No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 2009CITY OF ARCADIA FI0E] CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY m REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2009 AGENDA 5:00 P.M. Location: City Council Chamber Conference Room, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER 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 STUDY SESSION 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 Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the Closed Session /Study Session. In 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 Council /Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction regarding Massage Use Moratorium update and options. b. Report, discussion and direction regarding water and sewer rate adjustments for FY 2009/10. C. Report, discussion and direction regarding East Raymond Basin Water Resources Study and the Foothill Water Coalition. Report, discussion and direction regarding the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (Jessica's Law). Any writings 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 City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chamber RECONVENE CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION Reverend Ron Fraker, Church of the Foursquare Gospel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Carolyn Garner - Reagan, Director of Library and Museum Services ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY /AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION ITEMS 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 April as DMV /Donate Life California Month. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Mao Application No. TM69958 for a five (5) lot subdivision with a single -sided cul -de -sac at 1402 -1410 South Eighth Avenue Recommended Action: Uphold denial 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 Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the 7:00 p.m. Open Session. Any writings 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 City Clerk's once located at 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. ' In 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 Council /Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues.unless they appear on the posted Agenda. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK 2. 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: Approve the Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2009, March 5. 2009 and March 17. 2009. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. Approve the Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2009, March 5. 2009 and March 17. 2009. Recommended Action: Approve C. Introduce Ordinance No. 2256 amending various Sections to Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Recommended Action: Introduce d. Award a_ purchase order contract to Gale Cengage Learning for the purchase of subscriptions to five electronic databases for the Library in the amount of $37,025.85. Recommended Action: Approve e. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with MNR Construction. Inc. for the 2008 -09 Water Main Reolacement Project in the amount of $369.097. Recommended Action: Approve f. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the City of Sierra Madre for the East Raymond Basin Water Resources Program. Recommended Action: Approve g. Approve the Emergency Response Plan, Legal Authority. Operation & Maintenance Plan, and Fats. Oils and Grease Plan Elements of the Sewer System Management Plan required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. Recommended Action: Approve h. Adopt Resolution No. 6672 requesting an amendment to the Metro Draft 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) relating to expedited funding for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension. Recommended Action: Adopt Any writings 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 City Clark's office located at 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. Authorize City staff to continue using the MBIA Asset Management Group for investment management services for the coming year. Recommended Action: Approve 3. CITY MANAGER Direct the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 balloting ADJOURNMENT The City Council /Redevelopment Agency will adjourn this meeting in memory of Terry Blackwood to Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification 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 of 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 Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. and 2013/14. Recommended Action: Approve Commission Recommended Action: Adopt MEMORANDUM Development Services Department To: Don Penman, City Manager From: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director5t,K Bob Sanderson, Chief of Police Date: April 7, 2009 RE: STUDY SESSION: MASSAGE USE MORATORIUM UPDATE AND OPTIONS BACKGROUND In response to a recent proliferation of establishments that provide massage services, City staff brought forward information to the City Council last year to review massage regulations and consider actions. The Development Services Department and Police Department provided information on the massage licensing process and on the increases in license requests for day spas, medical office uses such as chiropractors and acupuncturists, and other "health centers ". In addition, a team of inspectors made a series of inspections of over 40 such establishments in the City over a period of months and found violations-of the existing Ordinance at virtually every establishment. These inspections are ongoing and while most of the establishments have addressed the violations noted, there remain outstanding violations. In response to this information, the City Council passed a moratorium on massage uses on October 21, 2008 that was subsequently expanded on November 18, 2008 for an additional 10 months and 15 days per statute. The moratorium provides staff with time to review the City's regulations and enforcement and to consider new State legislation governing massage therapists (SB 731). While the Moratorium is in place until October 21, 2009, staff is working to establish recommended procedures and regulations to put forward for approval to be able to lift the moratorium before that date. Since the Moratorium has been in place, the Business License Officer, on recommendation of the Police Department issued revocations to five establishments. Of these, two establishments closed, two establishments appealed this decision and were denied by the City Council following a hearing. Study Session — Massage Regulations April 7, 2009 Page i The 5 t ' license was re- instated by the Council following appeal and a hearing. The Business License Office and Police Department are currently considering additional revocations. OPTIONS To update the City's Ordinance, Development Services and Police Department staff are looking at four main areas of concern: 1. Compliance and coordination with new State process Senate Bill 731 establishes a statewide process of regulating massage therapist licenses. The State's appointed agency is to begin accepting applications in September 2009. The new law establishes required hours of training from applicants at certain approved training centers or schools as well as fingerprinting and renewals every two years. The goal of this process as written is to standardize the licensing procedure. The City intends to accept any State - approved massage license as valid in the City of Arcadia. The City would leave in place its existing standards to cover any therapist who does not present the City with a State - approved license. Any therapist who does not have a State license would be required to go through the Police Department's background test and additional written and physical testing. Another option is to mimic the State's requirements locally and require the same schooling and training certificates. Staff does not believe this to be a good option as it is our belief that therapists who choose to go through a testing process at this level would test through the state in order to work anywhere in the state, not just in Arcadia. A therapist who attempted to take a local test that mirrored the state level test may also likely attempt to pass fraudulent educational and licensing credentials at the local level rather than doing so at the state level and risk bringing state investigators to the issuers of the credentials. 2. Written and practical /physical testing of applicants at local level For those therapists who choose to' go through the City's process, they will need to take and pass a written test administered by the Police Department as part of the application and licensing process. This test will mirror tests given at the State level. In addition, the applicant will be given a list of pre- approved establishments in the City of Arcadia to go to for administration of a practical, physical test. This would be a simple process whereby the applicant would pay for a test with a physical therapist to demonstrate basic skills /techniques. Other cities (e.g. Fullerton, La Mirada) have moved to this requirement recently and it has been successful. Study Session — Massage Regulations April 7, 2009 Page 2 The application and testing process will include an initial collection of background documentation, including state identification, school transcripts and graduation certificate from a licensed therapy institution. This will allow the background investigator to check the validity of the school and graduation status as well as the applicant's arrest and conviction status for disqualifying factors. The second portion would include a written test which would consist of a question and answer sheet addressing health and safety in the massage therapy profession. The test can be given at the time of the application process and graded during the background. Sample questions would include how the massage tables and chairs are to be cleaned and what processes should be done when washing linens involved in the therapy. These health and safety issues are specifically addressed during the education process and are also asked during testing of the applicants while enrolled in a therapy education institute. The third portion of the application process would include the applicant physically demonstrating knowledge of learned techniques and describing what the benefit of the technique is, which should be easily answered by an applicant with basic massage therapy knowledge. One issue with this process is that the fee will need to be increased to cover the cost of testing (currently the fee is $280 for the therapist license plus $95 for the business license and live scan) and the application period will be lengthened. 3. