 51:0032 Adopt Resolution No. 6667 providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for Citv Measures submitted at Municipal Elections. Recommended Action: Adopt Mr. Penman provided an update on the proposed utility users tax ballot measure relating to telecommunications. He explained changes in Federal regulations, litigation and potential legislation that may cause the City of Arcadia, along with other cities, to lose a portion of utility users tax money. Mr. Penman reported that cities have not kept up with the changes in technology and as a result telecommunication companies have been challenging the validity of utility taxes on telecommunications. - He further reported that there are court cases pending that could invalidate portions of existing taxes on telecommunication services. He noted that last year ten California cities took ballot measures to their voters to modernize their ordinances to cover new technology, without a rate change and they all passed. He advised that the City currently collects $704,000 in utility tax revenue for land-line use and $922,000 in wireless. He reiterated this is existing revenue that the City currently receives based on an existing 5% rate and not a new or increased tax. Mr. Penman noted that there is currently a proposal before Congress to create a moratorium on changes cities may want to take and if passed could go into effect in 2010 which would prohibit cities from submitting a ballot measure to the voters to modernize utility users tax as it relates to telecommunications. He also noted that cities with voter approved modernized ordinances would not be affected by this Bill if a ballot measure were approved by the voters in 2009. He explained that a subcommittee was appointed by the City Council, consisting of Mayor Harbicht and Council Member Kovacic to work with staff to consider options and provide recommendations on a possible ballot measure before the voters to modernize and update the ordinance on telecommunications. He advised that the City Council consider placing this ballot measure before the voters at a June 9, 2009 Special Municipal Election and adopt the appropriate resolutions and appropriate $115,000 for the special election and an additional $15,000 for public information mailers. He explained that consolidating this election with the school district, which is run by the County, would cost the City an additional $50,000. Jim Priest of the City Attorney's Office (Best Best & Krieger) explained the City's current utility users tax is outdated to deal with modern telecommunication technology. He explained the legal loopholes which could put upwards of $1 million dollars in revenue to the City at risk for loss. Mr. Priest further explained the purpose of each Resolution as they relate to the proposed Special Municipal Election to be held on June 9, 2009. Mr. Kovacic proposed that the word "Ordinance" be added in the ballot text after the words Utility User's Tax. In response to questions raised by Council Member Amundson, Mr. Priest responded that the City is proposing this measure because the language for telecommunication is outdated and should be updated and modernized to reflect text messaging, voice over intemet protocol (internet phone) and other emerging technologies which can mean a loss of revenue. He further responded the intent of the ordinance is not to add new elements i.e. cable television, it will not tax internet access charges and its only intent is to tax the telecom services that the ordinance should already reflect because of modern technologies. 02-17-2009 51:0033 A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wuo and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6664 declaring an emergency under Proposition 218 and calling for the placement of a General Tax Measure on the ballot at a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 for the submission to the qualified voters of a proposed ordinance updating the telephone/telecommunications provisions of the City's Utility Users Tax including revisions to the language as recommended. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Wuo, Amundson, Kovacic and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Wuo, seconded by Council/Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6666 setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City Measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis including revisions to the language as recommended. AYES: Council/Agency Member Wuo, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Wuo, seconded by Council/Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6667 providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City Measures submitted at Municipal Elections. AYES: Council/Agency Member Wuo, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wuo and carried on roll call vote to approve appropriations in the amount of $115,000 for the cost of the Special Municipal Election on June 9, 2009 and $15,000 for the development and distribution of informational mailers to the community. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Wuo, Amundson, Kovacic and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None b. Recommended Action: Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager explained that Assembly Bill 1389 was part of the 2008-09 State budget and included aone-time raid of redevelopment agency funding for $350 million dollars. He further explained that the money is transferred to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to offset some of the State's costs for education. He reported the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency's share of this requirement is $318,643 for fiscal year 2008-09 and is due to the State by May 10, 2009, however, the Agency must report how it will pay by the end of February. He noted that agencies that cannot afford to pay have the option of borrowing up to 50% of the ERAF amount from their low/moderate housing fund, 02-17-2009 51:0034 however, staff recommends that the entire amount of $318,643 be paid from the general redevelopment fund, not from low/moderate housing. A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Council/Agency Member Kovacic and carried on roll call vote to approve a budget allocation of $318,643 from unprogrammed Agency funds to make an Education Revenue Augmentation (ERAF) payment to the State of California as required by AB 1389. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Amundson, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None c. Reoort on Studv Session -Mid Year Budget. Recommended Action: Provide Direction Mr. Penman provided a brief summary of the mid year budget discussed earlier in Study Session. He noted that as a result of current economic conditions, the General Fund revenue will be approximately $2 million dollars below estimates from the adopted budget. He noted that the City Council on February 3rd, directed staff to analyze a number of alternatives on how to address the budget shortfall which included a review of all vacant positions to determine the impacts on services and programs if those positions be frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year. He reported that staff was additionally directed to look at other operating expenses that could be reduced to address the shortfall and it was determined the City could achieve an estimated General Fund expenditure savings of $1,010,107 in fiscal year 2008-09 which represents approximately 2.2% reduction in the operational budget. He noted that as a result of the fireworks show being cancelled $49,000 will be transferced to the General Fund and a transfer from the Water Fund to the General Fund of $150,000 for the leasing of City property for water purposes and additional miscellaneous revenue will result in additional revenues of $207,000. He further noted the City has not received fourth quarter sales tax figures which show holiday sales should be received in early April. He advised that with the $1 million dollars savings, $200,000 in new revenue that was identified, the shortfall would be approximately $756,000. He reported that if the 17 vacant positions remain vacant or frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year the cost savings would be approximately $366,312 making the shortfall about $389,000. He suggested that the City Council direct staff to consider program cuts and develop a list for consideration. He noted that the City will likely face similar or greater fiscal challenges next fiscal year and recommended that staff commence working on developing alternatives for program cuts that the City Council can consider as part of the 2009-10 budget process. He further noted that reserves would be needed to address the shortfall this year, but would allow for a more deliberative process of weighing options for balancing the budget. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Wuo, seconded by Mayor Harbicht and carried on roll call vote to appropriate $500,000 from General Fund reserves to balance the budget and come up with an additional $250,000 in savings through the remainder of the fiscal year and commence working on next fiscal year budget and consider salary freezes and approach City vendors to consider regarding cost savings. AYES: Council/Agency Member Wuo, Harbicht, Amundson, Chandler and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None 02-17-2009 51:0035 ADJOURNMENT The City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting at 10:40 p.m. to Tuesday February 24, 2009, 6:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Police Department, Emergency Operation Center, 250 W. Huntington Drive, for a Joint Meeting with the Arcadia Planning Commission. James H. Barrows, City Clerk (,i By: Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Clerk/ Records Manager 02-17-2009 51:0036 CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: None CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) None CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with legal counsel regarding the workers' compensation case of Javier Fierro. b. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54957.6 to confer with labor negotiators. Citv Negotiators: William W. Floyd, Hue Quach and Michael Casalou. Emolovee Organizations: Arcadia Public Employees Association, Arcadia City Employees, Arcadia Police Officers' Association, Arcadia Firefighters' Association and unrepresented employees: Department Heads, Division Managers, Supervisors, and Part-time employees. c. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to meet with legal counsel regarding the case of Alice Ai v. the City of Arcadia and Peter Ulrich (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 07C61732). Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(a) to confer with legal counsel regarding the case of Ken Harper v. City of Arcadia, et al. (United States District Court Case No. CVOfi-02286 MANx). RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Harbicht called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Dr. Robert Nafie, First Church of Christ, Scientist PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director 03-03-2009 51:0037 ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: None REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Steve Deitsch reported that the City Council met in a closed session to consider the four (4) items listed under closed session on the posted agenda, no reportable action was taken. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Penman reported that a letter from Scott Hettrick was distributed to the City Council regarding a fireworks show and parade which will be discussed on the regular agenda under City Manager Reports and also a letter from Mr. Vince Vargas regarding the wireless communication facilities public hearing was distributed. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Amundson, seconded by Council/Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Aoorove the 2008-2009 Annual Weed Abatement Program and protest public hearing. Recommended Action: Approve the 2008-2009 Weed Abatement Property List and direct the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner to abate nuisances upon those properties. City Clerk James Barrows reported that on February 17, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6668 declaring its intent to authorize the abatement of noxious weeds, rubbish and refuse from various properties in the City of Arcadia by the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner and set a public hearing for March 3, 2009 in order to hear objections from the property owners of those affected properties. He advised that staff recommends the City Council approve the 2008-09 Weed Abatement Property List and direct the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner to abate nuisances on those properties within the City of Arcadia. Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing. No one appeared. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Kovacic and seeing no further objection, Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. 03-03-2009 51:0038 A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to approve the 2008-2009 Weed Abatement Property List and direct the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner to abate nuisances upon those properties. AYES: Council/Agency Member Kovacic, Amundson, Chandler, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None Consideration of Text Amendment No. 08-05, relating to Citv's Architectural Design Regulations and the related Single-Family Desion Guidelines. and the related single-family design guidelines. Recommended Action: Introduce Lisa Flores, Senior Planner explained the single-family design review process and residential design guidelines and noted the purpose of design review and the guidelines are to preserve the character of Arcadia's single-family residential neighborhoods and to promote high quality architectural design throughout the City. She further explained the guidelines have been helpful in aiding staff in the design review process and staff believes the guidelines can be improved to more clearly express the City's current desire and expectation to the public. She provided a summary of the proposed changes to the design guidelines which include several new sections such as architectural style, additions and alterations, landscaping, fences and walls and other general changes. She further explained that design regulations currently have no administrative review procedures for multi-family, commercial and industrial projects and in order to expedite the review process of minor alterations, staff is proposing to add an administrative review process. She noted that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the proposed text amendment and related design guidelines with no opposition Steven Lee, Assistant Planner explained the existing Open Space Section was re-titled Landscape &Hardscape and Fences and Walls and divided into two separate sections. He noted the Landscape and Hardscape section includes a list of recommended plant and tree species which are drought tolerant or native to Southern California. He further noted that plan and tree species are suggestions not requirements and was reviewed and approved by Public Works Services. He advised that staff has added water conservation tips to coincide with the City's Voluntary Water Conservation Program which would provide residents with information on irrigation technologies that can help reduce water consumption. He noted that staff is proposing to make a landscape plan a requirement for new homes and rebuilds but not for additions or remodels. He explained that Fences & Walls guidelines encourage decorative rock materials for walls and columns for fences including simple open fence designs and the integration of landscaping to soften the appearance of fences and walls. He further summarized and explained new sections and other changes being proposed including grammatical corrections in order to improve the flow and clarity. 03-03-2009 Recommended Action: Adopt 51:OD39 Mrs. Flores added that copies of the proposed amendments were sent to all five recognized Homeowner Associations in the City and they were pleased with the proposed guidelines. Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Wuo and seeing no further objection, Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to Introduce Ordinance No. 2247 amending the City's Architectural Design Review regulations as set forth in sections 9295 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the related single-family design guidelines. AYES: Council/Agency Member Kovacic, Chandler, Amundson, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6665 amending the City's Architectural Design Review Guidelines for Single-Family Residential Projects pursuant to Section 9255.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. AYES: Council/Agency Member Kovacic, Chandler, Amundson, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None c. Consideration of Text Amendment No. 09-01. relatino to wireless communications facilities. Introduce Ordinance No. 2255 adding Division 8 to Part 8 of Chanter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code oertaininp to regulation of wireless communication facilities. Recommended Action: Introduce Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama explained that the proposed text amendment codifies the planning process and standards for cellular facilities on privately owned property, establishes standards for cellular facilities in the public rights-of-way and updates the City's regulations for satellite dish antennas. He explained the regulations provide definitions, development standards, design criteria, maintenance requirements and codifies the current application review practices and provides requirements and processes for installations within the public rights-of-way. He noted that proposed right-of-way regulations require compliance with design criteria and height limitations as required for proposals located on private property and the only requirement for right-of-way locations would be by obtaining an encroachment permit. He further noted that there is no review for aesthetic considerations or specific development limitations. He advised that satellite dish antenna regulations were adopted in 1985 and must be updated to clarify the types of antennas that can be regulated by the City. He noted that large direct broadcast satellite antennas are subject to an architectural design review process and small direct brdadcast satellite antennas that are building-mounted and are less than two feet in diameter are federally exempted from local governmental review and approval. 03-03-2009 51:0040 Mayor Harbicht opened the public hearing Vince Vargas appeared and discussed his concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed Ordinance relating to wireless communication facilities as addressed in his letter distributed to the City Council on March 3, 2009. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Amundson and seeing no further objection, Mayor Harbicht declared the public hearing closed. City Attorney Deitsch discussed and provided comments in response to points made by Mr. Vargas in his letter distributed to the City Council regarding wireless communication facilities. A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Kovacic and carried on roll call vote to Introduce Ordinance No. 2255 adding Division 8 to Part 8 of Chapter 2 of Article IX to the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to regulation of wireless communication facilities. AYES: Council/Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Amundson, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK Council Member Kovacic announced the City Council will be meeting with Senator Huff on March 5th. Council Member Amundson commented on the current economy and budget situation; he noted a letter has been sent out by a company to all property owners regarding lower property taxes and reminded everyone that residents do not have to respond since the County Assessors office will be reassessing over 500,000 homes and reminded everyone that this Sunday is daylight savings. Mayor Pro Tem Wuo announced that February 22 was the groundbreaking for the new facilities at Methodist Hospital; he attended Arcadia High School 15th Annual Orchestra event and commented on the little league opening day ceremonies he attended at Hugo Reid Park. Council member Chandler thanked Mr. Chillingsworth and the Oak Tree Racing Association for their donation of $7,500 to the Arcadia Mounted Police Unit in appreciation for their efforts and assistance during the Breeders Cup event last October. City Clerk Barrows congratulated the Arcadia High School Orchestra for their great performance. Mayor Harbicht announced that he attended various Little League opening day ceremonies and also attended the Hospital's groundbreaking ceremony. He commented that at the Hospital 03-03-2009 51:0041 event it was announced that a $4 million dollar gift was made by one family. He announced the rise in burglaries and invited Police Chief Sanderson to provide tips. Police Chief Sanderson reported that in 2008 burglaries were down 12% and January this year burglaries increased 68% and in February a 138% increase from last year. He further reported this is occurring all over the San Gabriel Valley, not just in Arcadia and provided safety tips to avoid burglaries and encouraged residents to call the police if suspicious activity is observed in and around the neighborhood. He also reported on a series of burglaries that occurred in the southeast portion of Arcadia and provided an update on arrests made in conjunction with surrounding police agencies. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Adopt Resolutiori No. 6671 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the Countv of b. Award a Purchase Order to D3 Equipment for one t1) 2009 Case 580 Super Series Backhoe in the amount of $81.990. Recommended Action: Approve c. Recommended Action: Approve A~orove Final Mao No. 70231 for an eight (8) unit condominium oroiect at 724 West Fairview Avenue. Recommended Action: Approve e. amount of $20,000. Recommended Action: Approve Approve a License Agreement with Methodist Hospital of Southern California regarding parking spaces. Recommended Action: Approve A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.a through 2.f on the City Council/Agency Consent Calendar. AYES: Council/Agency Member Kovacic, Amundson, Chandler, Wuo and Harbicht NOES: None ABSENT: None 03-03-2009 election requirements as Drovided by law. Recommended Action: Adopt 51:0042 3. CITY MANAGER a. Reoort. discussion and direction reoardino Fireworks show and Parade in Downtown Arcadia. Recommended Action: Provide direction Mr. Penman noted that the proposed July 4th Fireworks Show was cancelled and resulted in a cost savings to the City of $49,000. He further noted the City Council asked if a similar event could be done by private funding and sponsors. Mr. Penman reported that he met with Scott Hettrick of Arcadia's Best who expressed an interest in putting something together and noted that the funding sources that the City had indentified had shifted their monies to other City programs as directed by the City Council which left Arcadia's Best with no funding for such an event. Mr. Penman noted that Waste Management agreed to donate $4,000 to the Meals on Wheels Program, $3,000 to the Snow Fest and $3,000 toward summer concerts. Mr. Hettrick thanked the City Council for the opportunity which didn't work out as planned. He reiterated what Mr. Penman previously mentioned and commented on a parade and street fair along First Avenue between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road themed "Arcadia's Best American Spirit" which he has already received calls of support from local groups. He noted that the concept would showcase the downtown businesses, local groups and schools who represent Arcadia that could set up booths and participate in a parade. Mayor Harbicht commented that he would like to see this type of community event put on by the community. ADJOURNMENT The City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting at 9:20 p.m. in memory of Phyllis Jeanne Brewster to Thursday March 5, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia in order to meet with State Senator Bob Huff. James H. Barrows, City Clerk /p ., ~ 5V ` ` n- By: Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Clerk/ Records Manager 03-03-2009 ORDINANCE N0.2247 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 9295, ET SEQ. OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RELATED SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ACADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOE5 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: .SECTION 1. Secfion 9295.9 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 9 ~ Division 5 of the Arcadia Municipal. Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "9295.9. DESIGN CONCEPT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. A. Development Services Department. 1. Administrative Review. The Development Services Director or designee may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions for the following types of improvements, subject to the determination of the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project complies with the applicable Design Guidelines: (a) Roofing material; (b) Window/door change outs/replacements/additions; (c) Fences/walls/gates; (d)Exterior finishes; (e) Patio enclosures, covered patios, trellises, and gazebos on residentially zoned property; (f) Minor first floor additions and detached accessory buildings on single-family zoned property; (g) Other types of exterior alterations as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director or designee. i Review of the aforementioned improvements may be conducted upon submittal of plans to Building Services or subsequent to plans being submitted for plan check. If the Development Services Director or designee determines that the proposed improvements do not comply with the design guidelines, the applicant shall submit application for a regular review process as set forth below. Final Design Review. Final design review of development plans shall be initiated within one (1) year of design concept approval by submission of plans by a project proponent to Building Services for plan check. 2. Regular Review: The Development Services Director or designee shall review development plans submitted by a project proponent for design concept approval within thirty (30) working days after receipt for a single-family residential project and within forty-five (45) working days after receipt for amultiple-family, commercial or industrial project, and may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions. After each submittal of a complete application, the City shall have thirty (30) working days of receipt to review the plans for asingle-family residential project and forty-five (45) working days after receipt for amultiple-family, commercial or industrial project. Within five (5) working days after a decision, notice of decision shall be mailed to the applicant." SECTION 2. 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. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] z Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~. ~~~ Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 6665 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING. THE: CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 9295.6 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the text amendment revising the City's Architectural Design Review standards (Text Amendment 2008-OS) was initiated by the Development Services Department to amend the City's current Architectural Design Review Regulations and Guidelines for single-family residenrial projects; and WHEREAS, Section 9295.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, as amended, states that general design review criteria for single-family projects shall be established by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008 and December 9, 2008 duly noticed public hearings were 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, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with one Commissioner absent, to recommend to the City Council approval of the amended single-family design review regulations and guidelines; and i WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and voted approval to said text amendment and amended Design Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amended single-family residential design guidelines provide for the orderly development of the City and will promote high-quality development while allowing diversity of style. SECTION 2. The proposed single-family residential design guidelines are a tool to effectively communicate to a homeowner builder a clear understanding of acceptable design solutions and establish standards for new homes and additions to existing homes that address mass, scale, and other design features to encourage compatibility with surrounding development. SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the single-family residential design guidelines as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and unincorporated as part of this Resolution. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2247. 2 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: " ~' ~~f'`~-~ Stephen. P. Deitsch City Attorney 3 ~^°,:~», i STAFF REPORT . Development Services Department March 3, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director AIL By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner Steven Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: SUMMARY The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed text amendments and the related single-family residential design guidelines to better address zoning regulations that were eliminated by recent text amendments; such as entry height design and street side elevation indentation/projection requirements on corner lots. The design guidelines are also proposed to be amended in response to Staffs experience and to enhance the overall cohesiveness of the document, which should make the design guidelines more intuitive to its users. In addition, Staff is recommending that an administrative process be added in the Single-family Design Guidelines for minor commercial, industrial, and multiple=family improvemehts. A copy of the amendments to the Single-Family Design Guidelines were sent to the President and Architectural Review Board Chair of the five Homeowners Associations (HOAs) recognized by the City since the design guidelines apply to all single-family residences throughout the City. None of the HOA representatives expressed any concerns. In fact, all of them were pleased with the amendments and thought it was a significant improvement to the existing guidelines. On November 25,'.2008 and December 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held public hearing to review the proposed text amendment, and related design guidelines. There was no opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 4-0, with one Commissioner absent, recommending approval of Text Amendment No. 08-05 and the related design guidelines. Since the December 9~h meeting, Staff re-evaluated the text amendment and proposed to amend the list of projects that are eligible for administrative design review. Specifically, Staff proposed to eliminate. the 250 square-foot cap that was originally proposed for small single-family additions because establishing a square footage on "additions .could hinder. Staff from streamlihing the design review process for larger additions that are in full compliance with the design guidelines and zoning regulations. Additionally, Staff now finds it appropriate to include detached accessory buildings (guest houses; pool houses, garages, sheds, etc.) in the list 'of projects' that qualify for administrative review. The Planning Commission ,voted 5-0, recommending approval of the proposed revisions. BACKGROUND The single-family design review process and the residential design guidelines were adopted in 2005 and became effective on January6,"2006. The purpose of design review and the guidelines"is to presenie the character of Arcadia's single- family residential neighborhoods and .promote high-quality architectural design throughout the City. The guidelines have been helpful in aiding staff in the design review process, but Staff believes the guidelines can be improved to more clearly express the City's desires and expectations to the public. Therefore, Staff is proposing a comprehensive update to the guidelines, which includes several new sections such as Architectural Style, Additions and Alterations, Landscaping,. and Fences and Walls. The services of architect Roger Cantrell were used to assist Staff with this effort. A summary of the proposed changes is set forth below. The attached text amendment and Single-family Design Guidelines show the existing text to remain in normal type, and the new language appears in "red"-with strikeouts on the language to be deleted. 1. Design Review Regulations -Administrative Review The Design Concept Review and Approval for single-family dwellings currently has provisions for an administrative review process for "minor alterations" to an existing single-family dwelling. "Minor alterations" include exterior finishes, roof `material, fences and walls, etc. However, there is currently no .administrative review procedure for multiple-family,` commercial; and industrial projects. As a result, Staff has to require the submittal of a formal application for even minor alterations, such as fences and walls, and exterior finishes to a building. In an effort to expedite the review process for minor alterations, Staff is proposing an TA 08-05/Ord. No. 2247/Resa. 6665 March 3, 2009 Page 2 administrative review process to be added for multiple-family, commercial, and industrial projects. The list of minor alterations is as follows: (a) Roofing material; (b) Window/door change outs/replacements/additions; (c) Fences/walls/gate ; (d) Exterior finishes sid+ag; (e) Patio enclosures, .covered patios, trellises, and gazebos on residentially zoned property; (f) Minor first floor additions and detached accessory buildings on single- familyzoned property; (g) Other types of exterior alterations as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director or designee. The proposed new regulation. is attached as Item No. 1. 2. Amendments to the Single-Family Design Guidelines A. Architectural Style A new "Architectural Style" section has been added to introduce various architectural styles found in and around Arcadia. The styles include Traditional Ranch, Colonial/American Traditional, Spanish, Tudor/Cottage, Craftsman, French, and Contemporary/Modern. The style section also proposes that, "strict adherence to a single architectural style is not required." This represents a shift in the guidelines. The current guidelines state that houses should convey a specific architectural style, but staff believes that this requirement has hindered creativity in design and has placed undue emphasis on the replication of established architectural styles rather than ensuring that a new residence is compatible with the surrounding homes. The proposed language states that elements from different architectural styles can be combined if they work together and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The intent is to encourage the use of positive design characteristics rather than require adherence to one specific architectural style. Nonetheless, applicants are encouraged to choose one traditional style as a starting point in the design process so that the design has coherency. B. Additions and Alterations This new section has been added. to the guidelines to specifically address .additions and alterations. The goal is to prevent additions from having a "tacked- on" or "pop-up" appearance, and to provide clear guidance for the design of ..additions and alterations. TA 08-05/ord. No. 2247/Reso. 6665 March 3, 2009 Page 3 C. Landscape &Hardscape, and Fences & Walls The existing Open Space section'has been re-titled and divided into two separate sections: 1) Landscape &Hardscape; and 2) Fences & Walls. The Landscape & Hardscape section includes a new. list of encouraged plant species, drought tolerant landscape materials, and water conservation measures. The plant list has' been reviewed and approved by Public Works Services. The fence. and wall guidelines were .separated into their own section since they do not always relate to landscaping. D. -Redesigned House Staff is proposing to elimihate'this section from the guidelines because it is not representative of the kinds of issues Staff commonly deals with during the design review process. The existing redesign illustration is not a particularly effective or helpful tool in .expressing the City's expectations with regards to residential design. E. Successful Application of the Guidelines In lieu of the "Redesigned House" example, Staff'is proposing a new section that highlights three actual design review cases that illustrate. successful implementation of the' guidelines. Signed copyright license agreements have been obtained from each of the design firms whose elevation desighs appear in the document.' F. Other General Changes • The document has been reformatted to be more user-friendly and visually appealing. • Many of the photographs have been replaced with better examples that reflect the. kind ofhigh-quality design. that is expected in Arcadia. • To promote more sustaihable building ..and landscaping practices, a sustainability icon (a small leaf) is used throughout the guidelines to identify goals,that can reduce environmental impacts.. •: New guidelines have been added to address some of the problematic design issues that Staff encountered through the years. Language is also being. added to address the recently approved text amendments that eliminated some designs related to zoning regulations such as entry treatments' and projections/indentations on street side elevations for corner lots. TA 08-0510rd. No. 2247/Reso. 6665 March 3, 2009 Page 4 • Grammatical errors have been corrected and wording has been revised to improve the flow and clarity of the document. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed Text Amendment and Design Guidelines update are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the changes will have a significant effect~on the environment under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed text amendment and Design Guidelines Update will have no direct fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Introduce Ordinance No. 2247: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California amending the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations as set forth in Sections 9295 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the related single-family design guidelines in its entirety; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 6665 amending the Single Family Design Guidelines for single family residential projects pursuant to Section 9255.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Approved By: ~ewa.~d2.~ Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments:1) Text Amendment -Architectural Design Review Regulations 2) Ordinance No. 2247 3) Resolution No. 6245 4) Exhibit A -Amended Single-Family Design Guidelines 5) Preliminary Exemption Assessment TA OS-05/Ord. Na. 2247/Reso. 6665 March 3, 2009 Page 5 Amending the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations as set forth in Section 9295.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. A. ley Development Services Department. 1. Administrative Review The Development Services Director or designee may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions for the following types of improvements, te-~-single- subject to; the determination of the Development Services Director or designee that the proposed project complies with the siegle-fa applicable Design Guidelines: (1) Roofing material; (2) Window/door change outs/replacements/additions; (3) Fences/walls/gate ; (4) Exterior finishes sid+r}g; (5) Patio enclosures, covered patios, trellises, and on residentially zoned property; (6) Minor first floor additions and detached accessory buildings on single- familyzoned property; (7) Other types of exterior alterations as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director or designee: Review of the aforementioned improvements may be conducted upon submittal of plans to Building Services or subsequent to plans being submitted for plan check: If `the Development Services Director or designee determines that the proposed improvements do noY comply with the single-#a~ily design guidelines, the applicant shall submit for a regular review process as set forth below. Final Design Review. Final design review of development plans shall be initiated within one (1) year of design concept of approval by submission of plans by a project proponent to Building Services for plan check. 2. Regular Review: The Development Services Director or designee shall review development plans submitted by a project proponent for design concept approval within thirty (30) working days after receipt for asingle-family residential project and within forty-five (45) working days after receipt for amultiple-family, commercial or industrial project, and may approve, conditionally approve, disapprove or return plans for revisions. After each submittal of a complete application, the City shall have thirty (30) working days of receipt to review the plans for asingle-family residential project and forty-five (45) working days after receipt for amultiple-family, commercial or-industrial project., Within five (5) working days after a decision, notice of decision shall be mailed to the applicant. Attachment No. 1 ORDINANCE N0.2255 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF-THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING DIVISION 8 TO PART 8 OF CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX TO THE ARCADIA MUNICII'AL CODE PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WHEREAS, this Ordinance establishes regulations. for the location, design and development of wireless communication facilities within the City, in order to address the negative secondary effects of said facilities, while remaining consistent with current Federal and State law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on January 27, 2009 at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment upon this Ordinance, the recommendations of staff and public testimony; and WHEREAS, after such hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing on March 3, 2009 at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on this Ordinance, the recommendations of staff and public testimony. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Division 8 to Chapter 2, Article IX to read in its entirety as follows: I "DIVISION 8. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 92gg, INTENT AND PURPOSE. The purpose of these requirements is to provide placement, design, and screening criteria to regulate the establishment of wireless communication facilities to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, and quality of .life in the City, while providing needed flexibility to wireless communication providers. Additionally, these regulations protect the visual aesthetics of the community through the promotion of stealthing techniques that architecturally integrate or camouflage wireless communication facilities with their surroundings. This Division shall be applied on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis to all applicants for wireless communication facilities. 9288.1. DEFINITIONS. "Applicant" means a provider of wireless communication services who applies to the City to install a wireless communication facility within the City. "Abandonment" means inoperative or unused for a period of one hundred-eighty (180) calendaz days or more. "Antenna" means that part of a wireless communication facility designed to transmit or receive radio frequency or electromagnetic signals, and includes panels, wires, poles, rods, dishes, or similar devices. "Cell site" or "site" means a parcel of land or public right-of--way location that contains a wireless communication facility(ies) including any antenna, support structure, accessory building, or other components associated with, or ancillary to, the use of the wireless communication facility. "Co-location" means the sharing of one site and infrastructure for the purpose of locating two (2) or more wireless communication facilities. "Mount" means the structure or surface upon which antennae are mounted. "Project site" means the site on which an applicant proposes to construct a wireless communication facility, including any antenna, mount or support structure, accessory building, or other components associated with, or ancillary to, the use of the wireless communication facility. "Roof- or top-mounted" means a wireless communication facility where the antennae are mounted on the roof or top of a building or structure, other than a standalone facility. 2 "Side-mounted" means a wireless communication facility where the antennae are mounted on the side of a building or structure, other than a standalone facility. "Standalone facility" means a wireless communicaton facility where the antennae aze mounted to a dedicated ground-based structure in order to elevate the antennae to a useable altitude (ie: monopole, cell tower, etc.} "Stealthed" means: (1) concealed or otherwise not identifiable as a wireless communication facility by a casual observer that is located on property other than the site, and (2) is aesthetically compatible and blends with the site and immediate surroundings. Stealthing may be achieved by any state-of--the-art means or combination of means including, but not limited to, the use of camouflage, textures, screening, painting or architectural integration with the surroundings (e.g., church steeple or bell tower within a church, unobtmsive penthouse on a roof, false rock, false structure or a tree amongst other trees.) "Wireless Communication Facility" or "Facility" means a facility for the provision of wireless communication services. 9288.2. APPLICABILTTY. (a) Except as set forth below, the procedures and rules set forth in this Division aze applicable to all wireless communication facilities built, installed or modified within all zones of the City of Arcadia after the date this Division is effective, including all wireless communication facilities built, installed or modified within all City public rights-of--way. This Division is also applicable to all lots or parcels where the construction, installation or modification of wireless communications facilities is subject to a lease, license or other agreement with the City. (b) This Division shall not apply to the following: (1) public safety. communications facilities owned or operated by the City or any other public agency. 9288.3. APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. (a) No wireless communication facility shall be built, installed, or modified, in the public right-of--way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining an encroachment permit from the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director shall review all encroachment permit applications in accordance with Chapter 3 of Article VII (commencing with Section 7300) of this Code. (b) No roof-mounted, top-mounted or side-mounted wireless communication facility shall be built, installed or modified, on private property or on public property that is not in the City's right-of--way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining administrative azchitectural design review approval from the Development Services Director or designee. The Development Services Director or designee shall administratively review 3 all architectural design review applications in accordance with Division 5, Part 9, Chapter 2 of Article IX (commencing with Section 9295) of this Code. (c) Except as set forth in subsection (d) below, no standalone facility shall be built, installed or modified, on private property or on public property that is not in the City's right-of- way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining a conditional use permit and architectural design review approval from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear all conditional use permit applications at a public hearing in accordance with. Division 5, Part 7, Chapter 2 of Article IX (commencing with Section 9275) of this Code, and shall hear architectural design review concurrently. (d) Notwithstanding subsection (c) .above, applicants requesting approval for a new co- ,location to an existing standalone facility located on private property or on public property that is riot in the City's right-of--way ("base facility") shall only be required to obtain administrative architectural design review from the Development Services Director or designee (as set forth in subsection (b) above), if all of the following apply: (1) the base facility has already received a conditional use permit; (2) the base facility has akeady been reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to CEQA, resulting in the prepazation of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (statutory and categorical exemptions for the base facility are insufficient); (3) the new co-location does not require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report due to substantial changes to the base facility, its site, its circumstances, or new information; and (4) the new co-location incorporates all mitigation measures that were required by CEQA for the base facility. (e) Any decision shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the following provisions of this Code: (1) Decision of the Planning Commission with respect to a conditional use permit or architectural design review (to the City Council): Sections 9275.2.9, 9295.16(B) & 9600 (2) Decision of the Development Services Director or designee with respect to architectural design review (to the Planning Commission): Section 9295.16(A) (3) Decision of the Development Services Director with respect to an encroachment permit (to the City Council): Section 7300.29 9288.4. APPLICATION CONTENTS. Applications for the approval of wireless communication facilities shall include that information required by this. Code for the applicable land use permit (conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit), plus the following information: (a) Contact Information. The applicant shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact information of a form to be supplied by the City. The applicant shall notify City of any changes to the information submitted within fifteen (15) days following any such change. This information shall include, but is not limited to the following: (1) The identity, including name, address and telephone number of the owner of the wireless communication facility including official identification numbers and FCC certifications and, if different from the owner, the identity of the person or entity responsible for operating the wireless communication facility; (2) Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies and type of service provided. (b) Location and Zoning Information. Location of the project site, including the address and the names of two neazest cross streets, as well as the present zone designation of the project site. (c) Description of the Proposed Project. A description of the proposed wireless communication facility, including whether the project is a new facility, a co-located facility, or a modification to an existing facility. If a new facility, the applicant shall include an explanation of whether the new facility will be designed to accommodate future co-locations. The applicant shall provide a written description of the stealthing measures applicant proposes to use to aesthetically blend the facility to the immediate surroundings. This should include at minimum a description of proposed stealthing techniques, and the textures and colors to be used in the stealthing process. The applicant shall also indicate the proposed height of the facility. (d) Noise. A description of the facilities and/or equipment within the applicant's project that are expected to induce or generate noise, as well as anticipated noise levels of said facilities and/or equipment. (e) Wireless Cornmunica6on Facility Site Plan. Six (6) copies of a wireless communication facility site plan, at a scale of 1"=20' or larger and including the following: (1) The proposed wireless communication facility; 5 (Z) Location of lot lines, streets (with street names), easements, and all structures and improvements, including accessory equipment, underground utilities and support structures, existing and proposed; (3) Slopes, contours, trees and other pertinent physical features of the site, existing .and proposed; (4) All exterior lighting on the site, existing and proposed; (5) Location, use and approximate distance from property lines of the nearest structures on all properties abutting the site; and ((>) The location of parking for maintenance personnel. (fl Landscape Plan. Six (6) copies of a landscape plan for the site, at a scale of 1/8"=1' or larger and including the following: (1) Existing trees with tnlnk diameter over six inches (6") at four feet (4') above grade and/or fifteen feet (15') in overall height within fifty feet (50') of the proposed wireless cornmunicationfacility; (2) Species, diameter and condition of all such trees; (3) Final disposition of all existing trees; and (4) Species, location and sizes of trees and other vegetation proposed to be installed with the wireless communication facility. (g) Site Photographs. Current color photogaphs of the site and its surroundings. (h) Proximity 'Map and Information. For applications for a conditional use, permit or encroachment permit, a map depicting all properties (with street addresses) within. three hundred (300) feet of the project site, a list of the names and addresses of all current owners of the depicted properties, aceording to the last equalized assessor's roll, plus an affidavit indicating that the list of names and addresses described above is accurate, based upon due and diligent inquiry of the applicant. The proximity map and information set forth above shall not be required for an application for administrative azchitectural design review. (i) Visual Impact Analysis. A visual impact analysis (which shall include photomontage, photo simulation or similar technique) which demonstrates, from all four primary directions (north, south, east and west) the potential visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility:CI'oh~analys°nsri lllassegssvtha oumulatlce impacts of the as well as from private property. proposed wireless communication facility and other existing wireless communication facilities in the area,. and shall identify and include all feasible mitigation measures 6 consistent with the technological requirements of the proposed wireless communication service. All costs for the visual analysis, and applicable administrative costs, shall be borne by the applicant. (j) Wireless Communication Facility Mount. A description of whether the proposed facility is a co-located facility, standalone facility, rooftop-mounted, orside-mounted. (k) Justification for Location/Co-location. The applicant must provide justification as to why the applicant chose the location for the proposed wireless communication facility. Such justification shall include a written assessment of not less than two (2) alternative locations considered by the applicant and the reasons why said alternative locations were rejected as candidates. Further, pursuant to Section 9288.6(1), the applicant shall provide written evidence that it has made a good faith effort to co-locate the proposed facility with an existing facility and indicate whether co-location is or is not feasible. (1) FCC/Signal Standards. A report certified by a licensed radio frequency engineer stating that electromagnetic (EM) emissions from the proposed facility will neither exceed standazds set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), nor interfere with any fire, police or other emergency communications system. (m) ,Map of Applicant's Existing Wireless Communication Facilities. A map and narrative description of all existing wireless communicaton facility sites used by the applicant which aze located within the City, and any wireless communication facility sites located outside of the City but which provide coverage within any part of the City. (n) Coverage Assessment. A written report setting forth how and why the proposed wireless communication facility will improve the quality of the applicant's coverage. The report shall indicate the azeas where coverage will be improved, and shall also include azeas where the applicant currently has no coverage, a significant degradation in coverage or "dead zones". The report shall include a capacity analysis, a propagation analysis and/or a decibel level report to indicate the quality of service provided by the applicant both at present and after installation of the proposed wireless communication facility. (o). Licenses. Documentation certifying the applicant has obtained all applicable licenses or other approvals to provide the services proposed in connection with the application, whether required by the Federal Communications Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, or any other agency with authority over the proposed wireless communication facility. (p) Application Fee. A fee in the amount established by the cun•ent fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (q) Waiver. Any application to develop a wireless communication facility that does not meet the general requirements and restrictions of this Division shall include a request for a waiver, as set forth in Section 9288.8 of this Code. A request for waiver may be submitted at a later time if it is determined that the proposed facility, as originally submitted, will not meet the requirements and restrictions of this Division. (r) Proprietary or Confidential Information. Any proprietary information or trade secrets disclosed to the City or the consultant as a part of any application is hereby deemed not to be a public record pursuant .to Government Code Sectiexc6 t54r (with the express confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party eP ~ ( ) consent of the applicant; (ii) pursuant to an order of'a court of competent jurisdiction or (iii) pursuant to an order of regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the issue. 9288.5. NOTICE(S) OF HEARING/DETERMINATION. (a) Whenever this Division requires a public hearing to be held before the Planning Commission, notice of hearing shall be given as prescribed in Section 9275.2.4 of this Code. (b) Whenever this Division requires an admmrisoY aatdr~in strari e architectural design Seview), Director on an encroachment permit (hu notice shall be mailed to the owners or authorized agents of real property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the site. The notice shall be mailed by the applicant, in a format approved by the City, not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date the Development Services Director renders his or her decision. 9288.6. LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a) Subject to the restrictions and requirements of this Division, the following wireless communication facilities may be located in the following zones: (1) LOCATIONS: (A) Multiple-Family (R-3) zones, (g) Professional Office (C-O) zones, (C) Commercial Planned Development (CPD-1) zones, (D) Architectural Design (D) zones, (E) Central Business District (CBD) zones, and zones. (F) Automobile Pazking/Multiple-Family (PR-3) ALLOWED: New roof-mounted, top-mounted and side-mounted facilities; co- lorations to existing roof-mounted, top-mounted and side-mounted facilities; and co-locations to existing standalone facilities; PROHIBITED: New standalone facilities 8 (2) LOCATIONS: (A) Residential Mountainous (R-M) zones, (B) First One-Family (R-O) zones, (C) Second One-Family (R-1) zones, (D) Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2) zones, and (E) Automobile Pazking/One-Family and Medium Density Multiple-Family. (PR-0, PR-1 and PR-2) zones. (Except for public rights-of--way and City-owned properties) ALLOWED: None; PROHIBITED: All facilities. (3) LOCATIONS: (A) All other zones, (B) Publicrights-of--way (any zone), (C) City-owned properties (any zone). ALLOWED: All facilities (new or co-located); PROHIBITEDf None. (b) Setbacks/Lot Coverage/Non-Interference. Except for wireless communication facilities to be located within public rights-of--way, no facility shall be located within or extend into the required setbacks established in the applicable zone and each facility shall also comply with all applicable lot coverage and building separation standards in the applicable zone. For facilities proposed to be located within public rights-of--way, no facility shall unreasonably interfere with usual and customary access or use by pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles, or negatively impact vehicular parking, circulation, line-of--sight or safety. (c) Lights, Signals and Signs. Wireless communication facility signals, lights or signs shall be designed so as to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable Federal or State regulations. Beacon lights shall not be included in the design of a facility unless required by the FAA. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, impacts on surrounding areas. Any other lighting of the facility that is not otherwise required is prohibited. No facility or its supporting equipment, shall. beaz any sign, graphic or advertising device other than waming/safety signage or those required by this Code or other applicable law. 9 (d) Dish Antennae. Dish or pazabolic antennae serving a wireless comiunication facility shall be situated so as to minimize visual impact without compromising their function. (NOTE: For regulations governing direct broadcast satellite (DBS) antennas (ie: radio, television, Internet service, etc.), see Division 6 (commencing with Section 9286) of Part 8 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of this Code. (e). Equipment Structures. Ground level equipment, buildings,. structures, and bases shall be concealed from public view. (1) Accessory Equipment. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of a wireless communication facility shall be located inside an existing building, a new addition to an existing building or an underground vault, unless not technically feasible, at which point, accessory equipment maybe located within a separate above-ground enclosure. No separate above-ground -structure .may exceed six (6) feet in height measured from the base of the foundation unless a greater height is necessary to maximize stealthing/architectural ,integration. All accessory equipment -and structures, vaults or enclosures; containing said . ;nipment shall comply with the development standazds of the zone in which the accessory equipment is located. (2) Security. Accessory equipment-si.aii-~e-aquipped with. tamperproof cabinets and/or locks to mitigate safety siting issues. All wireless communication facilities shall be designed' so as to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions which would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight or attractive nuisances. Bazbed wire or razor wire fencing is prohibited. (fl Building Codes. Wireless communication facilities shall comply with all applicable building codes. (g) Height. All wireless communication facilities shall be locate otherhheowt limitations height that will allow them to operate. Notwithstanding any gh contained in'this article; wireless communication facilities may not exceed the height limitations set forth below: (1) Roof-mounted facilities (new or co-located) that are placed on an existing building, br top-mounted facilities (new or .co-located) that are placed on an existing utility pole, water ank, or other similaz structure may extend to, but shall not exceed, a height of ten'(10) feet above the roof or top of the building or structure; (2) Side-mounted facilities (new or co-located) that are placed on an existing building, or on an existing utility pole, water tank, or other similar structure may not extend beyond the height of the existing building or structure; 10 (3) Facilities co-located on an existing standalone facility may not extend beyond the height of the existing standalone facility; and (4) New standalone facilities may not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in height. Any applicant that proposes to construct or co-locate a wireless communication facility that would exceed the applicable height limitations set forth above must request a waiver, pursuant to Section 9288.8. (h) Signal/Power Cables. All wireless communication facility cables, wires or similar electrical transmission devices must be placed underground, be placed within the existing building or structure or in cableways, and must be properly stealthed to the maximum extent possible. (i) Co-Location Requirements: (1) Co-location. Where feasible, owners or operators shall shaze sites where wireless communication facilities aze already located, thereby reducing the number of new facilities. (2) Good Faith Effort. All applicants shall demonstrate agood-faith effort to co- locate with existing facilities. The City may deny an approval to an applicant who has not demonstrated agood-faith effort to co-locate with an existing facility. Such good-faith effort includes written evidence by the applicant of: (A) Contact with all other licensed carriers for facilities operating in the City within the area of proposed coverage. (B) Sharing non-proprietary technical information necessary to determine if co-location is feasible under the design configuration most accommodating to co-location. In the event the applicant determines that co-location is not feasible, the applicant shall include with its application a written statement of the reasons why co- location is not feasible. in the event the applicant determines that co-location is feasible, the applicant shall include provisions for co-location of its facility in its application. (3) Numerical Limits on Co-location. Not greater than three (3) facilities shall be co- located upon any single site. (4) All co-located facilities upon a site shall be architecturally coordinated and stealthed consistently with each other. (j) Parking. Any wireless communication facility shall not reduce the number of available parking spaces below the amount required by this Code. 11 (k) FCC Requirements. All existing and future wireless communication facilities si diation, all applicable FCC emissions and exposure standards for electromagnetic (EM) and all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as required by the FCC and PUC. (1) Noise. All wireless communication facilities must comply with all existing noise ordinances of the City, but in no case shall any facility generate sound in excess of: (i) 50 dB CNEL at the property line of the nearest residential use, or (ii) 65 dB CNEL at the property line of the nearest non-residential use. 9288.7. DESIGN CRITERIA. (a) Pre-existing Character. Wireless communication facility location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the site as much as feasible. (b) Landscaping and Vegetation. Existing landscaping and vegetation, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for softhe site shall pbesmixiimized,punless and disturbance of the existing topography removing, altering or disturbing the vegetation would result in less visual impact of the wireless communication facility on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping shall be planted where such vegetation is necessary to provide stealthing or to block the line of sight between a facility and adjacent residentially-zoned properties. If landscaping is removed to install the facility, landscaping shall be replaced on the site at a 1.5:1 ratio for the landscaping removed. (c) Stealthing. All wireless communication facilities shall be stealthed from view to the greatest extent feasible, considering technological requirements, by means of placement, camouflage, color choice, architectural compatibility and other site ch orating quipm t applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennae and supp possible to accomplish the owner/operator's coverage objectives. Blending/Stealthing Methods: (1) All standalone facilities, plus supporting equipment, shall be composed of non- - reflective materials-and painted a color generally matching the surrounodTnother background that minimizes their visibility, unless the FCC, FAA, government agency requires a different color. If a new standalone facility cannot be camouflaged in any other way, it shall be camouflogedshall not ble.permittedras monopine). Lattice towers, guyed towers and flag p new standalone facilities, except by went, gr~ctures rand buildings shal8 be below. Visible ground level equip stealthed from view by landscape plantings, fencing or other appropriate stealthing means, and shall be treated with graffiti-resistant paint or coating. 12 (2) Roof-mounted, top-mounted or side-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be constructed, painted, finished and fully stealthed to match the color and texture of the building, structure and/or wall on which they are mounted. Fapade mounted equipment shall be camouflaged by incorporafing the antenna into the design elements of the building or structure and they shall be painted and textured to match the existing structure. If possible, antennae should be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. In no case shall antennae extend more than twenty-four (24) inches out from the building face. Equipment buildings or stealthing enclosures mounted on a roof shall be azchitecturally consistent with the building, such as having a finish similar to the exterior building walls. Equipment for roof-, top- or side-mounted antennae may also be located within the building on which the antenna is mounted. (3) The City Council may, by resolution, promulgate additional regulations that further define and clarify the stealthing requirements of this subsection (c), consistent with the intent and purpose of this Division. 9288.8. WAIVER REQUEST. (a) Waiver. A waiver of any of the location, design or other requirements and restrictions set forth in this Division, .maybe granted by the Planning Commission or Development Services Director, whichever is applicable, upon the request of the applicant, where the applicant demonstrates that such restriction or requirement either: (1) Prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); or (2) Unreasonably discriminates against the applicant when compared to other providers within the City who are providing functionally equivalent wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)). (b) Independent Consultant. Any application for a waiver shall include the applicant's authorization for the City to retain the services of an independent, qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the waiver request. The application shall include a monetary deposit, as set by resolution of the City Council, and an agreement by the applicant to reimburse the City for all reasonable costs associated with the consultation. 13 9288.9. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. Any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. (a) is appl ablel hall be approved unlessl desia ernrined thatcroachment permit, whichever (1) The applicant has failed to provide any information required in Section 9288.4; (2) The proposed wireless communication facility fails to comply with the criteria of Sections 9288.6 and 9288.7; (3) In the case of a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings required by Section 9275.1.2 of this Code, or, in the case of an encroachment permit, the Development Services Director has grounds for denial pursuant to Section 7300.4 of this Code. (4) In the case of a new wireless communication facility, w-location at a site with an existing wireless communication facility is feasible. (b) Any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall also indicate one of the following: (1) The applicant did not request a waiver from the requirements of this Division; or (2) The applicant did request a waiver from the requirements of this Division, but failed to present sufficient evidence that the requirements and restrictions of this Division either have the effect of prohibil cant,lpursuant to Sects n 9288.gices or unreasonably discriminate against the app 9288.10. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. In addition to conditions of approval which maybe imposed in order to ensure compliance with this Code, the following standard conditions shall be imposed on any conditional use permit, azchitectural design review or encroachment permit issued pursuant to this Division: (a) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees form any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its officers, agents or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval under this Division. The applicant shall further defendd~ade~a Pities claims, suits, or can es of action of agents and employees from any g death or ro ert damage, arising out of or any kind or form; whether for personal injury, P P y in connection with the activities or performance of the applicant, its agents, employees, l4 licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors, pursuant to the approval issued by the City. (b) For all wireless communication facilities located within the public right-of--way, the . applicant shall remove or relocate, at applicant's expense and without expense to the City, any or all of its wireless communication facilities, by reason of any change in grade, alignment or width of any public right-of--way, installafion of services, water pipes, drains, storm drains, lift stations, power or signal lines, traffic control devices, public right-of--way improvements, or any other construction, repair or improvement to the publicright-of--way. (c) Where a wireless communication facility site is capable of accommodating a co-located facility upon the same site, the owner or operator of the existing facility shall allow another carrier to co-locate its facilities and equipment thereon, upon reasonable terms and conditions mutually agreeable between the parties. (d) The City may require the applicant to annually submit a, written report prepazed by a qualified engineer, certifying that the facility continues to comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. 9288.11. REVOCATIONS. (a) At any time, the City may initiate proceedings to revoke an approval issued pursuant to this Division. (b) The following shall constitute grounds for revocation for an approval issued pursuant to this Division: (1) The owner or operator has abandoned the wireless communication facility; or, (2) The wireless communication facility is no longer in compliance with its respective conditions of approval, with the requirements of this Division, or with any other applicable law; or (3) The wireless communication facility is no longer. in compliance with applicable FCC or FAA regulations. (c) The Planning Commission may revoke a conditional use permit only after holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 9275.2.15 of this Code. (d) After a final revocation decision has been rendered, the owner or operator of the wireless communication facility shall terminate operations and remove the wireless communication facility from the site in accordance with Section 9288.14. (e) Any decision of the Planning. Commission or Development Services Director to revoke may be appealed pursuantto Section 9288.3(e) of this Division. 15 9288.12. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. All wireless communication facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standazds: (a) Equipment. All facilities, including antennae, mounts, wires, conduit, lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, poles and stealthing materials (including artificial foliage), shall be maintained by the owner or operator in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and ot~ ti able sofas todminimiedoccurrenceg of dangerous conditionseorpvisual as soon asp affiti shall be removed by the owner/operator within blight. Ail trash, debris, litter and gr forty-eight (48) hours following notification from the City. (b) Landscaping.- Each facility which contains trees, foliage or other landscaping elements, whether or not used as steaithing, shall be maintained in good condition aaa~ag~s dead the owner or operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any or decayed landscaping as soon as. practicable, and in accordance with the approved landscape plan. (c) Inspections. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely and regularly inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set foorth r vidi glreasonablertad~ance Development Services Director, or designee, may, up P com liance notice to the owner or operator, conduct an inspection of a facility to verify P with the provisions of this Division. (d) To ensure compliance with this Division, the owner or operator of a facility shall affix a label or marker to the facility in a pr~minent location that idenha mat ee desltruchon, provides a telephone number that ma be called to report any g graffiti or vandalism to the facility. (e) Backup Generators. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10;00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 9258.13. "CELLS ON WHEELS" PROHIBTTED/EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT. "Cells on wheels" or other mobile wireless communication facilities are prohibited in all zones, except for the duration of a telecommunications emergency declazed by the City. 928814. ABANDONMENT AND REMOVAL. (a) Notice of Abandonment. Where an ownehe owner o° operator hall n dfy the C'ty by communication facility or portion thereof, certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations and the date the facility shall be removed. The notice shall be given not less than sixty. 16 (60) days prior to abandonment. Failure to give notice shall not affect the owner's or operator's obligation to remove an abandoned facility. (b) Removal Due to Utility Undergrounding. All facilities located on a utility pole or structure shall be promptly removed at the owner's or operator's expense at the time a utility is scheduled to be undergrounded. (c) Removal. Upon abandonment, revocation, or other lawful order of any federal, state or local agency to terminate facility operations, the owner or operator shall physically remove the facility or terminated/abandoned elements within thirty (30) days following the date of abandonment or termination of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Removal of antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject site; (2) Transportation of the antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers to an appropriate repository; (3) Restoring the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the Development Services Director. (d) Stay. The Development Services Director may stay the requirement to remove an abandoned/tenninated wireless communication facility upon written request and evidence submitted by the owner or operator that another wireless provider is in reasonable negotiations to acquire and use the wireless communication facility. (e) If an owner or operator of an abandoned wireless communication facility fails to physically remove the facility and all related equipment within the time frames set forth herein, the City may do so at the owner/operators expense. 9288.15. VIOLATION/PENALTY. (a) Any owner or operator of a wireless communication facility that violates the terms of this Division shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with Section 1200 of this Code. (b) Civil Action/Nuisance Abatement. In addition to the above, if an owner or operator of a wireless communication facility violates the terms of this Division, the City may pursue any and all civil remedies available at law or equity, including but not limited to injunctive relief or initiation of a nuisance abatement action pursuant to this Code. (c) Costs of Action. All costs of taking action to enforce the terms of this Division shall be the responsibility of the owner or operator of the wireless communication facility." 17 SECTION 2. Section 9275.1.11 of Division 5, Part 7, Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 9275.1.11. SAME. "Wireless Communication Facilities, as set forth in Sections 9288 et s~ " SECTION 3. Division 6; Part 8, Chapter 2 of Article DC of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: °°DIVISION 6. DIRECT BROADCAST SATELLITE ANTENNAS 9286. PURPOSE. The purpose of this division is to establish construction and maintenance standards and regulations for direct broadcast satellite (DBS) antennas installed in any zone which are accessory to the primary use of the subject sites. Such standards and regulations shall be such as to reasonably restrict and minimize any detrimental effects of the location and design of such DBS antennas on the occupants of adjoining properties and the neighborhood, and community consistent with the following findings: 1. There has been an increasing number of DBS antennas erected within the City; this form of antenna has increased in popularity, particulazly in the areas of the City not served by cable television. It is anticipated that this will continue in view of current communications technology. Numerous concerns have been expressed through the community with regard to such DBS antennas. 2. The City of Arcadia is primarily a residential community with a high level of property maintenance and concern for the appearance of the community. 3. The City has undertaken numerous actions which include regulations on signage, requirements concerning landscaping, screening of structures and architectural treatments as well as regulation of visual clutter, in order to preserve to the maximum extent possible the natural and man-made scenic beauty of the City. 4. The nature of the community, its goals and objecfives have entailed a significant private and public expense to produce a community consistent with the objectives of the City's General Plan and maintain safety in all areas of the City. 5. The installation of DBS antennas, and accessory equipment, can create visual we~areoof personsoandlproperty through therhazard of col apse and createtadverse economnd 18 aesthetic and safety impacts inconsistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 9286.1 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Division, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (a) "Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) antenna" means any equipment providing services such as radio, television and high-speed Internet to residential and business customers by means of a dish, parabolic or other antenna designed for receiving satellite transmission and which is specifically located on the site that directly receives such service. (b) "Small DBS antenna" means any DBS antenna that is (i) fixed (non-telescoping), (ii) mounted to the roof, top or side of an existing building or structure, and (iii) not greater than one meter in diameter. 9286.2 APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. DBS antennas shall be subject to the following approvals: (a) Small DBS antennas which aze otherwise in compliance with this Division are a permitted use and no architectural design review shall be required. (b) All other DBS antennas shall be subject to architectural design review by the Development Services Director in accordance with Sections 9295 et sue. of this Code. (c) Every DBS antenna, whether temporary or permanent, shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official where required by the Building Code. 9286.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Every DBS antenna shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the standazds set forth in this Division. DBS antenna systems maybe installed, erected and maintained within all land use zones of the city, but only in accordance with the provisions of this Division. 9286.3.1 INSTALLATION AND SAFETYREQUIREMENTS. (a) Every DBS antenna shall be installed and maintained in compliance with applicable requirements of the Building Code. (b) Whenever it is necessary to install a DBS antenna neaz power lines, or where damage would be caused by its falling, a separate safety wire must be attached to the antenna mast or tower, and secured in a direction away from the hazard. DBS antenna transmission lines must be kept at least twenty-four. (24) inches clear of utility lines. 19 (c) Every DBS antenna shall be adequately grounde owed b o the 1 tesg difion of the strike of lightning, with an adequate ground, wire of the type app Y Electrical Code. (d) The maximum diameter of any DBS antenna shall be six feet (6') unless the Development Services Director determines that a lazger diameter is required for the proper functioning and purpose of the DBS antenna. 9286.3.2 LOCATION: (a) No portion of any DBS antenna shall extend beyond any lot lines of the subject site. (b) No portion of any DBS antenna (including mounting equipment and guy wires) shall be located in any front Yazd of any lot or in any side yard on the street side of a corner lot, except for small DBS antennas. (c) All ground-mounted DBS antennas shall be considered to be accessory buildings and shall conform to the setback requirement for such buildings for the respective zone in which said DBS antenna is located. (d) Roof-, top- or side-mounted DBS antennas may not be located in any residential zone. Any roof-top or side-mounted DBS antenna located in a commercial, industrial or special zone shall be located within the middle one-third (`/3) of the building upon which it is mounted, unless said DBS antenna is otherwise completely screened from view from grade from the adjoining properties and adjoining public rights-of--way. The restrictions of this subsection (d) shall not apply to small DBS antennas, which may be mounted at any location on a building in any zone. 9286.3.3 HEIGHT. (a) In all zones DBS antennas mounted to the ground or on accessory structures shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height above the. grade. (b) In commercial, industrial and special zones, roof or top-mounted DBS antennas DBS ant nnas shall not excceed th height of the building to which they aze mlonnted ide-mounted 9286.3.4 SCREENING. (a) DBS antennas shall not be composed of materials that are excessively bright, shiny; garish or reflective. (b) DBS antennas shall be screened to the maximum extent practicable through the addition of architectural features and/or landscaping that harmonize with the elements and characteristics of the site upon, which they are located. All ground-mounted DBS antennas 20 within residential zoned property shall be screened by walls, fences or landscaping at least five (5) feet in height obscuring visibility of the DBS antenna from grade from the adjoining property and from adjoining public rights-of--way. Notwithstanding the above, the requirements of this subsection (b) shall not apply to small DBS antennas. 