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit for massage uses Senate Bill 731 does not allow local jurisdictions to apply rules to massage therapy uses that are not applied to similar "personal service or professional uses ". One offshoot of this is that a city cannot apply a CUP requirement to massage unless it applies the same requirement to other similar uses. Currently, the City does not require a CUP for massage or salon uses, physical therapy, tattoo parlors, day spas, etc. If we were to establish a CUP process we would need to include uses such as these into the mix and this would require a number of land use types to go through a process they do not currently go through. DSD staff has discussed this option with legal counsel. The City could establish a CUP for this grouping of uses but it would be at some level of risk from legal challenge. Staff believes that the CUP requirement would be an effective deterrent against -some establishments opening in the City. It would be additional work and effort, for staff, and additional hurdles and paperwork for legitimate applicants, but it would provide an enforceable and revocable list of conditions of approval for such uses that would provide the City with more control over the operation of such establishments. Until the new law is in place, we won't have a better feel of how a requirement like this would be challenged. Many cities currently require a CUP for such uses (e.g. Pasadena) so challenges might also apply to existing ordinances. Study Session — Massage Regulations April 7, 2009 Page 3 4. Limiting the number of allowable licenses at a Doctor or Chiropractor's office The Development Services Department is currently requiring this as a matter of policy. However, we should codify this. One of the perceived "loopholes" in our Ordinance is that an acupuncturist or chiropractor can open an office and have a number of massage therapists on staff. The Code currently limits this to "a maximum of two at any one time on the premises ". However, this becomes an enforcement issue because an unlimited number of licenses could be issued to a business like this. We would like to modify this to simply allow a maximum of two business licenses for massage therapists to be issued to any business like this. NEXT STEPS In order to lift the moratorium, staff recommends that the new Ordinance be in place. We can begin to work on the new Ordinance immediately once the Council provides direction on the four topics listed above. There are a number of legitimate businesses that have been caught in the Moratorium and cannot expand or hire new employees. As a result, we would like to have new regulations in place as soon as possible. Study Session — Massage Regulations April 7, 2009 Page 4 safJff \ \�. ° = -� i� Tilgifi}a MEMORANDUM Police Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Don Penman, City Manager FROM: Bob Sanderson, Chief of Policegi SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: SEXUAL PREDATOR PUNISHMENT AND CONTROL ACT (JESSICA'S LAW) AND OPTIONS BACKGROUND On November 7, 2006, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 83, "The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act ", commonly referred to as "Jessica's Law, so as to better protect Californians and in particular, the children of this state from sex offenders. Proposition 83 enacted subdivision (b) of Penal Code Section 3003.5 which prohibits any registered sex offender on parole from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation — Division of Adult Parole Operations, from residing within 2,000 feet of any public of private school, or park where children regularly gather. Additionally, Proposition 83, as codified in subsection (c) of Penal Code 3003.5, authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sex offender defined in subsection (c) of Penal Code Section 290, whether or not on parole or probation (convicted after November 7, 2006). Currently, the cities of Alhambra, Rosemead, Palmdale, West Covina, El Monte, Long Beach and Pomona have adopted local ordinances imposing additional residency restrictions on sex offenders. On January 27, 2009, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a motion by Supervisor Antonovich to impose additional residency restrictions on sex offenders residing in Los Angeles County pursuant to "Jessica's Law ". Supervisor Antonovich authored a letter to Arcadia City Manager Don Penman on February 12, 2009 announcing Los Angeles County's adoption of their new ordinance to impose additional residential restrictions on sex offenders and requested that Arcadia consider adopting a similar ordinance to ensure consistency for a countywide effort. Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 1 Arcadia's Potential Residency and Loitering Restrictions Pursuant to the authority provided by state law an ordinance adopted by the City Council would identify "Residential Exclusion Zones" to include areas located within two thousand (2000) feet of the closest property line of an amusement center (excluding restaurants, movie theaters or shopping malls), child care center, public or private school grades K through 12, park, public library, swimming pool, commercial establishment that provides any area in or adjacent to such establishment as a children's playground, or any location that facilitates classes or group activities for children on the property, or school bus stops, in which a sex offender is prohibited from temporarily or permanently residing. Additionally, the ordinance would identify "Child Safety Zone" to include those areas located within three hundred (300) feet from the nearest property line of the aforementioned locations as areas where sex offenders may not loiter without lawful business. With these parameters dictated, staff identified fifty -three (53) locations in Arcadia (Attachment A) for which these residency and child safety zone restrictions would apply. A map depicting Residential Exclusion Zones is attached for reference (Attachment B) and Child Safety Zones (Attachment Q. These zones restrict approximately 85% of the residential areas of Arcadia from sex offender residency and loitering. The ordinance would identify and define residency locations that sex offenders are prohibited from living within either a permanent or temporary time period. Property owners, agents and responsible parties are included as persons restricted from providing housing within residential exclusion zones. The ordinance would also prohibit more than one sex offender from living within an identified dwelling unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage or adoption. "Private Actors" Creating Exclusion Zones In addition to the identified areas that would be restricted by ordinance, there is a growing trend of "private actors" creating exclusion zones that supplement government exclusion zones. Private communities and homeowners associations are afforded the ability to restrict who lives within that community unless a protected class is the one being excluded. This issue was addressed in Mulligan v Panthers Valley Proverty Owners Association, 766 A.2d 1186 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. 2001). The court held that a community was allowed to bar a sale to a sex offender because of a restrictive covenant. Other than this court decision, this is a new area of law without many legal citations for reference and whether or not Arcadia homeowner's associations or private communities could create private zones would require further study and legal opinion. Sex Offender Recidivism Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 2 According to Annette Ah Po of the California Department of Justice Violent Crime Information Center Sex Offender Tracking Program, as of August 2008, there are 27,976 repeat sex offenders registered in the Violent Crime Information Network (VCIN), representing 24% of the sex offenders registered in the California database (Attachment D) The Los Angeles County Probation Department is in the process of developing a sex offender tracking database and according to probation officer Johnny Hernandez, the recidivism rate of all probationers is currently between 25 and 30%, although sex offender rate of recidivism is slightly lower (Attachment E). Parole and Offender Residency Placement The large number of sex offenders on parole creates a heavy workload for parole and probation officers who must manage caseloads of as much as 40 or more offenders per officer. When a convicted sex offender is paroled from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the state parole agent responsible for reintegrating the parolee into society normally returns the offender back to the county they previously resided in. This is a difficult task as no community welcomes convicted sex offenders in their midst. In many instances when community members discover that a sex offender has been paroled to their neighborhood, there has been public outcry to remove the offender from the neighborhood due to fears of new sex crimes being committed by the offender, particularly against the children of the neighborhood. Furthermore, state law prohibits sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of schools or parks where children gather therefore the locations where state parole officers may locate paroled offenders is also limited. State parole also settles as many as six offenders at the same residential location whether that location be a single family residence operating as a "sober living facility ", apartment complex, hotel or other accommodation. The current State of California budget shortfall has restricted state parole from housing paroled offenders for longer than 60 days. After that point it is the offender's responsibility to find residency at their own expense. As in the case of the City of Alhambra in 2008, the City discovered that a private residence was being rented by six paroled sex offenders by the owner, a doctor, who saw opportunity for financial gain by this arrangement. Adoption of a "Jessica's Law" approved local ordinance by the City of Alhambra ended this arrangement and forced state parole to relocate the offenders outside of Alhambra. A Flawed But Necessary Action? Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 3 Research studies conducted by the California Research Bureau, the University of Arkansas, Corey Rayburn Yung', Associate Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children agree that the use of residency restriction zones for sex offenders are counterproductive for the purposes intended. These studies argue that most sex offenders are known to their victims through family relationships or other close associations. Secondarily, those offenders who prey upon children that are not known to them often travel a distance from their residence to commit their crimes so that they are less likely to be recognized. These studies further argue that although the courts have ruled that the creation of residency restriction zones for sex offenders is considered civil regulation and not punishment, the more that surrounding municipalities create these zones, the more that the aggregate effect becomes similar to banishment from society. Furthermore, as each municipality creates it's version of residency exclusion zones, the more uncertainty is created for registered sex offenders from knowing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction of where these zones are and as more of these zones are put into place, the available areas change. As an example, if a registered sex offender purchases a home in an area not restricted by these zones and the municipality later enacts the zones, the sex offender would be forced to move or possibly separate from their family. The studies also argue that this aggregate form similar to banishment removes the offender from treatment facilities close to where they could live and makes employment more difficult to seek. These issues and the resulting stress placed on the sex offender may possibly increase their chance of recidivism. The studies show that in states such as Iowa and Florida who have enacted similar residency restriction zones ahead of California, that the aggregate ordinances has caused a spike in the number of sex.offenders who will claim that they are homeless upon release from prison or who fail to register as a sex offender once released from prison. In Iowa, the number of offenders not reporting their residency has doubled after the residency restrictions was enacted. Experience also shows that unregistered sex offenders are extremely difficult for parole officers to track and the State of California is now finding the experiences of Iowa and Florida are occurring now in California (Attachment F). Race to the Bottom or the "NDOY" Effect There is no middle ground option available for local communities and therefore, once community exclusion zones are established, a "race to the bottom" pattern or domino effect among communities neighboring one another occurs. Communities are forced with the choice of risking becoming a dumping ground for other communities' sex offenders along with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender parolees or to implement their own exclusion zones. The "NIlvIBY" not- in -my- backyard principle Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 4 applies. That said, some experts agree that residential exclusion zones create a false sense of security for communities while the rate of sex offenders not reporting to their probation or parole officers increases as offenders are pushed underground. Current Status of Sex Offenders in Arcadia and L.A. County Los Angeles County reports that there are 1,438 registered sex offenders in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles and approximately 397 of these offenders are on parole. With the enactment of the new County ordinance there will be 120 remaining square miles within the County's residential zones where registered sex offenders can still reside (Attachment G). The City of Arcadia currently has 27 registered sex offenders of which nine (9) appear to be subject to the provisions of Jessica's Law as they were convicted after November 7, 2006. A mapping overlay (Attachment IT) of the current residency locations of these nine offenders indicates that adoption of an ordinance to further create residential exclusion zones may require eight (8) of the offenders to relocate (Attachment I). OPTIONS 1. Direct staff to prepare a staff report and ordinance to amend the Arcadia Municipal Code to include residency and loitering restrictions for sex offenders and schedule a public hearing and introduction of the ordinance at a future City Council Meeting. 