9286.35 MAINTENANCE. (a) Every DBS antenna shall be maintained in good condition and in accordance with all requirements of this Section. (b) The DBS antenna shall meet all manufacturers' specificafions, and shall be of noncombustible and corrosive-resistant material. The miscellaneous hardware, such as brackets, turnbuckles, clips or similar type equipment subject to rust or corrosion shall be protected with a suitable coating to guard against rust and corrosion. (c) Every DBS antenna shall be subject to periodic reinspection. No additions, changes or modi&cations shall be made to a DBS antenna, unless the addition, change or modification is in conformity with this Division. 9286.4 NONCONFORMING USE OF DBS ANTENNAS. (a) DBS antennas constructed prior to April 3, 2009, when revised regulations regazding DBS antennas under Ordinance No. 2255 became effective, and which do not conform to all of the requirements of this Division shall constitute a nonconforming use. (h) No person shall maintain or operate any DBS antenna not fully in conformity with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2255 after two (2) yeazs from the effective date of Ordinance No. 2255." SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty-one (31) days after its adoption. SECTION 5. Severability. If any sectiori, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that'any one or more section, subsecton, subdivision, pazagraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional. 21 SECTION 6. 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 3rd day of March, 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: i Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 22 COQ~aalcYnf N°~`• STAFF REPORT Development Services Department March 3, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services DirectorJL1~ By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Text Amendment No. TA 09-01 to establish regulations for wireless communication facilities and to amend the regulations for direct broadcast satellite antennas; Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Recommended action: Approval by introducing the following Ordinance: Ordinance No. 2255 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Arcadia, California, adding Division 8 to Part 8 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to regulation of wireless communication facilities. SUMMARY This application was initiated by the Development Services Department to establish regulations for wireless communication facilities and to amend the regulations for direct broadcast satellite antennas. As cellular devices and satellite antennas have become increasingly popular, specific regulations are needed for the placement and construction of these facilities. The proposed regulations set forth limitations to the placement, design, and screening criteria of these facilities to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Arcadia, and to ensure compliance with federal and State legislation. Most recently, for instance, is Senate Bill 1627, which requires streamlining of the approval process for certain co-located wireless communications facilities. The Development Services Department recommends approval of this text amendment. DISCUSSION With the popularity of cellular devices and their increasing capabilities, the need for wireless communication facilities continues to grow. In addition, the City's satellite dish antenna regulations were initially .adopted in 1985, and have not been updated. The proposed text amendment addresses the locating of wireless communication facilities on private property and in the public rights-of-way, and updates the satellite dish antenna regulations. Wireless communication facilities and large dish antennas that are to be located on private property are reviewed by the Development ,Services Department. At a minimum, an .architectural design review is conducted to integrate the facility as much as possible with the site and structure at which it is to be placed. Many of these types of installations are rooftop or fagade-mounted antennas. But, for standalone facilities such as a monopole, a Conditional Use Permit is required. However, there are no established standards for the review and installation of these facilities; development restrictions are guided by the underlying zone in which the facility is located, and the circumstances of the site. For public right-of-way locations, the proposals are. reviewed by the Engineering Division and the Public Works Services Department. There are currently no standards for installations in public rights-of-way. In order to promote wireless development and market .competition, federal and State laws aim to facilitate 'the establishment and installation of wireless communication facilities, and to a certain extent, preempt local regulations. In 2006, California Senate Bill 1627 was passed to streamline the processing of certain co-location applications. The legislation requires local governments to administratively approve such applications, which would be to add antennas or equipment to an existing facility. Further, the Federal Telecommunications Act preempts local regulations to the extent that they prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication facilities within the City. The draft ordinance takes this into account and is intended to give the City clear and objective regulatory standards within the limits of current federal and State law. Last year, the Arcadia City Council and Planning Commission reviewed a series of alternative proposals for wireless communication facilities at Orange Grove Park. The initial proposals were for standalone cell towers on the City-owned park and water facility property. But, when those proposals were not approved, public right-of-way locations had to be considered. These proposals were all near residential properties, and faced opposition from the surrounding residents. Because the City does not have regulations for these facilities, it is impossible for applicants to know what is acceptable. And, likewise, City staff cannot explain to the public what is specifically allowed or not. Out of the. public hearings for the various Orange Grove Park proposals, it became clear that regardless of whether, or not a facility was to be approved,. both the wireless TA 09-Ot March 3, 2009 Page 2 of 4 industry and the public want regulations to be established. Therefore, staff requested the City Attorney to draft a new ordinance setting forth requirements for the development of wireless communication facilities, and at the same time update the existing satellite dish antenna regulations. The Development Services Department is proposing this text amendment to establish regulations for wireless communication facilities, and to amend the regulations for direct broadcast satellite antennas. These regulations are to be in Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. The attached ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney's Office and the Development Services Department, and is consistent with current federal and State laws. The proposed wireless communication facilities regulations begin with the following statement of intent and purpose: 9288. INTENT AND PURPOSE. The purpose of these requirements is to provide placement, design, and screening criteria to regulate the establishment of wireless communication facilities to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City, while providing needed flexibility to wireless communication providers. Additionally, these regulations protect the visual aesthetics of the community through the promotion of stealthing techniques that architecturally integrate or camouflage wireless communication facilities with their surroundings. This Division shall be applied on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis to . all applicants for wireless communication facilities. The proposed regulations go on to provide definitions, development standards, design criteria, and maintenance requirements. The proposed ordinance codifies the current application review practices, and provides requirements and processes for installations within the public rights-of--way. The proposed right-of--way regulations require compliance with design criteria and height limitations just as is required for proposals located on private property. Currently, the only requirement for right-of-way locations is. that they obtain an encroachment permit. There is no review for aesthetic considerations or specific development limitations. The satellite dish antenna regulations that were adopted in 1985 are proposed to be updated to clarify the types of antennas that can be regulated by the City. Large direct broadcast satellite antennas are subject to an architectural design .review process. Small direct broadcast satellite antennas that are building-mounted and are less than two feet (2') in diameter are federally exempted from local governmental review and approval. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 2009, Mr. Vince Vargas, an Arcadia resident presented the attached letter that includes a list of items that he felt should be addressed by the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney responded at the meeting to each item in detail and explained how each item has either been addressed TA D9-01 March 3, 2009 Page 3 of 4 in the proposed ordinance, or cannot be implemented due to conflicts with federal or State legislation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission, at their January 27, text amendment, and voted 5-0 to recommend Commission Meeting Minutes is attached. 2009 meeting considered the proposed approval. An excerpt of the Planning ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Development Services Department completed an Initial Study for the proposed project. The 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. Staff has determined that 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. The environmental documents are attached. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve Text Amendment No. TA 09-01 by introducing the attached Ordinance No. 2255. Approved: .~~ L9 ~er~„Q„ J Donald Penman,.City Manager Attachments:. Ordinance No. 2255 Letter from Mr. Vince Vargas January 27, 2009 Plarning Commission Minutes Negative Declaration & Initial Study TA 09-01 March 3, 2009 Page 4 of 4 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Services Direc r~ Prepared by: Lubomir Tomaier, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: SUMMARY The Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Unit of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works conducts biannual inspections of all bridges in the City of Arcadia. The inspection report of January 11, 2008 reported that the Colorado Boulevard Bridge crossing Baldwin Avenue is structurally deficient. A deck sealant was recommended to fill in the severe cracks throughout the deck of the bridge. This repair will remove the structurally deficient designation and will assure the serviceability of the bridge. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for bridge sealing of Colorado Boulevard Bridge at Baldwin Avenue in the amount of $29,525. DISCUSSION The Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Unit of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works conducts biannual inspections of all bridges in the City of Arcadia. The inspection report of January 11, 2008 indicated that the Colorado Boulevard Bridge crossing Baldwin Avenue is structurally deficient. Random cracks throughout the deck of moderate and severe density were observed. These cracks permit water and other substances to penetrate the bridge elements and compromise the structural integrity of the bridge. An epoxy deck sealant was recommended by Los Angeles County's bridge personnel. This will remove the "structurally deficient" designation and will assure the serviceability of the bridge. Page 1 of 2 Recommendation: Approve Mayor and City Council March 17, 2009 Epoxy bridge deck sealing is specialized work that requires knowledge, tools, and training the City does not have. Contractors who do this type of work typically service multiple bridges resulting in lower unit prices. A single bridge contract, depending on the type of application, will cost significantly more than a multiple bridge project. It is economically feasible to utilize County personnel on a force account basis or become a part of a muiti bridge contract. County personnel are skilled, experienced, and are mobilized to do the work on a time and materials basis. The Public Works Department coordinated with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to obtain a reasonable price to do this work. The proposed estimate of work is approximately 113 of the Engineer's Estimate based on historical Caltrans contract cost data. Based on the low price and skill of County personnel it is recommended that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works bridge deck seal Colorado Boulevard Bridge at Baldwin Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project involves the maintenance of existing highway or street and therefore it is categorically exempt per 15301 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT The 2008-09 Capital Improvement Plan has allocated $92,000 for the Colorado Boulevard Bridge at Baldwin Avenue to cover the cost of crack seal of bridge deck. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the use of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in the amount of $29,525. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 3. Waive the bidding process and authorize Los Angeles County Department of Public Works as a sole source supplier for deck sealing. Approved: _YtT-'y-4v ~~^M^a-~~ Donald Penman, City Manager PM:LT:MR Attachment Page 2 of 2 Epoxy Seal Colorado Street Bridge Crossing Baldwin Avenue ~,+' s \*`~" ® RAND NEW PROJECT NORTH LOCATION CITY OF ARCADI A SIER Q i GRANDE GROVE ~ Z Q h COLORADO ST vMR 1 B _ PARR A a e ' + w~ti G `e Rt ~ Z 2 ~ ~ A G e 3 ~ V ~ m ~` YMA AMA \~~ ~ R 01 IXRIP[ _ H y 1/1 RCAOIA M S ~ < RO > Q `e I z u 0 A N O p O Z N REAL CAMIN L J J O b LONGDE AV LNE AK AV N r 0 LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE \ /. STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Directory-~L Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Engineer 8y: Linda Nui, Transportation Services Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The Foothili Transit Joint Power Authority (JPA) Governing Board voted to extend an invitation to the City of Pasadena to join the JPA. Any addition to the JPA membership requires a change in the governing structure and a unanimous ratification by all member organizations including the City of Arcadia. Last summer, the JPA requested input from member agencies regarding the addition of Pasadena. In response to the JPA request, the City Council at the September 16, 2008 meeting formally supported the Pasadena addition. As a result of positive feedback, the JPA is now requesting a formal ratification from all member agencies. Staff requests that the City Council approve the Foothill Transit JPA Agreement Amendment to include Pasadena as a member agency. BACKGROUND Foothill Transit, created in 1988, is a joint powers authority serving areas that cover 21 cities and Los Angeles County unincorporated areas in the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys. The member cities include: Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, EI Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, Pomona, San Dimas, South EI Monte, Temple City, Walnut and West Covina. Foothill Transit is governed by afive-member Executive Board -four members representing the 21 cities and one member representing the County. The Governing Board, which is comprised of one council member from each of the 21 cities and three appointed representatives from the County, is broken down into five clusters. The 21 Staff Report March 17, 2009 Page 2 cities make up four clusters with five to six member cities belonging to each cluster. The three County representatives form the fifth cluster. Each cluster elects one member to represent its respective cluster on the Executive Board. The City of Arcadia is in Cluster 3 along with Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia and Temple City. Currently, the City of Arcadia represents Cluster 3 at the Executive Board. DISCUSSION At the Annual Governing Board Meeting on May 7, 2008, the Foothill Trahsit Governing Board approved an invitation to the City of Pasadena to join the JPA as a member. The addition of Pasadena to the JPA will change the governing structure requiring ratification of all member organizations. In July 2008, the JPA requested input from member organizations regarding the addition of Pasadena and received positive feedback. Subsequently, the JPA is now requesting member organizations to formally ratify the addition of Pasadena and approve amending the Foothill Transit JPA Agreement to reflect the addition. Once the addition is ratified, Pasadena will be included in Cluster 3 along with Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, Monrovia and Temple City. FISCAL IMPACT Staff does not anticipate any fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Foothill Transit JPA Agreement Amendmeht to include the City of Pasadena as a member. organization. Approved by: .~- ~~^-a+-~ Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment: Foothill Transit JPA Agreement Amendment AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITIES OF ARCADIA, AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, BRADBURY, CLAREMONT, COVINA, DIAMOND BAR, DUARTE, EL MONTE, GLENDORA, INDUSTRY, IRWINDALE, IA HABRA HEIGHTS, LA PUENTE, LA VERNE, MONROVIA, PASADENA, POMONA, SAN DIMAS, SOUTH EL MONTE, TEMPLE CITY, WALNUT AND WEST COVINA CREATING AN AGENCY TO BE KNOWN AS FOOTHILL TRANSIT THIS AGREEMENT, dated the 14th day of April 1988, is entered into between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California, the CITIES OF ARCADIA, AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, BRADBURY, CLAREMONT, COVINA, DIAMOND BAR, DUARTE, EL MONTE, GLENDORA, INDUSTRY, IRWINDALE, LA HABRA HEIGHTS, LA PUENTE, LA VERNE, MONROVIA, PASADENA, POMONA, SAN DIMAS, SOUTH EL MONTE, TEMPLE CITY, WALNUT and WEST COVINA, each a municipal corporation of the State of California, (collectively referred to as "Cities" herein.) WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Cities and County are empowered by law to plan, contract for and operate public transit services as authorized 6y the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's approval of the local transportation zone on December 2, 1987; WHEREAS, the County and Cities in the San Gabriel Valley are desirous of providing public transit services on a more cost effective basis in the area of the approved transportation zone; WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable for Cities and County to jointly exercise their common powers in the manner set forth in this Agreement; FT Joint Powers Apmemant - 081024 SignaWre.doc WHEREAS, on September 25, 1995, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the successor agency to the LACTC, designated the Agency as an included municipal operator, as defined 6y Public Utilities Code section 99207, effective July 1, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, Cities and County, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein, agree as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE AND BENEFIT The Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, Chapters, Division 7 Title 1 of the Government of the State of California (commencing with Section 6500, hereinafter referred to as "Act") relating to the joint exercise of powers referred to in the above recitals. Cities and County each possess the powers referred to in the above recitals. The purpose of this Agreement is to exercise such powers jointly by planning, contracting for and operating public transit services as authorized by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's approval of the included municipal operator to provide more cost effective service. Such purposes will be accomplished and said common powers exercised in the manner set forth in this Agreement. Section 2. TERM. This Agreement shall became effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of three years from the date service begins, unless continued for a longer term by an extension of the approval of the included municipal operator by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, provided that the term shall not expire until all Bonds, as that term is defined in Section 11 herein, are provided for and issued pursuant hereto and the interest thereon shall have been paid in full or adequate provision for such payment have been made as set forth in the proceedings for the issuance thereof, whichever date is earlier. F7 JaM Powers Agreement-081024 Signeture.dx Paget Section 3. FOOTHILL TRANSIT. A. Creation of Foothill Transit. Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public entity, separate and apart from the parties hereto, to be known as "Foothill Transit". The debts, liabilities and obligations of Foothill Transit shall not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of either Cities or Gounty. Foothill Transit will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Cities and County for liability arising as a result of this Agreement. B. Foothill Transit Govemino Board Members. Foothill Transit shall governed by the Foothill Transit Governing Board ("Governing Board") consisting of one elected city council member or mayor from each City and three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Each City may also select an alternate who is also an elected city council member or mayor from that City. No person who receives the substance of his/her income from another transit operating agency may sit on Foothill Transit or Executive Board. C. Foothill Transit Executive Board Members. Foothill Transit shall have an administrative entity, the Executive Board ("Executive Board") composed of five members of the Governing Board at the time of their appointment to the Executive Board, each serving in his/her individual capacity as a member of the Executive Board. One named altemate may be selected for each Board member under rules which the Governing Board may adopt. .One member shall be a County appointee. Four members and their alternates shall be selected from Governing Board members from the Cities according to rules which the Governing Board may adopt, provided that each such Executive Board member and each alternate shall at all times be an elected city council member or mayor of a member city. D. Meetings f the Governing Board and Executive Board. (1) Regular Meetings. FT Joint Powers Agreement - 081024 S~gnature.doc Page 3 The Governing Board and Executive Board shall provide for regular meetings; provided that the Governing Board shall hold at least one regular meeting in each year and the Executive Board shall hold at least one meeting per quarter and there shall be such further meetings as a quorum of either board may reasonably request depending upon the pressure of business. The dates upon which and the hour and place at which any regular meetings shall be held be fixed by resolution and a copy of such resolution shall be filed with Cities and County. The place of the regular meetings shall be within the Foothill Transit service area. (2) Ralph M. Brown Act. All meetings of the Governing Board and Executive Board, including without limitation, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California}. (3) Minutes. The Secretary of Foothill Transit shall cause minutes of regular, adjourned regular and special meetings to be kept, and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of Foothill Transit. (4) Quorum. Fifty percent plus one of the members present at a Governing Board or Executive Board meeting shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that lesser number may adjourn for lack of a quorum. E. Secretary. Treasurer Auditor and Counsel. The Executive Board may appoint a Secretary of the Board. Subject to the restrictions contained in Sections 6505.5 and 6505.6 of the California Government Code, the Board may designate the treasurer and auditor of Foothill Transit or may appoint one of its officers to either or both of such positions. Unless and until-the Executive Board makes a contrary designation or appointment, the Executive Officer-Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall be and act as the Fr Jdnl Powers Agreement-0e1024518nature.doc Page4 Secretary of the Executive Board, the County Treasurer shall be and act as the Treasurer of Foothill Transit, and the County Auditor-Controller shall be and act as the Controller (Auditor) of Foothill Transit. The County Counsel shall, on request, advise the Executive Board in connection with any business relating to the Foothill Transit, The Executive Board may employ other counsel to represent the Foothill Transit in any manner. Section 4. POWERS OF FOOTHILL TRANSIT AND BOARD. (1) General Powers of Foothill Transit. Foothill Transit shall have the powers common to Cities and County set forth in the recitals of this Agreement, to wit: the power to plan, contract for and operate public transit services as authorized by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's approval of the local transportation zone. Foothill Transit is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for the exercise of said common powers, including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: to make and enter into contracts, to acquire, construct, or to provide for maintenance and operation by contract, to maintain and operate any buildings, work, improvements, or facility, to acquire (by condemnation or contract), hold or dispose of property; and, with any required approval of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to amend this Agreement and to annex to Foothill Transit, to incur debts, liabilities or other a obligations which shall not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of any party to this Agreement; to insure or obtain insurance for itself and all parties to this Agreement and to sue and be sued in its own name and to defend and hold harmless the parties to this Agreement. Said powers shall be exercised in the manner provided in said Act and, except as expressly set forth herein, subject only to such restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers as are imposed upon County in the exercise of similar powers. Foothill Transit may also issue Bonds as defined in Section 11 herein. FT Jaint Powers Agreement-OBt0245ignature.doc Pages (2) Rulemaking Powers of Foothill Transit Foothill Transit shall have the power to adopt and implement such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effect the purposes of this Agreemert and which do not conflict with any terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to the power to determine qualification and compensation, if any, of Board members, to determine the procedure for selection of Board members representing cities, their terms, their alternates, if any, and related requirements, to select officers of Foothill Transit not provided for in this Agreement, and to adopt rules relating to fares, routes, and service modifications including the delegation of specified powers relating to Board. B. Powers of Board. The Executive Board shall have the power to adopt and implement such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effect the purposes of this Agreement and which do not conflict with any terms of this Agreement or rules of Foothill Transit, including but not limited to the power to select-officers and their terms and related requirements, to establish wmmittees advisory to the Executive Board and the power to adopt parliamentary rules. Section 5. ROUTES, FARES AND SERVICE MODIFICATIONS. The Executive Board shall recommend fares and routes and service modifications to the Governing Board subject to such rules as the Governing Board may adopt. Section 6. FISCAL YEAR. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Fiscal Year" shall mean the period from July 1 of each year to and including the following June 30. Section 7. PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT Foothill Transit shall, upon request, pay or reimburse Cities or County for reasonable expenses incurred and payments made by Cities or County in connection with the administration of Foothill Transit. Foothill Transit specifically agrees to reimburse County as FT Joint POwBre Agreement-087024 Signeture.tloc Page B. soon as possible far buses which County provides, with interest rates and such other terms as may be mutually agreeable. Section 8. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. Operating funds shall be obtained from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the maximum amount possible. During the initial three years of this Agreement, County shall meet Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's requirement to provide five percent (5%) of the operating budget. If Foothill Transit is required to provide a portion of its operating budget beyond the initial three years, Cities and County may provide funds or assign programs which meet Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority eligibility criteria to fulfill such requirements. Section 9. OPERATIONS. Foothill Transit shall operate in accordance with the operations plan and implementation program approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on December 2, 1987 and as may be amended from time to time by the Commission. Section 10. ASSISTANCE TO FOOTHILL TRANSIT. Cities and County may in appropriate circumstances: (a) Make contributions from their treasuries for the purposes set forth herein, (b) make advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances to be repaid as provided herein, or (c) use their personnel, equipment or property in lieu of other contributions or advances. The provisions of Government Code Section 6513 are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Section 11. BONDS. Foothill Transit may issue Bonds in order to finance acquisition and construction of facilities and vehicles, or to finance operations or any lawful activities of Foothill Transit, or for any other purpose permitted under applicable law, including the establishment of reserves and the payment of incidental expenses. The term "Bond" means any evidence of indebtedness authorized by the Act or any other applicable law now existing or hereafter enacted, including FT JWnt Powers Agmemant-°B70245ignalure.dx Pagel but not limited to revenue bonds and notes, bond anticipation notes, certificates of participation, lease purchase agreement or other evidence of indebtedness. Foothill Transit may also issue refunding bonds to refund any Bonds or other obligations of Foothill Transit. Bonds may be issued from time to time in more than one series; may be sold by competitive bidding or by private sale, to the extent permitted by law, and shall not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of Cities or County or any of them: Any issuance of Bonds shall be approved by a resolution of the Executive Board.and shall not be subject to the approval or consent of County, Cities or any other person or entity. The services of bond counsel, financing consultants and other consultants and advisors- may be used by Foothill Transit in connection with the issuance and sale of Bonds. The fees and expenses of such counsel, consultants and advisors may be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds, and Cities or County may be reimbursed from such proceeds for any portion of such fees and expenses which it has paid prior to the issuance of such Bonds. In connection with the issuance of Bonds, the Executive Board may approve such other contracts and arrangements, and take such other actions, as may be permitted under any applicable law, including but not limited to Chapters 5.5, 11 and 12 of Division 6 of Title 1 of the California Government Code. Section 12. ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS. To the extent not covered by the duties assigned to any trustee appointed under any resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds by Foothill Transit, the Controller of Foothill Transit, shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice or by the provisions of any resolution authorizing the issuance of Bonds by Foothill Transit. The books and records of Foothill Transit in the hands of the trustee or the Controller shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by representatives of Cities and County and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Controller of Foothill Transit, within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all FT Joint Powers Agreement-081024 Signeture.doc PageB financial activities for such fiscal year to Cities, County and Foothill Transit to the extent such activities are not covered by the report of any trustee. Any trustee appointed under any resolution or indenture authorizing the issuance of Bonds by Foothill Transit shall be required to establish suitable funds, furnish financial reports and provide suitable accounting procedures to carry out the provisions of said resolution and this Agreement. Additionally, the Treasurerof Foothill Transit shall assume the duties (to the extent not covered by the duties assigned to any trustee) required by the laws of the State of California, including the duties described in Section 6505.5 of the Government Code or as said Section may be amended. Section 13. FUNDS. The Treasurerof Foothill Transit shall have the custody of said disburse Foothill Transit funds pursuant to the accounting procedures developed in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 hereof and as nearly as possible in accordance with normal County procedures. The public officers (namely, the Controller and Treasurer) herein designated as the persons responsible for any moneys of Foothill Transit are hereby also designated as responsible for all other property of Foothill Transit as required by Government Code Section 6505.1. The parties to this Agreement hereby find and determine that the Controller shall be liable on his official bond in the amount of $50,000 and the Treasurer shall be liable on his official bond in the amount of $300,000. Section 14. DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS. Upon the termination of this Agreement, all property of Foothill Transit shall vest in the respective parties to this Agreement which theretofore transferred, conveyed or leased said property to the FoothiN Transit. Any other property, funds and assets of the Foothill Transit shall be returned to the Cities or County in proportion to their contributions. FT Joint Powers Agreement- 081024 Signeture.doc Page 9 Section 15. WITHDRAWAL FROM FOOTHILL TRANSIT Cities and County, pursuant to the Transportation Zone Guidelines of Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, have agreed to support Foothill Transit for a minimum of one year once service has been initiated. After one year, Cities and County may withdraw from Foothill Transit subject to the following conditions and whatever additional conditions Foothill Transit may adopt: 1) that withdrawal from Foothill Transit requires a minimum 120 day notice and 2) withdrawal from Foothill Transit requires acknowledgment that Southern California Rapid Transit District/Los Angeles County are not required to provide replacement service. Section 16. NOTICES. Ndtices hereunder shall be sufficient if sent by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the City Managers of each City at: ARCADIA: 240 W. Huntington, Box 60, Arcadia, CA 91006 AZUSA: 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, CA 91702 BALDWIN PARK: 14403 E. Pacific Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 BRADBURY: 600 Winston Avenue, Bradbury, CA 91010 CLAREMONT: P.O. Box 880, 207 Harvard Avenue, Claremont, CA. 91711 COVINA: 125 E. College Street, Covina, CA 91722 DIAMOND BAR: 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DUARTE: 1600 Huntington Drive; Duarte, CA 91010 EL MONTE: 11333 Valley Boulevard, Box 6008, EI Monte, CA 91734 GLENDORA: 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, CA 91740 INDUSTRY: Box 3366, Industry, CA 91744 IRWINDALE: 5050 N. Irwindale Avenue, Irwindale, CA 91706 LA HABRA HEIGHTS: 1245 N. Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, CA 90631 LA PUENTE: 14900 East Main Street, La Puente; CA 91744 LA VERNE: 3660 "D" Street, La Verne, CA 91750 FT Joint Pourers Agreement - 081024 Signeluro.doc Page 10 MONROVIA: 415 South Ivy Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 PASADENA: 100 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91109 POMONA: P.O. Box 660, 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA 91769 SAN DIMAS: P.O. Box 307, 245 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773 SOUTH EL MONTE: 1415 N. Santa Anita Avenue, South EI Monte, CA 91733 TEMPLE CITY: 5938 N. Kauffman Avenue, Box 668, Temple City, CA 91780 WALNUT: 21201 La Puente Road, Box 682, Walnut, CA 91789 WEST COVINA: P.O. Box 1440, West Covina, CA 91793 COUNTY: Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Room 383 Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, CA 90012 FOOTHILL TRANSIT: Executive Officer- Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Room 383 Hall of Administration, Los Angeles,. CA 90012 Section 17. MISCELLANEOUS. The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language in the section referred to. Whenever in this Agreement any consent or approval is required the same shall not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement is made in the State of California under the Constitution and laws of such state and is to be so construed. Where reference is made in this Agreement to Controller or Treasurer indicating specific duties to be undertaken by said officers, said officers may independentty determine which of them shall undertake any particular duty. Section 18. SEVERABILITY. Should any part, term, portion or provisions of this Agreement be by the courts decided to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or othervvise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions of provisions shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining portion FT JOinl Powers Apreamenl-OB~0245ignature.doc Page 11 or provisions can be construed in substance to continue to constitute the Agreement that the parties intended to enter into in the first instance. Section 19. SUCCESSORS. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of fhe successors of ttie parties hereto. Section 20: EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this Amended and Restated Agreement shall be the latest date of execution by a party. This Amended and Restated Agreement may be signed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amended and Restated Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers. [Signatures continued on following pages.] F7 Jnim Powers agreamem-oemza sie~awra.ax Page 12 CITY OF ARCADIA ATTEST: By: James H. Barrows Robert C. Harbicht City Clerk Mayor Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney A rm3.~l STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police Prepared by: Nancy Chik, Senior Management Analys~ SUBJECT: Santa Anita Derby Dav 5K Run and Walk Recommendation: Waive expenses related to traffic control services for the Fifteenth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K to be held on Saturday, April 4, 2009. SUMMARY The Los Angeles Turf Club (Santa Anita) is sponsoring their Fifteenth Annual 5K Run & Walk wherein traffic control services are n~quired to facilitate the event. Typiglly, when City services or personnel are required for coordination of special events, the cost of these services is borne by the event organizer. In this instance, like years past, Santa Anita is requesting that the City waive the cost of traffic control services because it is a charitable event. DISCUSSfON The 5K race is one of several specal events that will be held in conjunction wrth the Santa Anita Derby and will be coordinated by Kinane Events, Inc. This year the Derby Day 5K Run & Walk is co-sponsored by the Methodist Hospital of Southern California and Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita. Participation of contestants has increased each year, and it is anticipated that about 5,000 runners/walkers will join in this year's event. Any profits from the race will be donated to local beneficiaries including the Arcadia High School Athletic Boosters Club and the Arcadia Historical Museum. If the race operates at a loss, Santa Anita will give all organizations a check for a fixed amount. The Arcadia Police Explorer Post will also receive a donation ftom this event. The race will begin inside the racetrack between gate #3 and gate #1, and the runners/walkers will proceed through the track parking lot, exit at gate #8, and cross Baldwin Avenue. The participants will continue north on Baldwin Avenue in the southbound #2 lane, which will be barricaded, and enter the Arboretum parking lot just south of gate #7. They will proceed through the course in the Arboretum and exit by the fountain, cross back over Baldwin Avenue, and enter the racetrack through gate #7. Finally, the racers will proceed through the turf tunnel and infield, and wind. up on the training track to the finish line. The Police Department will provide intermittent traffic control to facil'date the running of the race and to ensure the safely of the participants. -The savings to Santa Anita is estimated at approximately $1,000 for traffic control. It is anticipated that traffic flow on Baldwin Avenue between Colorado and Huntington will be diverted between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Police personnel will use traffic flow management patterns that have been previously used and shown to have the most minimal effect on businesses or local residents. As part of hosting an event of this type, Santa Anita is also required to provide a cert~cate of insurance designating the City of Arcadia as an additional insured. They have provided the required insurance certificate and it has been approved by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT The event will cost about $1,000 in overtime for Police personnel and will be absorbed in the Police overtime budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve Santa Anita's request to waive the cost of traffic control services for the Fifteenth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run 8~ Walk to be held on April 4, 2009. Approved: `J~ ~~,.~ Don Penman, City Manager ,_,.,.. ~•e•.~ s, ,ros STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police` By: Nancy Chik, Senior Management Analy~.~~ SUBJECT: Renewal of Professional Services Agreement-Parkino Enforcement Services Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to renew the annual professional services agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. for parking enforcement services from April 15, 2009, to June 30, 2010, for an amount not to exceed $249,878.31. SUMMARY The City has a professional services agreement with Inter-Con Security for parking enforcement services, and the current agreement will expire on April 14, 2009. It is recommended that the City Council approve the professional services agreement renewal with Inter-Con Security from April 15, 2008, through June 30, 2010, in an amount not to exceed $249,878.31. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In 2007, the City approved a contract with Inter-Con Security Systems to provide overnight parking, daytime street sweeping, and general parking enforcement in the City. Inter-Con is the only qualified firm that has the experience to provide such a service. The nearby cities that currently contract with Inter-Con for parking enforcement services are Alhambra, Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Gabriel, La Verne, Glendora, and Covina. Cities utilize parking enforcement to enhance public safety and traffic flow, and to distribute limited parking resources to a variety of users. The Arcadia Municipal Code also prohibits parking on public streets between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. These restrictions were enacted to increase safety and security, as well as enhance the City's aesthetic. Inter-Con Security has proven to be a responsible provider. During the first year, the City has seen almost a 220% increase in parking citations, which translates to almost $600,000 in fines. Inter-Con Security will continue to be responsible for hiring, training, scheduling, disciplining, and firing of their personnel. The company will supply properly marked uniforms and vehicles. In the agreement, Inter-Con will provide two Senior Parking Enforcement Representatives (SPER), two Parking Enforcement Representatives (PER),. and two vehicles. Also in the agreement,. Inter-Con will pay the City $200 for each unfilled 8-hour shift. This was included because ah unfilled shift equates to a lack of enforcement and revenue for the City. Additionally, Inter-Con will pay $5.00 for each voided citation due to unsatisfactory or unjustified citation. This provision is to prevent over-zealous employees from issuing unwarranted citations and to cut down on administrative reviews of citations. All of the Police Department's contracts are renewed from July 1 to June 30 of each year. Since the current annual agreement with Inter-Con will expire on April 14, 2009, and in order to be consistent with all other Department contracts,-staff has requested that Inter-Con extend their contract by 2.5 months so that the new contract will expire on June 30, 2010, The current contract amount is $219,838.08, and for the contract renewal, staff has stipulated that there will be no salary increases for the parking enforcement personnel, no CPI increase, mileage increased to 23,000 per year for each vehicle, a 4.5% contingency, and a 5% reduction in the overall contract cost. The contract renewal cost for 14.5 months is $239,118.00, with $10,760.31 set aside for contingencies, for a not to exceed amount of $249,878.31. (The cost fora 12-month agreement would be $208,804.38.) FISCAL IMPACT The City's financial obligation would be $249,878.31 for 14.5 months, and the Department anticipates receiving about $600,000 in parking violation revenue annually. Therefore, this contract will generate approximately $400,000 in revenue for the City. However, should residents and visitors become more. observant of posted parking restrictions and are made aware that non-compliance could result in a parking citation, greater compliance will result in fewer tickets issued and less revenue. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to renew the annual professional services agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. for parking enforcement services from April 15, 2009, to June 30, 2010, for an amount not to exceed $249,878.31. Approved: ~~~cr..w.~- Don Penman, City Manager ...e e~nu"9', STAFF REP®RT Development Services Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director~~ Robert Sanderson, Police Chief Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Enginee Prepared by: Ramiro Gonzalez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6670 SETTING FORTH LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE SPEED LIMITS Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY The California Vehicle Code requires cities to conduct Engineering. and Traffic Surveys every five years to set legally enforceable (commonly referred to as "prima facie") speed limits on city streets. A recent.Engineering and Traffic Survey was conducted in Arcadia for forty-three (43) arterial and collector roadway segments. The results of the survey indicate eight (8) changes to the speed limits on all forty-three (43) roadway segments. Staff is recommending adoption of Resolution 6670 setting prima facie speed limits in the City of Arcadia consistent with the Engineering and Traffic Survey. BACKGROUND An Engineering and Traffic Survey is required to establish prima facie speed limits on city streets not covered under the California Vehicle Code Definition of residential or commercial streets for the purpose of radar enforcement. With an approved Engineering and Traffic survey in place, the police department can legally use radar to enforce speeds on the streets covered under the Survey. The California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) defines a speed trap as a section of highway with a prima facie speed limit not justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted within the last five years and where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices used to measure the speed of moving objects. Section 40802 declares the evidence obtained from the use of a speed -trap as inadmissible in court when prosecuting under the Code. Staff Report Resolution 6670 -Speed Survey March 17, 2009 Page 2 The current Engineering and Traffic Survey which was adopted by the City of Arcadia in March 2004 expires March 2009. This proposed Speed Zoning Survey establishes recommended speed limits on portions of forty-three (43) arterial and collector streets previously studied and is required for continued radar enforcement. The Engineering and Traffic Survey referred to above is defined in Section 627 of the Vehicle Code as a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for use by State and local authorities. The survey must include: 1. Prevailing speeds as'determined by traffic engineering measurements 2. Accident records 3. Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver Caltrans Method for Engineering and Traffic Survev The City of Arcadia uses the Caltrans method for determining speed limits. The Caltrans method bases speed zoning on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists and that by measuring speeds, one will be able to select a limit that is both reasonable and effective. The Caltrans method states, in effect, that speed limits should be normally established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed. Recent court rulings however; have invalidated this standard and now require that the speed limit should be set at the nearest 85`n percentile. The 85`n- Percentile Speed is defined as that speed at or below at which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85`n- percentile speed is often referred tows critical speed. Speed limits higher than the 85`n- Percentile are not generally considered reasonable and safe, and limits below the 85`n- Percentile do not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a'few individuals. The basic speed law states that no person shall drive at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent.. Most drivers comply with this law, and disregard regulations which they consider unreasonable. It is only the top fringe of drivers that are inclined to be reckless and unreliable, or who have faulty judgment, and must be controlled by enforcement. Speed limits 'set at or slightly below the 85tH-Percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with a mean$ of controlling drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. As a check of validity for the proposed speed limit, an analysis is made of the three-year accident record for the roadways under consideration. If this analysis reveals an accident rate greater than what would be statistically expected from the traffic volume and road type, the speed limit should be 7educed. Staff Report Resolution 6670 -Speed Survey March 17, 2009 Page 3 Regarding the third element of the study, roadway conditions and factors such as design speed, safe stopping sight distance, super-elevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks, residential density, etc. must be considered. DISCUSSION Kimley-Horn and Associates, a qualified traffic engineering firm, conducted radar speed measurements for the forty-three (43) previously studied roadway segments. 'The forty- three (43) segments are listed in Attachment A and are considered the study area for this exercise. Kimley-Horn reviewed the results of the speed measurements, the accident history and field checked the roadways for unusual conditions. The results of their survey were reviewed by the Development Services Department, Engineering Division and the Police Department. The data obtained formed the basis of the Engineering `and Traffic Survey and is discussed below: Prevailin Seeds All sampled speed measurements were conducted during off-peak hours and contained 100-150 vehicles per location. The speeds shown on Attachment A (Speed Limit Determination) are considered the critical (85~h-Percentile) speeds according to widely accepted engineering standards. Accident History The collision information was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008. Collisions were reviewed and corridor related collisions (those not related to signalized intersections) were summarized for each segment. Based on the number of collisions and Average Daily Traffic counts, a collision rate per million vehicle miles was calculated for each segment. To provide a comparison of the collision rates to expected collision rates for similar types of local roadways, the collision rates for each segment were compared to the Los Angeles County wide average rate listed in the Los Angeles County Midblock Accident Rates -Master Plan Highways and Mountain Roads study as presented in the table below. Fronting Development Total Collision Rate per Million Vehicle Miles -Mixed Development with Critical Speed 2.14 reaterthan45:m h, Commercial Industrial, Residential, Rural and Mixed Development with Critical Speed less than 1.55 45 m h Where the collision rates exceeaea the county stanaara, me speea omit nas peen rouuc;CU. Staff Report Resolution 6670 -Speed Survey March 17, 2009 Page 4 Miscellaneous Roadway Conditions Two additional factors were also considered in establishing a justification of the proposed speed limits`. Roadway characteristics not readily apparent to the driver Conditions such as high density residential and schools that contribute to additional street activity like multiple driveways and pedestrians ANALYSIS The results of the radar speed measurements determined that 14 roadway segments have critical speeds at or below the existing speed limits and 29 segments have critical speeds three to five miles per hour above the existing speed limits. After review and analysis of the other. factors mentioned, the end results of`the study is that five (5) roadway segments are recommended for a change upward from the existing speed limit and that four (4) segments are recommended for a change downward from the existing speed limit. The locations and changes are as follows: Street Limits' Existing Speed Limits m h Proposed Speed Limits m h Sierra Madre Ave. W. Ci Limit to Santa Anita 30 25 Golden West Ave. Huntin ton Dr. to S Cit .Limit 30 25 Hoil Ave. Huntin ton Dr. to Live Oak Ave. 35 30 Live Oak Ave. Santa Anita Ave to E. Cit Limit 40 35 Baldwin Ave. Foothill Blvd to Oran a Grove 40 45 Colorado Blvd. Michillinda BI to Colorado BI 45 50 Foothill Blvd. Santa Anita Ave to E. Cit Limit 35 40 Goldrin Rd. Peck Rd. to terminus 25 30 Peck Rd. S. Ci Limit to N:.Ci Limit 40 45 Approval of the attached resolutiorr will adopt the current speed limits as legally enforceable per the Vehicle Code for the next five years. FISCAL IMPACT " There is no fiscal impact of this action other than to replace speed limit signs at these locations. There are a minimum of two signs peg location requiring. replacement, however, some signs may be reused at other locations. The resulting cost is minimal. Staff Report Resolution 6670 -Speed Survey March 17, 2009 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION That the .City Council adopt Resolution 6670, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, setting forth prima facie speed limits. Approved by: ~ `~ Donald Penman, City Manager JK: RS: PAW:RSG: pa Attachment A: Results and Recommendations Attachment B: Speed Limit Map (Proposed) Attachment C: Resolution No. 6670 and Associates, Inc. 3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are intended to establish prima facie speed limits. Prima facie limits attempt to advise the motorist and enforcement of the reasonable speed for a particular section of roadway for the prevailing conditions. In many cases, the recommendations made produce a uniform speed limit along the road. As a result, the speed limits in adjacent jurisdictions were considered as well as along Ure various street segments surveyed within the City ofArcadia. The Engineering and Traffic Survey Sheets, presented in the Appendix, illustrate the results of a thorough evaluation of the available data and indicate a recommended speed limit for each of the street segments surveyed. A summary of the data analysis, along with recommended speed limits can be found in Table 3 followed by descriptions of the recommendations .for each roadway segment. Table 3: Speed Survey Recommendations Existing 85th 10 Recommended Speed Percentile mph Speed Limit Justification Limit Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph) (mPh) 1 60 W Sierra Madre ~'i'•City Limit to 30 23 15-24 25 85th percentile speed Santa Anita 85th percentile speed 2 Baldwinat Huntington to 30 35 27-36 30 downgraded due to Fairview Camino Real higher than expected collision rate 3 Baldwinat Orange Grove to 40 45 36-45 45 85th percentile speed Han~ton Foothill 85th percentile speed downgraded due to high Camino Real to Live pedestrian activity 4 Baldwin at Lemon Oak 40 43 36-45 40 because ofday schooUnurseryschool and unsignalized edestrian crossin s 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 5 Baldwinat Foothill to 40 43 36-45 40 higher than expected Stanford Huntington collision rate and roadway curvature City of Arcadia. Page 9 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits -Final Report .February 2009 ATTACHMENT A and Assoaaies, Inc. Existing 85th 10 Recommended Speed Percentile mph Speed Limit Justification Limit Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph) (mph) 6 Camino Real at West City Limit to 35 35 27-36 35 85th percentile speed 400 W First Ave 7 Camino Real e/o First to East City 35 33 26-35 35 85th percentile speed First Limit 85th percentile downgraded due to higher than expected 8 Campus at 180 Holly to Santa Anita 35 41 33-42 35 collision rate, location of nearby school, and moderate pedestrian activit 85th percentile speed 9 Clark e/o Peck Peck to Durfee 35 39 30-39 35 downgraded due to the 10 mph pace 85th percentile downgraded due 10 Colorado at Joyce Santa Anita to Fifth 35 40 31-40 35 residential density, location of nearby school, and moderate edestrian activit 85th percentile downgraded due 11 Colorado aYSan Colorado to Santa 35 39 31-40 35 residential density, ,Antonio Anita locationofnearby schools, and roadway curvature 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 12 Colorado at San Colorado Bl to 40 46 37-46 40 higher than expected Juan Huntington collision rate, location of nearby schools and roadwa curvature 13 Colorado w/o Michillinda to 45 51 42-51 50 85th percentile speed Baldwin Colorado Bl City of Arcadia Page ]0 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits -Final Report ~ February 2009 ATTACHMENT A Existing 85th 10 Recommended Speed Percentile mph Speed Limit Justificaflon Liinif Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph). (mph) 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 14 Duarte at Holly ~'~'est City limit to El 35 38 24-33 35 higher than expected Monte Ave collision rate, 10 mph pace, and residential densit 85th percentile speed downgraded to be consistent with adjacent street segment Between 15 Duarte at third El Monte to Eas[ 35 45 34-43 35 West City limit and E] City Limit Monte and due to higher than expected collision rate, 10 mph pace, and residential densit 85th percentile downgraded due to the 16 El Monte at Duarte to S. City 40 43 35-44 40 10 mph pace, location of Wistaria Limit nearby schools and high pedestrian activity 85th percentile speed 17 First at Genoa Diamond to Las 35 39 30-39 35 downgraded due to the Flores 10 mph pace and location ofnearb schools 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 18 First at Haven Foothill to 35 40 28-39 35 residential density, 10 Huntington mph pace, unsignalized edestrian crossin s 19 Foothill at Leandro Michilinda to Santa 45 47 39-48 45 85th percentile speed Anita 85th percentile speed 20 Foothill at Second Santa Anita to E.City 35 43 34-43 40 downgraded due to 10 limit mph pace and higher th expected collision rate 85th percentile speed 21 Golden West at Huntington Dr to S 30 32 22-31 25 downgraded due to Arcadia City limit higher thamexpected collision rate and City of Arcadia Page 11 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits -Final Report February 2009 ATTACHMENT A Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Existing 85th 10 Recommended Speed Percentile mph Speed Limit JustiC-cation Limit Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph) (mph) residential density 85th percentile speed downgraded due to the 22 Goldring e/o Peck Peck to Cul De Sac 25 34 25-34 30 10 mph pace and higher than expected collision rate 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 23 Highland Oaks at Foothill to Orange 30 37 30-39 30 residential density; Woodland Grove location of neazby school, and high edestrian activit 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 24 Holly at Norman Huntington Drive to 35 35 26-35 30 residential density, Live Oak location of neazby school, and high edestrian activit 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 25 Huntington at 100 Colorado Pl to Fifth 30 36 28-37 30 higher than expected E collision rate and unsignalized pedestrian crossin s 85th percentile speed - 26 Huntington at 300 Baldwin to Colorado 45 44 35-44 45 and to be consistent with WB Pl adjacent (eastbound) street se ent 27 Huntington at 300 Baldwin to Colorado 45 46 37-46 45 85th percentile speed EB Pl 28 Hungtington at Michilinda to 45 47 40-49 45 85th percentile speed Golden West Baldwin 85th percentile speed downgraded due to 29 Live Oak W. City Limit to 40 45 38-47 40 moderate pedestrian McCullough Santa Anita activity and unsignalized edestrian crossin s City of Arcadia Page 12 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed~Limits -Final Report February 2009 ATTACHMENT A Kimley-Horn and Assoaates, Inc. Existing Speed 85th Percentile 10 Recommended Limit Speed mph Speed Limit Justification No. Location Name Limits (mPh) (mP4} .pace (mph) 30 Live Oak w/o Santa Anita to E.City 40 37 28-37 35 . 85th percentile speed - Greenfield limit 31 Longden at 300 W W City Limit to 35 37 30-39 35 85th percentile speed Santa Anita Avenue 85th percentile speed 32 Longden at Fourth Santa Anita to E.City 35 38 29-38 35 downgraded due to the limit 10 mph pace and residential densit 33 Lower Azusa at W. City Limit toE. 45 44 37-46 45 85th percentile speed 1100 S City Limit 85th percentile speed 34 Mayflower at 1100 S. City Limit to N. 35 39 30-39 35 downgraded due to the S (El Sui•) City limit, . 10 mph pace and residential densit Orange Grove at W. City Limit to 85th percentile speed 35 p~.k Baldwin Ave 35 38 31-40 35 downgraded due to residential density 85th percentile speed downgraded due to Orange Grove at Baldwin to Santa residential density and to 36 Rodeo Anita 35 42 33-42 35 be consistent with adjacent street segment between West City limit and Baldwin 37 -Peck at Clazk S. City Limit to N. City limit 40 47 42-51 45 85th percentile speed 38 Santa Anita at Bonita Duarte to Huntington 40 42 34-43 40 85th percentile speed 85th percentile speed downgraded due to location of school 39 Santa Anita at Las Flores to Duarte 40 43 38-47 40 neazby, school crossing, Naomi and to be consistent with adjacent street segment between Duarte and Huntin ton City of Arcadia Page 13 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Spced Limits- Final Report February 2009 ATTACHMENT A Kimley-Florn and Associates, Inc. E~sting 85th 10 Recommended Speed Percentile mph Speed Limit Justification Limit Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph) (mph) 40 Santa Anita at St. Foothill to 40 39 28-37 40 85th percentile speed Joseph Huntington 41 Santa Anita at Foothill to N.City 35 36 28-37 35 85th percentile speed Woodland Limit 42 Santa Clara w/o Santa Anita to Fifth 35 35 27-36 35 85th percentile speed Fifth 85th percentile speed downgraded due to the 10 mph pace, roadway 43 Santa Clara w/o Huntington to Santa 35 39 30-39 35 curvature, location of Santa Anita Anita school neazby, and to be consistent with adjacent street segment between Santa Anita and Fifth 44 Second at 1000 S Camino Real to 35 36 30-39 35 85th percentile speed Duarte 85th percentile speed downgraded due to the S. City Limit to 10 mph pace, residential 45 Second at 1800 S Camino Real 35 38 29-38 35 density, and to be consistent with adjacent street segment between Camino Real and Duarte 85th percentile speed downgraded due to the 10 mph pace, residential 46 Second at Fano Duarte to Huntington 35 39 29-38 35 density, and to be consistent with adjacent street segment between Camino Real and Duarte 47 Second at Forest Huntington to 35 37 28-37 35 85th percentile speed Foothill City of Arcadia Page 14 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits -Final Report February 2009 ATTACHMENT A Kimley-Horn and Associates, Ina Existit-g 85th 10. Recommended Speed Percentile mph -Speed Limit Justification Limit Speed pace (mph) No. Location Name Limits (mph) (mph) 85th percentile speed 48 Sixth at Lemon N. City Limit to 35 38 29-38 35 downgraded due to the Santa Anita 10 mph pace and residential densit 85th percentile speed downgraded to be 49 Sunset at Fairview Huntington to S.City 35 39 32-41 . 35 consistent with adjacent Limit street segment between W. City Limit and Huntin on 85th percentile speed 50 Sunset n/o W. City Limit to 35 40 30-39 35 downgraded due to the Huntington Huntington 10 mph pace and roadwa curvature 85th percentile speed S. City Limit to N. downgraded due to 51 Tenth at El Sur City limit 35 39 31-40 35 higher than expected collision rate and residential densit 52 Las Tunas at Baldwin to Live Oak 40 41. 33-42 40 85th percentile speed Warren Table 3 indicates that based upon this Engineering and Traffic Survey: • there is no change to the existing speed limits at 43 of the 52 street segments. • the recommended speed limits at 5 street segments are higher than the existing speed limits. • the recommended speed limits at 4 street segments. aze lower than the existing speed limits. City of Arcadia Page 15 Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits -Final Repor[ February 2009 ATTACHMENT A ~ty Of ~~ ~..: Q~,"~~ ~V Speed Limits ~" ~'~ 25 s' GRANDVlEWAVE ~~ N -` ~ ~~ 30 3s j ~~35 Aycad~uz ~~~~~ 25 X40 '~ ~ N eaxcECrsovEn ~ 35 . a ~ 45 ~ 30 ~~ wormue 45 ~ 40 '.~ ,.. -CDLORADO Si_... ~ S0 40 35 ~ ~ ~ ~ `^~^- 3 5 c a 40 40 NiB 35 ~ ~ 30 45 \ 35 C ~ 45 DR DUAR'~~ 35 ,. 35 ,,.....~ / .. 35 •: 35 25 30 35 a ~ ~ a .~ ~ DUA 35 ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~. .. "ti ~ cAwNOREA~. 35 35 •ul oe~ 35 Q 35 35 's 40 30 40 40 ~ ~~ ~oecoeeave tih 35 ~~~ i ` a~ € e ~ ~ 35 ti. A 40 40 .. `.. 45 I .30 '••., . r 3 5 „~: Speed Limif Map ••~" ~~ '• 45 oevalopmpeJnt serrvg/ces Department V E~iepere~d.' Me~c6 20 ~ IT r\ H 1 1 /-~I~nIVICIV I D RESOLUTION NO. 6670 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS OTHER THAN THOSE SET FORTH BY STATE LAW WHEREAS, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 and 22358, Sections 3221 and 3222 of the Arcadia Municipal Code authorize the City Council, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, to increase or decrease the prima facie speed limit otherwise wallowed by state law on certain streets in order to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic in a manner that is reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has recently conducted an engineering and traffic' survey which together with earlier such engineering and traffic surveys, indicates that a speed either greater than or less than that otherwise permitted by state law upon certain streets in the City would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires and intends to keep in place without interruption those certain increases and decreases in the prima facie speed limit on certain streets set forth in Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 3221 through and including 3221.23 and Sections 3222 through and including 3222.9; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2190 which permits the City Council, by resolution to increase or decrease the prima facie 1 speed limit on certain streets based on an engineering and traffic survey, while at the same time removing from the Arcadia Municipal Code those certain`increases or decreases in prima facie speed limits in existence at the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 2190. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey conducted by the City, an increase in the speed otherwise permitted by State Law upon the following streets would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth on those streets or parts of .streets specified hereinafter in this Section 1: Baldwin Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Orange Grove Avenue, forty-five (45) miles per hour. Colorado Street between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado $oulevard, fifty (50) miles per hour. Foothill Boulevard between Santa Anita Avenue and Fifth.Avenue; forty (40) miles per hour. Goldring Road between Peck Road and Dead end, thirty (30) miles per hour. 2 Peck Road between the north City Limit. and the south City Limit, forty-five (45) miles per hour. SECTION 2. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey conducted by the City, a decrease in the speed otherwise permitted by State Law upon the' following streets would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth on those streets or parts of streets specified hereinafter in this Section 2: Golden West Avenue between Huntington Drive and the south City Limit, twenty-five (25) miles per hour. Holly Avenue between Huntington Drive and Live Oak Avenue, thirty (30) miles per hour. Live Oak Avenue between Santa Anita Avenue and the east City Limit, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Sierra Madre Boulevard between the west City Limit and Santa Anita Avenue, twenty-five (25) miles per hour. SECTION 3. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey conducted by the City, the speed permitted by State law upon the following streets is more than is reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth on those streets or parts of streets specified hereinafter in 3 this Section 3, and such prima facie speed limits are hereby determined to be appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and are reasonable and safe: Baldwin Avenue between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Avenue, thirty (30) miles per hour. Highland Oaks Drive ,between Foothill Boulevard and Orange Grove Avenue, thirty (30) miles per hour Huntington Drive between Colorado Place and Fifth Real Avenue, thirty (30) miles per hour. Camino Real Avenue between the west City Limit and the east City Limit, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Campus Drive between Holly Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Clark Street between Peck Road and Durfee Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Colorado Boulevard between Colorado Street and Fifth Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Duarte Road between the west City Limit and the east City Limit, thirty-f ve (35) miles per hour. 4 First Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Huntington Drive, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. First Avenue between Diamond Street and Las Flores Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Longden Avenue .between the east City Limit and the west City Limit, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Mayflower Avenue between the north City Limit and the south City Limit, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Orange Grove Avenue between the west City Limit and Santa Anita Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Santa Anita Avenue between the north City Limit and Foothill Boulevard, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Santa Clara Street between Huntington Drive and Fifth Avenue, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Secorid Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue, thirty- five (35) miles per hour. Sixth Avenue between the north City Limit and Live Oak Avenue, thirty- five (35) miles per hour. Sunset Boulevard between Michillinda Avenue and the south City Limit, thirty-five (35) miles per hour. 5 Tenth Avenue between the north City Limit and the south City Limit, thirty- .five (35} miles per hour. Baldwin Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Huntington Drive, forty (40) miles per hour. Baldwiri Avenue between Camino Real Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, forty (40) miles per hour. Colorado Place between Colorado Boulevard and Huntington Drive, forty (40) miles per hour. El Monte Avenue between Duarte. Road and-the south City Limit, forty (40) miles per hour. Las Tunas Drive between Baldwin Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, forty (40) miles per hour. Live. Oak. Avenue between the west City Limit and Santa Anita Avenue, forty (40) miles per hour. Santa Anita Avenue between Foothill. Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue, forty (40) miles per hour. Foothill Boulevard between the west City Limit and Santa Anita Avenue, forty-five (45) miles per hour. Huntington Drive between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Place, forty- five (45) miles per hour. 6 Lower Azusa Road between the south City Limit and the north City Limit, forty-five (45) miles per hour. SECTION 4. The increase and decrease in prima facie speed limits set forth in this Resolution shall be effective upon the date that Ordinance No. 2190 becomes effective, and further when appropriate signs either exist or are erected upon the applicable street giving notice of the foregoing prima facie speed limits. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 7 .:~t~:; STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Directory-~- t Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of pevelopment Services SUBJECT: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED NEW CITY HALL PROJECT Recommendation: Approve the design development package and pursue further options for financing SUMMARY Steinberg Architects has riow completed the design development phase of the new City Hall building to be located on the Civic. Center campus. The full package of plans and specifications is on file in the Development Services Department. The estimate of cost for the building and site work has been refined and it is now $9,626,616. The current project cost including furniture, utilities, design and other soft costs less what has been spent to date is $12,270,333. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the design development package for the new City Hall, and provide direction to staff on the next steps. BACKGROUND Funds were budgeted in fiscal year 2007/08 for the design of a new City Hall building on the Civic Center campus in an amount of $750,000. On September 4, 2007, the City Council awarded an architectural services contract to Steinberg Architects at a rate of 12% of the construction cost, and authorized them to proceed with the schematic design phase of the project in the amount of $152,000. Several updates were provided to the City Council during the schematic design phase. Two study sessions were held, one on November 6, 2007 and the other on February 5, 2008, at which the Council provided input and requested modifications. A formal presentation was made to the City Council at the March 18, 2008 meeting at which the Council approved the preliminary design concept and directed staff to complete the schematic design package. Staff Report Design Development for Proposed New City Hall Project March 17, 2009 Page 2 On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved the schematic design and authorized Steinberg Architects to proceed with the design development phase of the project in the. amount of $357,009. The design development phase includes the preparation of plans and specifications to a level of 40% completion and an updated cost estimate. The building has been modified slightly through this phase as the schematic design elements, elevations and renderings are transformed to actual working drawings. DISCUSSION Now that the design development phase is complete, the building features are clearer and the level of detail is much greater. Some important facts of the new building through the design development phase are: • Gross Floor Area - 28,247 s.f. • Two-story orientation- maximum height of 40 feet • Building Materials -Limestone and cement plaster • Construction Type -Type II - B • Building-and Site Work Cost Estimate - $9,626,616 The building size has increased by 857 square feet from the schematic design phase, representing an increase of 3%. The increase is due to several reasons. During Design Development, it was determined by the mechahical engineer that-additional space was needed for the purpose of system efficiency. More space was required for equipment inside the building in the mechanical equipment room while less space was necessary on the roof. The structural space allowances needed to be increased to accommodate large moment frame columns along the curved north wall. To save cost and ensure stable network operations, it was determined that additional space and an additional data room were desirable to reduce the length of cable.runs-dueto-the length-of the building and distribution of office space. Also, some area increase is attributable to design changes requested by the City at the completion of schematic design. to carry the curved wall at the entry down to the ground to create a more welcome entry. "Green" Technolopv There has been a growing awareness in the building industry for sustainable design and sensitivity to the environment. More buildings in both the public and private sector are requiring and incorporating "green" design features. Most all recent .civic building construction has implemented some sustainable features and greeh technology. Much of the industry has followed the green 'building rating system entitled Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). This rating system quantifies "green" building features and elements to determine a numeric ranking. At a certain level, a building is eligible to become LEED Certified. Understanding the impact the 'new City ,~. Staff Report Design Development for Proposed New City Hall Project March 17, 2009 Page 3 Hall will have on the City of Arcadia and its surrounding communities, Steinberg Architects has pursued the building design with sustainable features that would allow for LEED Certification: As currently designed, it is estimated that the City Hall project could likely qualify for 30 to 40 LEED credits making certification possible at either a base or possibly a silver level. The majority of those features have minimal cost impacts as they are consistent with good building design practice. As an example, many of the building finish materials have arecycled /renewable content, certified wood or can be provided by regional sources. The building is designed to optimize natural daylighting and to supplement natural light with energy efficient fixtures and control devices. Innovative and efficient heating and cooling systems will utilize the existing on-site chilled water plant and supplement it in areas such as the lobby with radiant flooring. The use of cool roofing materials and minimal hardscape /paving will reduce harmful "heat-island" atmospheric effects. Indoor environmental quality will be enhanced with increased ventilation, low chemical-emitting interior materials and variable thermal controls. The site will include a stormwater collection and recharge system to maximize the quality of the water and minimize the amount of runoff leaving the site. These features have been included to ensure the best design to meet the City's visionary and financial goals. Cost Estimate Comparison Steinberg Architect's cost estimate for the building and site work is $9,626,616. This estimate assumes that the project will utilize local funding and that prevailing wages will not be required. In the event state, federal or other outside funding sources are utilized that require prevailing wages, the estimate will need to be increased by approximately ten percent. Staff again retained the services of Construction Controls Group, Inc. (CCG) to review the plans and formulate an independent cost estimate.. Their estimate is lower than Steinberg Architect's estimate by approximately 15%. The reason for the difference is that the two experts approached their estimates from different perspectives. Steinberg's estimate reflects the current construction cost environment and is based on the industry average of 4 to 5 bids from qualified general contractors. Their estimate is intended to reflect amid-range bid as the fair market value of the project and not the low bid. CCG's estimate recognizes that in the current market, projects are receiving numerous bids causing the low bid to be 10 to 15% below estimate. Their estimate is intended to reflect a best case scenario with many bids from qualified general contractors. Staff believes this range is helpful in planning for the construction costs. The architect's estimate will be used for panning purposes, but it is important to note that in today's bidding environment, this project could be considerably less expensive. Staff Report Design Development for Proposed'New City Hall Project March 17, 2009 Page 4 Comprehensive Proiect Cost Now that the design development phase is complete, the comprehensive cost estimate has been updated and refined as follows: Building Construction and Site Work Owner Contingency (2%) Architectural Fees (total-$1,155,194) Geotechnical Plan Check Construction Management Additional Inspection Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment Building signage/wayfinding Utility Relocations by others . Communications & Data Installation Miscellaneous & Overhead $9,626,616 $192,532 $646,185 (net remaining) $10,000 $20,000 $500,000 $175,000 $700,000 $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 50 000 Total Bidding Environment $12,270,333 It is important to note that building construction costs rose severely a few years ago. For example, building costs rose 20% over the period of 2005 to 2007. Since 2007, costs have dramatically turned as the industry has taken'a downturn. Currently, given the economic conditiohs, construction costs are experiencing little or no increases and as the number of bidders per project increases, the low bids are coming in well below the estimates. These fluctuations have-made estimating building costs a very difficult task as can be seen in the difference between the two expert's estimates for this project. By current professional cost estimating practices, as reported by Steinberg's cost estimator, the adjusted escalation rate is approximately 1.5% per year. Both estimators have cautioned staff that the accuracy of their estimates is based on a firm project schedule with a contract award-date of August 2009. If.the project is not bid and awarded by that date, the estimate will no longer be valid. In fact, in this economic climate, conditions can- change monthly. Both estimators recommend updating the estimate monthly based on the latest industry trends. Needless to say, this is a very good time to be considering bidding a construction project of this nature. The immediate bidding environment is very' positive, due to the lack of work and the competitive nature of the bidders. CCG has indicated that current bid results are coming in conservatively below 15% of the original cost estimates. As an example, they report that the Los Angeles Unified School District has experienced Staff Report Design Development for Proposed New City Hall Project March 17, 2009 Page 5 significant savings on two school projects with bids received ih August and December of last year. Both projects received nine bids and the .low bids resulted in substantial savings over original estimates by as much as 30%. The City of Arcadia also experienced this recently with the project- to rehabilitate the Arcadia Self Storage Building where bids ranged from 60 to 100 percent of the construction estimate. Both CCG and Steinberg Architects recommend that if at all possible, the City continue to move forward at least with the completion of the construction drawings and documents and be in a position to take immediate advantage of this economic competition in construction should the funding for the project be determined. Biadpet The fiscal year 2007/08 Capital Improvement Program included a project for the design of a new City Hall in the amount of $750,000 budgeted from the Capital Outlay Fund. The City Council awarded a contract to Steinberg Architects for architectural design services in the amount of 12 .percent of the building construction cost, and authorized them to complete the schematic design and the design development phases for a total amount of $509,009 plus reimbursable expenses of approximately $40,000. To date, approximately $609,000 has been expended which includes CCG services, geotechnical and other minor incidental costs leaving approximately $141,000 remaining in the budget. With an updated constructidn cost estimate of $9,626,616, Steinberg's adjusted total architectural design services is proposed at $1,155,194. Considering the expenditures to date, the balance needed to complete the project. is $12,270,333, though $141,000 remains unexpended in the budget and could be applied to the project. Next Steps for the Proiect . The next phase of the project is completion of the construction documents. This phase would take the project to a state of readiness for bidding. The construction documents phase will take approximately five months to complete. At this time, there are two options for the City Council to consider: 1. Approve the design development package, put the project on hold until the funding can be determined, and pursue further options for financing. 2. Approve the design development package; amend the Professional Services Agreement with Steinberg Architects to include the construction documents phase at $447,173 plus an additional $20,000 for reimbursable expenses and proceed with the construction documents; appropriate an additional $326;173 Staff Report Design Development for Proposed New City Hall Project March 17, 2009 Page 6 from the Capital Outlay Fund for the completion of the construction documents; and investigate further the options for financing and bring back financing/funding proposals on or before the completion of construction documents. FISCAL IMPACT The updated comprehensive project cost is $12,270,333 deducting the design costs already incurred. With approximately $141,000 remaining in the budget, a balance of $12,129,333 is necessary to fund the entire project. There is no additional fiscal impact with option one. If option two is selected, an additional appropriation of $326,173 would be required to complete the construction documents. It is recommended that the Ciry Council approve the design development package and direct staff to pursue further options for financing. Approved by: ~8~-4Q~~a-~-~ Donald Penman City Manager JK:PAW:pa Exhibit #1: Design Development Package -Selected Sheets EXHIBIT 1 WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT MEETING Item 2.C There is no staff report for this item. Oral presentation will be made by Southern California Edison