2. Take no action other than to receive the study session information under advisement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Option I be selected by the City Council for several reasons. First, the will of the people has been expressed through Proposition 83 thus creating "The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act ". Second, several municipalities within Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County itself has enacted residential exclusion zones thus increasing the possibility of the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paroling sex offenders to Arcadia as Arcadia does not currently have residential exclusion zones. Third, State budget shortfalls will soon increase the number of felons being released from state prison to potentially include additional sex offenders that will be looking for residency. Finally, the flaws identified in the application of "Jessica's Law" can only be remedied through the courts, the state legislature or through subsequent state proposition process and not through any local municipality. Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 5 Endnotes ' Corey Raybum Yung 'Banishment Bv.A Thousand Lmrs: ResidencyResmictions oil b'es Q(>renders available at http / /ssrncom/abstmct= 95 accessed August 2008. Study Session — Jessica's Law April 7, 2009 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Sha'e� ` " Name � ;, r , rAddreas :i w Av add " Point Bicentennial Park Sixth /Longden SIXTH /LONGDEN Point Bonita Park Skateboard Park Second /Bonita SECOND /BONITA Point Camino Grove Park 1420 S. Sixth Ave 1420 S. SIXTH AVE Point Civic Center Athletic Field 240 W. Huntington Drive 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE Point Eisenhower Park Second /Colorado SECOND /COLORADO Point Fairview Park 542 Fairview 542 FAIRVIEW Point Forest Avenue Park 132 W. Forest Ave 132 W. FOREST AVE Point Hugo Reid Park Mlchillinda/Hugc Reid MICHILLINDAIHUGO REID Point Newcastle Park 143 W. Colorado 143 W. COLORADO Point Orange Grove Park Orange GrovelBaldwin ORANGE GROVE / BALDWIN Point Par 3 Golf Course 620 E. Live Oak 620 E. LIVE OAK Point Tierra Verde Park Second Ave /Camino Real SECOND AVE /CAMINO REAL Point Tnpolis Park Golden West/Fairview GOLDEN WEST /FAIRVIEW Point Wilderness Park 2240 Highland Oaks Drive 2240 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE Point Arboretum 301 N. Baldwin Avenue 301 N. BALDWIN AVENUE Point Arcadia Park 405 S. Santa Anita Avenue 405 S. SANTA ANITA AVENUE Point Peck Road Fishing Park 5401 Peck Road 5401 PECK ROAD Point Santa Anita Golf Course 405 S. Santa Anita Avenue 405 S. SANTA ANITA AVENUE Point Arcadia Parent Participation 1151 S. Tenth Avenue 1151 S. TENTH AVENUE Point Emmanuel Montessori Acdmy 66 W. Duarte Rd 66 W. DUARTE RD Point Arcadia Montessori School 1406 S. Santa Anita Avenue 1406 S. SANTA ANITA AVENU Point Update Co 36 W. Rodell Place 36 W. RODELL PLACE Point Serendipity School 120 S. Third Avenue 120 S. THIRD AVENUE Point No America Kumon Class 292 E. Foothill Blvd 292 E. FOOTHILL BLVD Point Wonder Years Montessori 141 Las Tunas.Drive 141 LAS TUNAS DRIVE Point Ikuei Seminar 1135 W. Huntington Drive 1135 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE Point Stanford Institute 1245 W. Huntington Drive 1245 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE Point First Presbyterian School 556 Las Tunas Drive 556 LAS TUNAS DRIVE Point Excel Institute 66 W. Duarte Rd 66 W. DUARTE RD Point Little Harvard Academy 62 Las Tunas 62 LAS TUNAS Point Cypress Academy 66 W. Duarte Road 66 W. DUARTE ROAD Point Marie St. John 924 Arcadia Avenue 924 ARCADIA AVENUE Point Diane R. Tran 943 Fairview Avenue 943 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Point ABC Reading Center 174 W. Live Oak 174 W. LIVE OAK. Point Orbit Institute 735 W. Duarte Rd 735 W. DUARTE RD Point International Montessori 805 S. First Avenue 805 S. FIRST AVENUE Point Arcadia Learning Center 735 Duarte Rd 735 W. DUARTE RD Point Applied Linguistics 230 E. Foothill Blvd 230 E. FOOTHILL BLVD Point Serendipity Early Care 1111 Okoboji Drive 1111 OKOBOJI DRIVE Point Serendipity Early Care 530 Las Tunas 530 LAS TUNAS Point Arcadia Episcopal Preschool 1881 S. First Avenue 1881 S. FIRST AVENUE Point Wonder World Preschool 2607 S. Santa Anita Avenue 2607 S. SANTA ANITA AVENU Point I Arcadia Hig School 180 Campus Drive 180 CAMPUS DRIVE y � Point Dana Middle School 1401 S. First Avenue 1401 S. FIRST AVENUE Point First Avenue Middle School 301 S. First Avenue 301 S. FIRST AVENUE Point Foothills Middle School 171 E. Sycamore 171 E. SYCAMORE Point Baldwin Stacker Elementary 422 W. Lemon 422 W. LEMON Point Camino Grove Elementary 700 Camino Grove 700 CAMINO GROVE Point Highland Oaks Elementary 10 Virginia Drive 10 VIRGINIA DRIVE Point Holly Avenue Elementary 360 W. Duarte Rd 360 W. DUARTE RD Point Hugo Reid Elementary 1000 Hugo Reid Avenue 1000 HUGO REID AVENUE Point Hugo Reid Primary 1153 De Anza Place 1153 DE ANZA PLACE Point Longley Way Elementary 2601 Longley Way 2601 LONGLEY WAY 300' Child Safety Zone ATTACHMENT C P �l 1 C 37 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT D Sanderson, Robert From: Daleo, Mike Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:23 PM To: Sanderson, Robert Subject: FW: Megan's Law Statistics From: Annette Ahpo [mailto:Annette.Ahpo @doj.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:48 PM To: Daleo, Mike Subject: Megan's Law Statistics Mike, Based on a run of the DOPs Violent Crime Information Network (VCIN) database, conducted on 8/18/08., there ar(t'27916=repeatsex offenders=listed. Consequently, approximatelye24% of th&sex offenders imther.VCIN fall e inAhis category.,; Hope this information is helpful. Annette Ah Po, AGPA Department of Justice violent Crime Information Center sex offender Tracking Program Ph: 916 -227 -1360 annette.ahpo @doj.ca.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and /or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is,prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 8/21/2008 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT E Sanderson, Robert From: Daleo, Mike Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:31 AM To: Sanderson, Robert Subject: FW: sex offenders Attachments: Community Educ 8- 26- 07.ppt From El Monte Probation. Mike Daleo, Crime Analyst Arcadia Police Department 626- 574.5148 mdaleo@ci.arcadia.ca. us L11F 'E \FORC'E1- fE:VTS'E_'SITIiE- FOR OFFICLILC SEONLF iI11RV1Y(. The information contained in this email is considered confidential and sensitive in nature as well as sensitive but unclassified and %or legal!, privileged information. It is riot to be released to the +nedia, the generzal pnblic, or to non -law enforcement personnel who do not have a "need -to- know ". This inforinationi is not to be posted on the Internet, or disseminated through unseenred channels, and is intended, for law enforcement personnel only. It is solely for the itse of the intended recipient(s). ( /nauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and niav violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacv Act. If)ou are'not the intended recipient, please contact the sealer and destroy all copies of the communication. . From: Hernandez, Johnny [mailto:Johnny. Hernandez @probation.lacounty.gov] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:21 AM To: Daleo, Mike Subject: sex offenders I'm sorry to inform you that our department does not keep track of the recidivism rate for sex offenders. We only keep track of all probationers and currently it is between 25 and 30% rate. With sex offenders on probation the rate should be a little lower. Based on new laws, our department will have to keep more statistics on the sex offenders. According to our leaders in the city of Downey, they are currently working to set up a method of better tracking these statistics. Here is a slide presentation that was given to us by DOJ last year. I got a copy of another slide show that was mailed to me by DOJ; I'll make a copy and give it to you next week. Enjoy the weekend! Johnny 9/5/2008 FOXNews.corn - California Sex Offenders Declare Themselves Homeless to Get Around ... Page 1 of 2 FOX � r California Sex Offenders Declare Themselves Homeless to Get Around Jessica's Law Wednesday, October 31, 2007 Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Hundreds of California sex offenders who face tough new restrictions on where they can live are declaring themselves homeless — truthfully or not — and that's making it difficult for the state to track them. Jessica's Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally. Some who have had trouble finding aplace to live, are avoiding re- arrest by reporting —falsely, in some cases —that they are homeless. Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day - to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need. "We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous," said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending. Similar laws in Iowa and Florida have driven offenders underground or onto the streets. "They drop off the registry because they donl want to admit living in prohibited zone," said Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the association of Iowa prosecutors. The organization tried unsuccessfully in the pasttwo years to persuade lawmakers to repeal the state's 2,000 -foot residency restriction. "Most legislators know in their hearts that the law is no good and a waste of time, but they're afraid of the politics of it;" Ritchie said. The problem is'worsening in Florida as about 100 local ordinances add restrictons to the state's 1,000 -foot rule, said Florida . Corrections Department spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger. Sixteen homeless offenders are now Irving under a Miami bridge, while another tookto sleeping on a bench outside a probation office. "As society has imposed restrictions, it becomes almost impossible for them to find places to live," Plessinger said- Twenty-two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 feet to 2,000 feet, according to California researchers. But most impose the offender -free zones only around schools, and several apply only to child molesters, not all sex offenders. California's law requires parolees to live in the county of their last legal residence. But in San Francisco, for example, all homes are within 2,000 feet of a school or park. http:/ /Www.foxnews.com /printer_friendly _story/0,3566,307080,00.htm1 9/5/2008 FOXNews.com - California Sex Offenders Declare Themselves Homeless to Get Around ... Page 2 of 2 "The state is requiring parolees to find eligible housing in San Francisco, knowing full well there isn't any," said Mike Jimenez, president of the California parole officers union. "It will be impossible for parole agents to enforce Jessica's Law in certain areas, and encouraging 'transient living arrangements just allows sex offenders to avoid it altogether." State figures show a 27 percentlncrease;in homelessness among California's 67,000 registered sex offenders since the law took effect in November 2006. Since August, the number of offenders with no permanent address rose by 560 to 2,622. "This is a huge surge," said Deputy Attorney General Janet Neeley, whose office maintains the database. "Any law enforcement officer would tell you we would prefer to have offenders at addresses where we can locate them." Offenders who declare themselves homeless must tell their parole officer each day where they spent the previous night. Those who declare themselves homeless are still legally bound by the 2,000 -foot rule; they cannot stay under a bridge near where children gather, for example. But it is more difficult for parole officers to keep tabs on them. Parole officers said some offenders are registering as homeless, then sneaking back to homes that violate the law. Thats easy to do because fewer than 30 percent of transient offenders currently wear the Global Positioning System tracking devices required by Jessica's Law. "If they tell you that they were under the American River bridge, we're going to take that at face value," said Corrections Department spokesman Bill Sessa, referring to a homeless hangout in Sacramento. During a recent sweep in the Oakland area, parole officers discovered that two of the five offenders they checked weren't living in the temporary shelters they had reported as their new homes. Neither had been issued a GPS device. Department spokesman Seth Unger said parole agents are starting to make the homeless a priority in issuing the GPS ankle bracelets, which are still being phased in. R.L., a 42- year -old sex offender who lives near Disneyland in Southern California, said he registered as homeless after his parole agent told him two potential homes were too close to schools or parks. "I finally asked, 'Where do you want me to live?' He said, 'You have . a car, don't you ? "' said R.L., who asked that his full not be used because of the stigma surrounding sex offenders. The law was named for 9- year -old Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a convicted sex offender near her Florida home in 2005. The author of Jessica's Law, state Sen. George Runner, said "90 percent" of it is working well. But he conceded that some portions need to be fixed. "When the voters voted for this, they decided that they didn't want a child molester to live across the street from a school," said Runner, a Republican from Lancaster in Los Angeles County's high desert. "If that means that in some areas that needs to be 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet, then I think that we still accomplish what it is the voters wanted" SEARCH Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio Jobs at FOX News Channel. Internships At Fox News (Summer Application Deadline is March 15, 2007) Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to foxnewsonline @foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to comments@foxnews. co m 0 Associated Press. Al rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. Al rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes. http: / /www.foxnews.com /printer_ friendly _story /0,3566,307080,00.htm1 9/5/2008 ATTACHMENT Ga RECEIVED CITY OF ARCADIA 17 2009 % J � IIXXYT iz M ANAGER MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH SUPERVISOR February 12, 2009 Don Penman, City Manager City of Arcadia Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Dear Mr. Penman: On January 27, 2009, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved my motion to adopt the enclosed ordinance which imposes additional residential restrictions on sex offenders. This action also included a request of the Sheriff to provide a report in one year as to the effectiveness and /or any unintended consequences of the ordinance along'with any necessary recommendations. Currently, the cities of Palmdale, West Covina, El Monte, Long Beach and Pomona have adopted similar ordinances. However, to ensure consistency for a countywide effort, it would be helpful if your city adopted a similar ordinance. Thank you and best regards. Sincerely, QSL MICHAEL TONOVICH Supervisor MDA:apg Enclosure ROOM 869 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION, 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 974 -5555 • FAX (213) 974 -1010 • WEBSITE http: / /antonovich.co.1a.ca.us/ • E -MAIL fifthdistrict @lacbos.org ANALYSIS This ordinance amends Title 13 — Public Peace, Morals and Welfare of the Los Angeles County Code to add Chapter 13.59 to impose residency and loitering restrictions on registered sex offenders in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. RAYMOND G. FORTNER, JR. County Counsel By LAWRENCE L. HAFETZ Principal Deputy County Counsel Property Division LH:sh 1011108 (requested) 10/31108 (revised) 511135_3 ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance amending Title 13 — Public Peace, Morals and Welfare of the Los Angeles County Code, to add Chapter 13.59, to impose residency and loitering restrictions on registered sex offenders in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 13,59 is hereby added to Title 13 — Public Peace, Morals and Welfare as follows: Chapter 13.59 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS SECTIONS: 13.59.010 Legislative findings. 13.59.020 Definitions. 13.59.030 Registered sex offender prohibition /child safety zone. 13.59.040 Registered sex offender prohibition /residential exclusion zone. 13.59.050 Registered sex offender prohibition /single - family and multi- family -dwellings. 13.59.060 Registered sex offender prohibition /hotels. 13.59.070 Responsible parry prohibition /single- family and multi - family dwellings. 13.59.080 Responsible party prohibitions /hotels. 13.59.090 Eviction requirements. 5111353 13.59.100 Penalty /enforcement. 13.59.110 Applicability. Section 13.59.010 Legislative findings. A. On November 7, 2006, the voters of the State of California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, commonly referred to as Jessica's Law, so as to better protect Californians, and in particular, to protect the children of California from sex offenders; B. Proposition 83, as codified in subsection (b) of California Penal Code section 3003.5, prohibits any person who is required to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290 (hereinafter referred to as a "registered sex offender ") from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or any park where children regularly gather; C. Proposition 83, as codified in subsection (c) of Penal Code section 3003.5, authorizes local governments to enact ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sex offender; D. Subsection (a) of Penal Code section 3003.5, enacted in 1998 prior to Proposition 83, prohibits registered sex offenders who are on parole from residing in a "single- family dwelling" with another registered sex offender during the parole period; unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this state statute, "single- family dwelling" does not include a residential facility such as a group home that serves six or fewer persons; 5111353 2 E. There are approximately 1438 registered sex offenders in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles ("County") and approximately 397 of these registered sex offenders are on parole; F. The County is concerned with recent occurrences within the County and elsewhere in California where multiple registered sex offenders have been residing together in violation of Penal Code section 3003.5; G. By enacting Chapter 13.59, the County intends to eliminate any potential conflict of land uses in residential neighborhoods and to reduce the potential dangers associated with multiple registered sex offenders living near families with children and places where children frequently gather. Chapter 13.59 also regulates the number of registered sex offenders permitted to reside in multiple family dwellings; H. In addition to public and private schools and local parks, the County further finds that other public places that children frequently gather, such as child care centers, should also be protected from registered sex offenders; In order to foster compliance with the intent of this ordinance, Chapter 1159 also establishes regulations for property owners who rent residential facilities to registered sex offenders; J. Based on County data, once this ordinance becomes effective, there will be 120 remaining square miles within the County's residential zones where registered sex offenders can still reside; and K. This ordinance is required for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety of the citizens of the County. 511135_3 3 Section 43.59.020 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Child" or "children" shall mean any person(s) under the age of eighteen (18) years of age. B. "Child care center" shall mean any licensed facility of the State of California, Department of Social Services, that provides non - medical care to children in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of children on less than a twenty -four (24) hour basis, including, but not limited to, a family day care home, infant center, preschool, extended -day care facility, or school -age child care center. C. "Child safety zone" shall include any area located within three hundred (300) feet from the nearest property line of a child care center, public or private school (grades K through 12), park, public library, commercial establishment that provides a child's playground either in or adjacent to the establishment, a location that holds classes or group activities for children, and /or any school bus stop. D. "Hotel" shall mean a commercial establishment that rents guest rooms or suites to the public on a nightly, weekly, or monthly basis, and shall include,.a motel and an inn that operates in such capacity. E. "Loiter' shall mean to delay, linger, or idle about a child safety zone with the intent to commit a sex offense for which registration is required under Penal Code section 290. 511135_3 4 F. "Multi- family dwelling" shall mean a residential structure designed for the permanent residency of two (2) or more individuals, groups of individuals, or families living independently. This definition shall include a duplex, apartment house, and a condominium complex, but shall not include a hotel. G "Owner's authorized agent" shall mean any natural person, firm, association, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, organization, club, company, limited liability company, corporation, business trust, manager, lessee, servant, officer, or employee, authorized to act for the property owner. H. "Park" shall include any areas owned, leased, controlled, maintained, or managed by a public entity which are open to the public where children regularly gather and which provide recreational, cultural, and/or community service activities including, but not limited to; playgrounds, playfields, and athletic courts. I. "Permanent resident" shall mean any person who, on a given date, has obtained a legal right to occupy or reside in, or has already, as of that date, occupied or resided in, a single - family or multi - family dwelling or a hotel, for more than thirty (30) consecutive days... J. "Property owner" shall include the owner of record of real property, as recorded in the office of the county registrar - recorder /county clerk, as well as any partial owner, joint owner, tenant, tenant -in- common, or joint tenant, of, such real property. K. "Registered sex offender" shall mean any person who is required to register under section 290 of the. California Penal Code, regardless of whether or not that person is on parole or probation. 5111353 5 L. "Residential exclusion zone" shall mean any area located within two thousand (2,000) feet from the nearest property line of the subject property to the nearest property line of a child care center, public or private school (grades K through 12), park, or public library. M. "Responsible party" shall mean a property owner and /or a property owner's authorized agent. N. "Single- family dwelling" shall mean one permanent residential dwelling located on a single lot. For purposes of this Chapter, single - family dwelling shall not include any state - licensed residential facility which serves six or fewer persons. O. "Temporary resident" shall mean any person who, on a given date, has obtained a legal right to occupy or reside in, or has already, as of that date, occupied or resided in, a single - family or multi - family dwelling or a hotel, for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days or less. Section 13.59.030 Registered sex offender prohibition /child safety zone. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from loitering in a child safety zone. Section 13.59.040 Registered sex offender prohibition /residential exclusion zone. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from becoming a permanent or temporary resident in any residential exclusion zone. Section 13.59.050 Registered sex offender prohibition /single- family and multi - family dwellings. A. Same dwelling. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying a single - family dwelling or a unit in a multi - family dwelling with 511135_3 6 another registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. B. Multiple dwellings. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying a unit in a multi - family dwelling as a permanent resident if there is another unit in that multi - family dwelling that is already rented or otherwise occupied by a registered sex offender as a permanent resident, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. C. Temporary residency. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying any single - family dwelling or any unit in a multi - family dwelling as a temporary resident. Section 13.59.060 Registered sex offender prohibition /hotels. A. Same hotel room. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying the same guest room in a hotel with another registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. B. Separate hotel rooms. A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying a guest room in a hotel as a permanent resident if there a is another guest room in that hotel that is already rented or otherwise occupied by a registered sex offender as a permanent resident, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. 5111353 7 Section 93.59.070 Responsible party prohibitionisingle• family and multi- family dwellings. A. Same dwelling. A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing a single - family dwelling or a unit in a multi - family dwelling to be rented or otherwise occupied by more than one registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, - or adoption. B. Multiple dwellings. A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing more than one unit in a multi- family dwelling to be rented or otherwise occupied by a registered sex offender as a permanent resident, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption C. Temporary residency. A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing a single - family dwelling or any unit in a multi - family dwelling to be rented or otherwise occupied by a registered sex offender as a temporary resident. Section 13.59.080 Responsible party prohibition /hotels. A. Same hotel room. A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing a guest room in a hotel to be rented or otherwise occupied by more than one registered sex offender, regardless of the permanent or temporary residential status of either registered sex offender, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. 5111353 8 B. Separate hotel rooms. A responsible party shall be prohibited from knowingly allowing a guest room in a hotel to be rented or otherwise occupied by a registered sex offender as a permanent resident if there is already a registered sex offender renting or otherwise occupying another guest room in that hotel as a permanent resident, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Section 13.59.090 Eviction requirements. If, in order to comply with Section 13.59.070 or Section 13.59.080, a responsible party is required to terminate a registered sex offender's tenancy or other occupancy, the responsible party shall comply with all applicable state law procedures and requirements governing the eviction of tenants of real property. If, in accordance with these procedures and requirements, a court determines that such termination is improper, the responsible party shall not be in violation of this Chapter 13.59 by allowing the registered sex offender to remain as a tenant or other occupant. Section 13.59.100 Pena ltylenforcement. Notwithstanding any other penalty provided by this Code or otherwise by law, any person who violates this Chapter 13.59 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, in addition, the County may enforce the violation by means of a civil enforcement process through a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or by any other means available by law. 5111353 9 Section 13.59.110 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: A. Tenancies or other occupancies which commenced prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or to the renewals of any such tenancies or occupancies; or B. A registered sex offender who committed the offense resulting in such registration prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 11359LHCCI 5111353 10 ATTACHMENTI March 19, 2009 LAST ADDRESS GEVORGIAN 212 E COLORADO ROBERTS 474 W DUARTE. 033 DIMMICK 805 FAIRVIEW, #6 CHURCHILL 1724 S. MAYFLOWER ABOLTIN 124 S. SANTA ANITA, 205 JACQUES 1147 ARCADIA. #2 RODRIGUEZ 825 FAIRVIEW, 96A FONG MlA 2809 WARREN WAY LIN 48 E. RODELL MC CAIN. 1224 W. HUNTINGTON s HICKS - 715 S. OLD RANCH, #10 GRAVES 743 FAIRVIEW, 8C WOOLSEY 250 W. HUNTINGTON LUCAS 726 S. THIRD CRICKS 605 S. BALDWIN, 8 TIFFANY 250 W. COLORADO e BOWEN 627 S. BALDWIN, B RBUSTAMANTE 631 S. BALDWIN, B a WATSON 303 S. BALDWIN, E POZGAJ 1150 FAIRVIEW. #205 HEYLEK 1032 GREENFIELD g KAZMI 58 W. PALM 0 NORIEGA 605 S. BALDWIN, 3 CLAPP 28 W. CAMINO REAL. NELSON 320 SAN LUIS REY 6MEZA 936 HAMPTON s CLARK 415 S. BALDWIN, #2 p FLOREA 225 W. COLORADO PL 131 1 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department . April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director �fS By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of the Pl anninq Commission's denial of Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 to consolidate three existing lots for a five -lot subdivision with a single -sided cul -de -sac at 1402- 1410 S. Eighth Avenue. Recommended action: Uphold denial SUMMARY Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 was submitted by property owner -in- escrow, Mr. Charles Huang, to consolidate three (3) properties for a five (5) lot, single - family residential subdivision at 1402, 1406 and 1410 S. Eighth Avenue. The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on February 10, 2009, denied the proposed subdivision by a vote of 3 to 2 based on findings that the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, that the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and that the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development. On February 17, 2009, the applicant's engineer filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. Then on March 4, 2009, the appellant requested a postponement so that the appeal could be heard at the April 7, 2009 City Council meeting to allow time for the appellant to prepare for the hearing. The Development Services Department's recommendation to the Planning Commission was to deny the project, due to the undesirable layout of a single -sided cul -de -sac, its potential• adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties, and an unresolved property line encroachment issue. The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958. BACKGROUND The applicant is in escrow to purchase three (3) existing properties to develop a single -sided cul -de -sac with five (5) new single - family lots. The subject properties have lot widths ranging from approximately fifty feet (50') to fifty -seven feet (57') for a combined street frontage width of 165 feet. The lot depth is approximately 441 feet. The three (3) subject properties have approximately 72,606 square feet or 1.67 acres of combined land area. The density factor in the City's General Plan for this area is a maximum of six (6) dwelling units per acre, and the zoning code requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed subdivision satisfies these criteria. For a standard two -sided cul -de -sac, a minimum street frontage of 260 feet is necessary. After consulting with staff, the applicant approached the neighbors to the north and south of the subject properties to explore the possibility of incorporating additional lots to enable a standard two -sided cul -de -sac layout. Despite the applicant's extensive efforts, he has not been able to come to terms with either of the neighboring owners. The neighbor to the south is not interested in selling or developing their lot. Without this lot, the minimum lot width of 260 feet for a two - sided cul -de -sac cannot be achieved. Nevertheless, the applicant has worked with the neighbor to the north who is interested in either selling or participating in a cooperative development. However, it appears that there are significant differences in their ideas about land value and how the land should be developed. Because of these impasses, the applicant is proceeding with this proposal, and provided the attached February 5, 2009 letter to the Planning Commission explaining his efforts to include the adjacent properties. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a tentative map to consolidate three (3) properties for a five (5) lot subdivision to develop a single -sided cul -de -sac, and five (5) new single - family residences as shown on the attached tentative map. The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 9,226 square feet to 13,888 square feet. All of the lots meet the standards of the City's subdivision code, and exceed the minimum 7,500 square -foot lot size requirement for this R -1 zone. A standard public street right -of -way per the City's subdivision code is 60 feet wide, which includes a 12 -foot wide parkway on each side of the street and a 36 -foot wide roadway (curb. face to curb face). A standard cul -de -sac terminus has a right -of -way diameter of eighty feet (80') with a 56 -foot diameter roadway area. There is an alternate 50 -foot wide street right -of -way, which reduces the parkway width on each side to seven feet (7') with the roadway remaining 36 feet wide, but it includes a provision for a five -foot (6) easement across the front of each new lot for landscaping and sidewalk purposes. This easement is considered part of the front TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 2 yard setback. While there are no specifications for an alternate cul -de -sac terminus, based on the reduced parkway width of five -feet (6) on each side of the street, the minimum diameter of the alternate cul -de -sac terminus would be seventy feet (70') and the roadway area would still have a 56 -foot diameter. The proposed subdivision provides a hybrid street right -of -way that is generally 55 feet wide. A standard 12 -foot wide parkway will be provided along the fronts of the new residential lots, but along the south side there will be a seven -foot (7') wide parkway that widens to nine feet (9') near the intersection with Eighth Avenue. The City Engineer is requesting further widening of this portion of the parkway to approximately twelve feet (12') to allow space for a handicap curb ramp and to improve the vehicular line -of -sight at the intersection. Single -sided cul -de -sac This proposal satisfies the City's subdivision regulations and is consistent with the General Plan land -use designation of the area. However, staff is not in favor of this proposal because of the undesirable characteristics of single -sided cul -de -sacs, which are not entirely consistent with the following Community Development Goals of the General Plan: • direct the amount and location of land uses in a manner which enhances the environment, social, physical, and economic well -being of Arcadia • protect the integrity and quality of existing residential neighborhoods The south side of the proposed single -sided cul -de -sac will have a long block wall with minimal landscaping along it. This will have a stark and unattractive appearance and introduces a physical element (i.e., the long block wall) that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Such features tend to degrade the integrity and quality of neighborhoods. Single -sided cul -de -sacs have been developed in other neighborhoods. The most recent one is Magnolia Court, which was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2004. Magnolia Court is on the east side of Mayflower Avenue in the 1100 block. Another one -sided cul -de -sac is Sharon Road on the west side of South Baldwin Avenue in the 1700 block. Sharon Road is selected as an example because .staff still regularly receives comments about its appearance, even though it was approved in the late 1980s. Photographs of the two developments are attached. As seen in the photos, a long block wall along one side of a cul -de -sac has a stark and unattractive appearance, which will remain for a long time if the adjacent property is not eventually incorporated into the cul -de -sac. It is for this reason that staff feels the proposal is an undesirable development. TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 3 Notwithstanding staffs opinion that a one -sided cul -de -sac conflicts with the aforementioned General Plan goals, the General Plan also includes strategies for Land Use and Community Identity. Among these strategies, under Defining Future Land Uses, is the following to promote a balance between: protecting existing residential neighborhoods; • meeting the need for new housing for all - economic segments of the community; • providing a wide array of recreational opportunities; and • the expansion of commercial, office, and industrial uses designed to meet the retail and service needs of Arcadia citizens, contribute to a sound local economic base; and provide local employment opportunities. The proposed subdivision has also been reviewed by the Engineering Division, and the following points were raised as to why one -sided cul -de -sacs are undesirable. These points, however; are design, and operational issues that can be dealt with, and were raised for informational purposes and are not reasons for denying the project. 1. Street right -of -way requirements are an issue. A less than full -width dedication leaves the street in an incomplete configuration. There is a conflict between requiring a full -width dedication and how to maintain a full - width parkway on the side across from residential lots. 2. Maintenance — There is no easy solution to the question of maintenance responsibility for the parkway area on the side across the street from the residential lots. Maintenance of parkway areas are generally the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. In the case of a one -sided cul- de -sac, however, the adjacent property owner is not a participant to the development, and therefore it would be unfair to burden that owner with the maintenance of a new parkway area. The easiest solution for maintenance purposes is a full -width concrete sidewalk, but this is relatively unattractive. Because there is not an adjacent property owner to maintain the parkway area, any landscaping or street trees have no simple means of being irrigated or maintained. The only way to guarantee the maintenance of any landscaping is for it to be done by the City. 3. Street intersection requirements — The street corner nearest the tract boundary corner typically does not have adequate area for an ADA compliant handicap curb .ramp, and may not meet the City's vehicular line -of -sight requirements. The solution is to have a slight "S" curve in the street alignment to move it further away from the tract boundary as it approaches the intersection with the existing street to create a larger corner area. This potentially creates a street right -of -way that is wider than the standard TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 4 requirement and results in a varying parkway width through this transition area and at the newcomer. 4. Street aesthetics — Although there is a chance that someday the adjacent parcel would be developed to complete the cul -de -sac subdivision, in the interim the community has to live with an unattractive parkway and potentially view an expansive fence or wall, and the adjacent property owner has to endure the exposure of their rear yard area. 5. Street construction reimbursement — If the developer is interested in pursuing future reimbursement of street construction costs from the adjacent benefiting parcel(s), the City does not currently have a mechanism to do so. This would take some effort to establish and track for a designated time period. Neiahborina Properties It is staffs opinion that this proposal, if approved, would have adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties. The owners of the adjacent properties to the north and south of the subject properties submitted the attached letters of opposition to the Planning Commission. The owners of the property to the north, 1332 S. Eighth Avenue are David and Lucille Cheng. Approval of this proposal would sandwich their property between the new cul -de -sac and the existing Camino Grove Avenue cul -de -sac. The Chang's property would end up with eight (8) backyards adjacent to their side yards. Their 65 -foot wide by 440 -foot deep lot could no longer be subdivided for a more efficient future development. The attached letter of opposition from Mr. Cheng includes a draft layout of a subdivision that would incorporate his property to create an eight (8) lot subdivision. A preliminary review of this layout indicates that the City's subdivision standards could be met with minor alterations. Nevertheless, it is not a preferred layout because it is a one -sided cul -de -sac. The Chengs' letter and draft layout are attached. Staff has identified only three (3) other cases where a single lot has been sandwiched between cul -de -sacs. These are 558 W. Longden Avenue, 646 W. Camino Real Avenue, and 1103 S. Eighth Avenue. Photos of these three (3) lots are attached. While these situations are an awkward land use pattern, it is clear that being sandwiched between cul -de -sacs has not deprived these properties of their value. The lots on Longden and Camino Real Avenues are relatively well maintained, and 1103 S. Eighth Avenue was recently improved with the construction of a new, six - bedroom, 6,200+ square -foot house. To the south of the subject properties is the Johnson family's lot at 1414 S. Eighth Avenue. They are concerned about the 30 -inch diameter oak tree that is adjacent to TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 5 their north property line; their barn that appears to encroach about one (1) foot onto the subject properties; being able to keep horses at the.city- required distance of 100 feet from existing and proposed residences; and the loss of horse properties and the outdoor lifestyle. The Johnson Family's letter is attached, as are photos of the adjacent properties, the barn encroachment, and the oak tree. If this proposal is approved, the subject oak tree would have to be evaluated by a certified arborist to determine if the tree can be preserved along with the proposed street improvements. Also, preservation of the tree would preclude a continuous block wall from being constructed along the property line, which could make it difficult for the Johnsons to secure their rear yard. It is not likely that the proposed new residences would entirely prevent the Johnsons' from being able to keep horses on their property, but it could prohibit them from using the existing barn for horses. If the Johnsons currently have horses on their property, the City regulations require that they be kept 35 feet away from any new residences. If, however, there are not horses on the property, then any horses the Johnsons bring onto their property after the issuance of building permits for the new residences, would have to be kept 100 feet away from all new and existing residences. In this case, it appears that the Johnsons would have to keep any horses on the middle portion of their lot, and may not be able to use their existing barn for the keeping of horses unless the applicant is willing to execute a covenant per Exception 4 of Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4135.4 to allow horses to be kept less than 100 feet but not less than 35 feet from the new dwellings. Property Line Encroachment There is an existing barn on the Johnsons' property that appears to encroach approximately one (1) foot onto the subject site. The City Attorney advised staff that since this barn may have a prescriptive right to remain, an approval of the tentative map as submitted could be compromised. The applicant acknowledges this encroachment, but it has yet to be definitively resolved. Therefore, based on the undesirable characteristics of a one -sided cul -de -sac, the apparent inconsistency with the Arcadia General Plan, and the unresolved property line encroachment issue, staff recommends denial of the proposed tentative map. This subdivision proposal was reviewed by Engineering Services, the Public Works Services Department, and the Fire Department. If this project is approved, the proposed new properties will be adequately served by existing utilities and public services. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tentative Map Application No. 69958 at its regular meeting on February 10, 2009. The Commission denied the TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 6 subject application by a vote of 3 to 2, citing that the project is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and that the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development. A copy of the minutes of the February 10, 2009 Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report. APPEAL REQUEST On February 17, 2009, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. Then on March 4, 2009, the appellant requested a postponement so that the appeal could be heard at the April 7, 2009 City Council meeting. The postponement was requested to allow the appellant time to prepare for the appeal hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed projects that are not approved are by virtue of being denied, exempt from any further environmental assessment. If approved, however, and if it is determined that the proposed project meets all of the following conditions, this project qualifies as a Section 15332 /Class 32 Categorical Exemption as an in -fill development and no further environmental review would be required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Development Services Department has prepared the attached Preliminary Exemption Assessment to document the exemption determination. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends denial of TM 69958. If the City Council intends to approve this application, staff recommends the following conditions: TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 7 1. That the encroachment of the barn upon the subject site shall be addressed; possibly by one of the following methods to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Development Services Director: a. Revision of the tentative map to exclude the location of the barn provided that the revision is limited so as not to substantially alter the approval of the tentative map. b. An agreement with the neighbor to remove or relocate the barn. 2. An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained prior to encroachment upon or removal of any oak tree. Such permit shall include mitigation measures, subject to the approval of the Development Services Director that compensate for the removal of any oak tree, minimize any impacts on an oak tree, and prevent any damage to public improvements. 3. The proposed street alignment shall be shifted northward to accommodate an ADA compliant handicap curb ramp and to provide'an adequate vehicular line - of- sight, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Development Services Director. 4. That after the issuance of any building and/or grading permits for this project, a Rough Grading Verification Form shall be submitted. to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading Verification Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to any final building inspections and issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. Said Grading Verification .Forms will stipulate that all grading operations have been completed in substantial compliance with the final grading plan approved by the City Engineer. 5. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director. 6. That a tree preservation plan identifying by size and type all trees with a diameter in excess of four inches (4 ") shall be presented to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Approval of a tree preservation plan may require the altering of the design of the proposed subdivision and /or the potential building footprints. 7. Approval of TM 69958 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 8 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 9. A landscaping and irrigation plan that includes a decorative wall for the parkway area along the south side of the new cul -de -sac shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Director or designee, and the Public Works Services Director or designee. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approval The City Council may move to approve Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 based on the following findings prescribed by the State Subdivision Map Act and the Arcadia Municipal Code, and with the conditions of approval recommended by staff or as modified by the Council: A.1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the City's General Plan. A.2. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not violate existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board. Denial The City Council may move to deny Tentative Map Application No. 69958 by making at least one of the following findings prescribed by the State Subdivision Map Act and the Arcadia Municipal Code, based on the evidence presented with specific reasons to support the finding(s): D.1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 9 D.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. D.4. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at,large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. D.B. That the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to violation of requirements of a California regional water quality control board. Approved: Vim'.. -a Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Tentative Map No. 69958 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of Subject Properties Letter from Applicant Photos of Magnolia Court and Sharon Road Opposition Letters Photos of Lots Sandwiched Between Cul -de -sacs Photos of Adjacent Properties, Barn, and Oak Tree February 10, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Environmental Document TM 69958 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Ave. April 7, 2009 — Page 10 i 669£- £9Z -9Z9 :XVJ 999£ - £9Z -9Z9 :131 90016 V3 'G'Iab'0ab' t ' 90016 tl0 'tl mit 3AV Hl8 'S 0171 ' 9071 9 ZO71 tl 11N0 'OVON 0NR10100 6lBN �' � 9 3NI SUMOOM 193 NOISIA149f1S ioi -9 e R rti z o� VN a� a a Q t7 z, W � mi h bO 9!1. ' ; le � dqyq' p B L bbdb ` . � j L§Y Nt/ �� BB'BBl --- -- f -- - -- ----- 3 BO,BO.tO N if e E Ila s I ! s R1IItZ�.nees� �A a..B ° ° .i s ° ! _ I b QQ yY e 3 2 S 'ollIi@@11@d� di iiI 09000090 099 0 0 �bh bMh bb b X F— I �1 � bl ea � Q I a 01 Oi 6 1 Z Q I r J U I /y I IL , /�%) � � `�� \ � //� : ANN..., \ \ � �/ \' �/\ � � \� \ Charles Huang Dexter 8 Ave, LLC. 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A Arcadia, California 91006 February 5, 2009 . Commissioner Bob Baderian Commissioner Ed Beranek Commissioner Frank Hsu Commissioner: William Baerg Commissioner Tony Parrille Arcadia Planning Commission 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box'60021 Arcadia,. California 91066 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8 Ave, LLC Subject Property: 1402, 1406 and 1410 South 8 Avenue, Arcadia Dear Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission: My name is Charles Huang, a current and long -time resident of the City of Arcadia (the "City "). I am the managing member of Dexter 8 Ave, LLC ( "Dexter "), owner of the property located at 1402, 1406 and 1410 South 8'" Avenue in Arcadia (the "Property "). I am writing to seek your approval of Tentative Tract No. 069958 which is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2009. Background The Property is zoned R -1 and consists of three existing parcels currently improved with small single - family residences. The southern boundary of the Property adjoins a single parcel owned by Gwendolyn Johnson, and the northern boundary of the Property adjoins a single parcel owned by David Cheng. The northern property line of Mr. Cheng's property abuts the rear property line of the properties to the north, which front on Camino Grove Avenue, a cul -de -sac which intersects 8'" Avenue. A copy of an aerial photograph depicting the Property in reference to the surrounding properties is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dexter acquired the Property in 2008 with the intent to subdivide the Property to develop additional single - family homes (the "Project ") in accordance with the Property's R -1 zoning designation. Dexter retained EGL Associates, Inc. ( "EGL "), a civil engineering firm, to prepare a design for the Project. EGL advised that the most feasible design would involve five lots for single- family homes on a single sided cul -de -sac. Four lots will front on the cul -de -sac, and the fifth lot would be a reverse -comer lot fronting on 8 Avenue at the entrance of the cul -de -sac. A copy of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Page 2 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8 tb Ave, LLC. Section 9113.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that each lot in a subdivision in the R -1 zone must have a minimum width of 75 feet, except for reverse - corner lots, which must have a minim width of 85 feet. Section 9113.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that each lot in a subdivision shall have a minimum depth of 100 feet. The proposed lots fully comply with applicable lot width and depth requirements, and no variances from applicable requirements would be required for the subdivision as proposed. The proposed cul -de -sac is designed to meet all applicable City standards, including the minimum width of 57 feet at the intersection with 8 Avenue to provide for the construction of accessible curb ramps. In connection with the preparation of the Tentative Tract Map, I met with Jim Kasama, the City's Community Development Administrator, to discuss various issues concerning the Project. During our discussion, Mr. Kasama expressed reservations regarding the development of a single -sided cul -de -sac and expressed concerns regarding the possible effect on Mr. Cheng's property to the north that would be "sandwiched" between the proposed Project and the properties located along Camino Grove Avenue to the north. The possibility of including Mr. Cheng's property in the Project was discussed at this meeting. In response to Mr. Kasama's concerns, I explored the possibility of acquiring Mr. Cheng's property. Mr. Cheng showed interest in selling his property, but we were not able to agree on a reasonable price. Subsequently, Mr. Cheng suggested that he become a partner in the Project and that the Project include Ms. Johnson's property, which is adjacent to south of the Property and another single family lot that is south of Ms. Johnson's property. I approached the Johnson family, who indicated a willingness to sell their property only at a price that far exceeded its fair market value. In the meantime, Mr. Cheng proposed a design for the Project which included Ms. Johnson's property and proposed the development of fourteen lots for the construction of single - family homes surrounding a new cul -de -sac. Mr. Cheng further proposed that he retain Lots #1, #2 and #3 of Exhibit C in exchange for the incorporation of his property in the Project. A copy of Mr. Cheng's proposed design is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Because Ms. Johnson's property is not available for inclusion in the proposed development, I consulted with my engineer who prepared an alternate design for the four parcels owned by Dexter and Mr. Cheng. The resulting design would result in the creation of eight parcels to be accessed by a double -sided cul -de -sac. However, even if the proposed cul -de -sac were to be reduced to a maximum width of only 50 feet, two of the proposed lots would not meet minimum lot width requirements and would therefore require variances from Municipal Code requirements. I met with Mr. Cheng and Mr. Kasama to discuss the alternate design, but the discussions did not result in agreement, partly because Mr. Cheng continued to insist that he retain three of the resulting lots in exchange for the contribution of his property. A copy of the alternate design is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr. Cheng has now proposed a further design, which would result in the creation of eight lots that would require access from a single -sided cul- de -sac with a maximum width of 55 feet. Under the new design, the proposed cul -de -sac would not be wide enough to accommodate required curb ramps at the intersection with 8 Avenue. Page 3 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8" Ave, LLC. Moreover, at least one of the proposed lots would not meet minimum lot width requirements and would require a variance. Mr. Cheng also neglected to account for the existing trail easement along the eastern edge of the Property, which will further reduce the available buildable area and require at least one other additional lot to obtain a variance. Even if the proposed lots were consistent with the City s development standards, the five lots that Dexter would retain are inferior in size and configuration to the five lots in the proposed Tentative Tract Map. The incorporation of Mr. Cheng's property into the Project under these circumstances would therefore be disadvantageous to Dexter from an economic standpoint. A copy of the new design is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Reasons for Approval I recognize Mr. Kasama's concern regarding the possible effect that the Project might impose upon Mr. Cheng's property; however, I feel that the concerns are largely unfounded. If the Project is developed as proposed, Mr. Cheng's side yard will abut the rear yards of the proposed lots. The Municipal Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and a side yard setback of less than six feet in the R -I zone. Development of the proposed subdivision will therefore result in a greater distance between the proposed single - family residences and Mr. Cheng's property. Moreover, as stated above, I reached out to Mr. Cheng and tried to work with him to come to an amicable and feasible resolution. I.have made significant efforts and incurred additional costs to explore the possible incorporation of Mr. Cheng's property into the Project although I was not obligated to do so. The proposed Project is in full compliance with the City's zoning and subdivision requirements. Any modification of the Project to include Mr. Cheng's property would require one or more variances to include the number of lots necessary to accommodate Mr. Cheng's asserted financial interest. At this point, I feel that I have exhausted all reasonable means to accommodate Mr. Cheng. Although I understand Mr. Kasama's concerns regarding Mr. Cheng's property, this should not be the sole basis for evaluating Dexter's application because the City has previously approved a number of similar subdivisions. For example, as shown Exhibit F, the City has approved.at least five single sided cul -de -sac subdivisions, two of which resulted in a single parcel (APN 5785- 001 -027) being left between the two projects, and two of which resulted in two individual parcels (APNs 5780- 004 -024 and 5780- 004 -025) being left between the two projects. As such, the possible effect that the Project might impose on Mr. Cheng's property is not unique or unprecedented and should not be the sole basis for considering the merits of Dexter's application. The proposed single - family residences are permitted by right in the Property's R -1 zone. Moreover, the Project proposes to convert underutilized lots into an economically viable single - family residential subdivision that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will comply with the City's development standards including lot size requirements, Page 4 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8" Ave, LLC. setback requirements, and all other applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, I respectfully request the Planning Commission to approve Tentative Tract No. 069958. Very truly yours, Charles Huang cc: Mr. Don Penman Mr. James Kasama Mr. Jason Kruckeberg 0 OW A2 iN14 i 7E 669f- f9Z -9Z9 -EY! 989f -M -9Z9 :13L 900I6 V ' V IQ V Ja Y 90016 Y0 'YIOYONY _ 11 } Y An 'OYOlI ONIt101OO 61911 ''3AV H18 'S 0171 ' 9071 'Z07I ONI S31VIDOSSd 193 NOISIAI08f1S 10 -9 $ 0 N II s i tl I ■r yy c €€ �'onnannbenag 8 qq5 C S � �bb bhhbn d � � till - - - -- �itllG ai li ------- - - - - -- T HSb'M 1 H1NH H1NHS -; -� M.BO 10.1 80,90.10 N W gsz, O z ` �.6y ° 0 0 0 0 0 n e ��� Z r M ` � a� zi o -moo U O ZVQi� �w oai? uo a�$o,� . it mQ I I D �i�ma Y t 1 a' a vim�i 0 zz oz al % fill II I i tl I ■r yy c €€ �'onnannbenag 8 qq5 C S � �bb bhhbn d � � till - - - -- �itllG ai li ------- - - - - -- T HSb'M 1 H1NH H1NHS -; -� M.BO 10.1 80,90.10 N R 93 1 1 � gy � 9y � gg i g9 i 9e F� 11 i6 09FE[ECE�E008 M3 J 333 } I It �W R — R& 1 I ? I =1 � l i t Q W yI 'I i 1 nYz a '6 >I of c z G I W GI r _J � L �IYaS�+ Q I T I ' d la L, ' A� I� _ I I d jl .g I b • I al ==-------- -- - - :xh�6�t 6 C J J7 & & I 11 I I I I Il*dabtlGlb : : Y Y t 1 a t I al % R 93 1 1 � gy � 9y � gg i g9 i 9e F� 11 i6 09FE[ECE�E008 M3 J 333 } I It �W R — R& 1 I ? I =1 � l i t Q W yI 'I i 1 nYz a '6 >I of c z G I W GI r _J � L �IYaS�+ Q I T I ' d la L, ' A� I� _ I I d jl .g I b • I al ==-------- -- - - :xh�6�t 6 I ' d la L, ' A� I� _ I I d jl .g I b • I al ==-------- -- - - :xh�6�t 6 :xh�6�t 6 r MROM <IRI)JIW 0 5009 l7'f 0oliT. 1TI 2Y/*lo. >6iOQ4ip1 P l ' r i 3 Qa� 75� L i57' �xh�btt C Ave -� FROM ,69 (MON)JMM l2 .... . - .-- l--.•--- - - - - -- - ,69951 t: ,00'SL N I to W 'I tz Cl) 8i O O I I. / I ,ZO'96I 1 c6 ,00 I� { ell) o I o CO co -° L k ko o 51 N i o c {, ,00'00 L1 I Lo co �. t: L° 0 0 $ � QO 00 1 o I� { ell) M I O O i {, I Lo co �. L° � QO � o ko 1,69'09 I' { II { 0 0 00 >� o 05 ,69 - 08 o 0 � I o� c o ,69'0£Z M 0 —- --__ `- -- -- -- - -- --- 1S Hl$ Exhibif D I r � vl • i � Q I O II N 1 I -I I I � y I •J I 1 .: "'" 1� I I li I 1 s I � I I II N I �o i Q I I I� i I I . � I I I I � I I 1 O Q II N I Q 1 �. I I� I I � h I I I "l �V �Q it NO I � I � ov �Q I � O Q I I LL I � 1 �U II � j i _ N N � S •� N Q I I Q I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I � Q I O II I Q I o 1� Q o� oho N� II I L' 4n ij N 1 d N I � N 1 I 1 I I I 1 I ' � 1 p� I � � I y I o � I Lu s I I I Exhibit E I' s J I� : .D D A i tin t . Z $ Z 24 $— NW Jm b ^ _ J N W V I'O D A I N p Z ! t3 ° to lO m iD n I893 1906 r .N n !R1 N w .4 q jr pAV6.; A Y !> �, rd'E• ; a d' 60 r — m 60 N A NN N.m td kA w CD D iuu — I ' -� "N w e, �^ roi W F 0 0 0 xA H.Si wk P O Z 8 Z �/52.d�f l ( aT E t i; ® S 9 . MELANIE 8 LN.q ° A s O $or N. O Tr.n rr a as.f{. k „ MELANIE a w a O. O s LN. x a MELANIE SS ®�. O & U MELANIE 02 PW L 'p. l� • an W.1I w CHR !D m I—I ° I� 0. �I ���° p c a O /ST Z; a o L" Q Z g Jn kN m 174.M EO 70 I w$�n@ N Lp ; a R HM ° c° N n +. m v r r n B a ° n P LN.s go e n R] © v D $ LOVELL AV E. 4� A' P � 4 �P p W�C o WS �O N' m� Exhibit F - 4 i P v � p g° R N CA w w • rv? w I 1 1s ®a 55 e r { ts .a 42 1 1 62A6 A � 9246' —F �A2 �q $ w,�c . '. v 8247 3 'T1 pm Ft 190 A �g4trra ® Y so 0 O 6136 �� 1 t � � H � 21 a �; s6 7 �� v { at 8 y° 99999.YALJ° W _ 28 n 472 q ,511 ,• » � t � 4� 4 �1 Ma ,TRACt® - • L �`�,� 54 1a� pp g U � 117 �— 1 � 3 8 '"+•rye » g 8 ie. g 41 y ,B�.�e ,e+aa ae,n a tRA Iq a m aSNARON pOMpANYS a 'MB a s x q <pNp 7 N , ' 'mN SAN�A ANR 1 8 T I G) 1 - I —� II t 1 Ila ® 1 8 $ F O a { $ 1 { 1 V { 1 x 1 x I l 1 a' 926 1 � a LEMON I587 1893 /'�;l f U ��—j v ROBBINS DR. a 0 QSP g_ AfuJO OiNO _ W� 1y .. sirs a,. p mO W PO 60 Ln ,A �+ rn —I x _ YC ci s A m ll4�F1 ,SCOTT' ' • PLC � S e � � N r ap '� a flir wui rlsJt 2 I 0) + OD W m / / NNO = A ms __ N. •ll�. '110.1! as O W i� W � � �• P O � iee e • !i � G O �' o PATRICIAt WAY aE) .<.. ! m IZ Z NO N o IT N A N N $ < IJ A W 0 $ ® m ;O 10 60 0 .A rro ' 301 I Se7 1893 8 `� � � Exh ►6 +t F -3 z- 1ma 1% � | . ¢ |\ . > > [� §/ Ia AVE. ■ �{ . �A . n .�- $ 0 En•.m z q � | m ro . ® m ;/ > > [� §/ > �r T �{ . �A . n .�- $ ® ) � 0 | !§ {� [ ƒ E | q !� 1924 1 £xhbf£.4 \ 4 ; \ . . \ ! Magnolia Court single -sided cul -de -sac �+ n 4 `$ of 'A" lie�g Sharon Road A wl single-sided cul-de-sac 40. IR Attn: Mr. Thomas Li, Associate Planner To: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT City of Arcadia / Community Development Division / Planning Services Re: Application No.: TM 69958 Location: 1402, 1406, & 1410 S. Eighth Avenue Request: A Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for a five -lot subdivision. Dear Mr. Li, February 1, 2009 Thank you for the Notice of a Public Hearing: Application No. TM 69958. We are the Eroperty owners of 1332 S. 8 Ave., adjacently north to the properties 1402, 1406, & 1410 S. 8 Ave. We unequivocally oppose the TM69958 for the following reasons: (1) If the TM69958 were to be approved by the planning commission, our property will be surrounded by a total of nine homes from the north and south property lines. Please see Exhibit A. We feel that an increase of neighboring homes will take away our privacy. (2) The surrounding homes will likely diminish the market value of our single - family home. (3) Approval of the TM69958 will terminate all future possibilities for us to develop our property, and as a result, limit the opportunity to improve not only the aesthetic value of our home but the city's overall appearance. We do not wish for our home to be located on a lone and narrow property, sandwiched between multiple homes. Although we strongly oppose the TM69958, we are not against Dexter 8 Avenue, LLC developing three single - family homes, one on each of the separate lots -1402, 1406, & 1410 S. 8 Ave. Alternatively, at the very least, we would be willing to combine our property with the applicants to form an eight -lot subdivision, instead of the proposed five -lot subdivision. Please see Exhibit B. We believe that this would satisfy the applicant, ourselves, and the city as a whole. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider our issues and objections. Sincerely Yours, k � - � /, " - -� FEB C r 2009 David & Lucille Cheng Property Owners of 1332 S. 8 Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 + ! % ; «, « �,- e , �w :.y. », \. 8 �!q!4X3 (b'Lf OJ'f[ .X mltm.Y la k4 M I I I I L 3 I& I CN W I �i I 11 x Ue91 0 6 I I I i ��$ �', � PL C• A ' F }ly'1 sl fir o•, � 8 , _ - - r e Q S O W LL, It n 1 � � � g � _ Xy Q I n . 9 f e g 4I4o�g _$— I I �,' o Exh i bi t 5 Mr. Thomas Li January 28, 2009 City of Arcadia Planning Dept. The Johnson Family .1414 S. e. Ave. Arcadia, Ca. 91006 JAN 2. v P009 Dear Mr. Li: First, thank you for responding so promptly in providing us with a copy of TM 69958 in order for us to review it's contents. We will have to strongly oppose this applicant because of two main reasons: A one -sided cult -a -sac has been strongly opposed in the City of Arcadia for many years now. In fact; back in the late `80's, we fought off a similar development on our South fence line. A 420' "alley" would be the result; found to be not astatically pleasing in this city. In addition to added traffic congestion, it only adds to the saturation of our school district. That is certainly no way to maintain the prestigious title we have just earned as being one of the nations best. Second, if the project goes through, we would then be in violation of the City ordinance that says our horses must maintain a 100' distance from dwellings meant for housing. There exists other issues to the applicants TM as far as over - sites, labels, and descriptions: A 30' (foot) oak tree along our fence line is labeled a 30" (inch) tree. This tree cannot be removed, and it will destroy that sidewalk in a year or two. Additionally; the fence itself is not drawn in correctly, and one of my barn structures is not labeled at all. In fact; his plan intends to cut right through my barn wall. That structure is in use, and was built on this property back, in the 1920's. This applicants property has changed hands four or fives times since then; this structure has been "grandfathered" in (the applicants recent property line survey revealed that the barn was built one foot over the property line). The bar wall is the fence line itself; the fence stops at one end, and continues from the other. As you may know, our property and lifestyle is very unique in comparison to most. We have an Equestrian Trail that is actually an easement of our property (given for the conditional use of a County maintained Equestrian Trail). This, you may not know... I can go clear to the Pacific Ocean via the San Gabriel River Bed, and endlessly North to :Oregon and beyond via the Pacific Crest Trail, right out my back gate. Enclosed is a video that illustrates our unique situation. This video contains four different chapters; I would like you to review the first one (it is only 3 -4 minutes in length) titled `Entry .Video ". I believe it is very important for everyone involved in the decision of this project to view this clip in order to grasp our situation entirely. I would like to play this at the "meeting on February 10, 2009; however, you may feel it is best for your department to review it in it's entirety beforehand. Incidentally; this video made it possible for me to receive the title as "2006 Ultimate Outdoorsman Finalist" on ESPN2. The remaining chapters on the disk contain that footage. Thank you again, The Johnson Family (Residents of Arcadia for over 50 years) l til� ,r IA _ r � `} 1'I:i �. � +JI r� 1 N -IN1. 16. < U r r � �111 W 1:, f 1 i• d j y � Lad �'S4 uCR4 <� � / � '' j Fry, I of .y� r FTI § NT a. ,s � i ( F pp I1{ ��I)• (_. ': � h� ! I � ' X 41 � I 4 ��� V S I ''Y. t,� „� « ., I P ,�.�., � �I 7 + � � t ale „•�:� I !:• is 0 Liz I Il i , I� � /'I�/ I � - '�� ✓� � t � I '4q Ifl 1 � w i t I ai I I� �, � � • I , . ! , `.2 � .. I ',, +t t � � , 5 b SL f ^ Y i � I• r -� s F' � � � � L' � i. ' 1 V � 1 .Tall TI I�I�I;' 1 I w � 1 11,��hllfl : F41 ,:- � !t I �A•, � � ' . �� III Ill.�pl'� g { I � �S�l I ri Il° X311 '.r4rYj„r"� }�I v :'�t "5 : 71�,d,.id 71. .P. .�� . ;.... ♦.eil vi. l.`e a ° ➢i�4J ... pLO�: _t .. W 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TM 69958 1402, 1406 and 1410 South Eighth Avenue Dexter 8` Avenue, LLC The applicant is requesting a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for a five -lot subdivision. Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report. Commissioner Hsu asked for verification on the General Plan designation for this site. Mr. Li explained that the General Plan will allow a maximum of eight units on the property but the only way to situate them is on a one -sided cul -de -sac. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Charles Huang, the applicant, said that he retained a designer and an engineer and they originally laid out six lots in compliance with city code. Later, he decided to reduce it to five lots. Mr. Huang said they met with city staff many times to make sure the one -sided cul -de -sac was acceptable and, with the assurances of staff, he decided to proceed with the purchase of the property. He said that he also asked the owners of neighboring properties if they were interested in selling but they were never able to reach an agreement. Mr. Huang pointed out that he made every effort to comply with city regulations and that he believes the project will be beneficial to the city. He said he is willing to comply with all conditions of approval and he and his associates offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Commissioner Baerg asked if there is a technical reason for placing the street side of the cul -de -sac to the south instead of north. Mr. Hank Jong, EGL, explained that the nature of the drainage on the property makes this most practical. Mr. Jong explained that there are no regulations prohibiting one -sided cul -de -sacs. He pointed out several examples in the handouts distributed earlier to the Commissioners. He said that the applicant is willing to satisfy the city engineer's requirements, provide landscaping to cover the wall and hire an arborist to protect the oak tree at the site. He discussed plans for the width of the street and the size of the lots pointing out that the applicant is willing to comply with all conditions of approval. Attorney Patrick Perry represented the applicant. He said that it is impossible to make the Findings necessary for denial of this application and he reviewed each one. Mr. Perry also pointed out the existence of one -sided cul -de -sacs in other parts of the city and again stressed the developer's willingness to comply with all regulations and conditions. Mr. Bruce Pfeifer represented the sellers. He said the sellers contacted the city to find out how the property could be developed and they were assuranced that a one - sided cul -de -sac was acceptable. Mr. Pfeifer stated that the sellers are anxious to proceed with the project. Mr. Gordon Maddock said that he met the developer, Mr. Huang, through Bowden Development. He said that in 2006 Bowden made an offer on these properties and he drew up a map for a six -lot subdivision on a one -sided cul -de -sac. He discussed these plans with staff at the time and was assured that they were acceptable. He asked the Commissioners to approve the project as presented or make a recommendation to widen the street by five feet to a total of 60 feet. Mr. Eddie Hsieh, a neighbor, said he supports the project and feels it would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Yang, another neighbor, said he agrees with Mr. Hsieh and supports the project. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the project. Mr. David Cheng owns the property to the north of the project site. He said that he had spoken to the developer about adding his property to the project, but they were never able to reach an agreement. Mr. Cheng said he feels that without his property the project will be incomplete and so he is opposed to it. Mr. David Johnson represented Gwen Johnson and the Johnson family. He said he is opposed to the project because he feels the wall on the one -sided cul -de -sac would be unattractive and a magnet for trash and debris. He also wanted to be sure that the city's historic association with the equine culture would be protected and preserved. Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mr. Jong pointed out that the project site is not designated as horse property in the General Plan and that six dwellings are allowed per acre. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baerg said that he is inclined to deny the application because of the one -sided cul -de -sac. He said that he felt the property could be developed without the one -sided cul -de -sac. Commissioner Hsu said that he is in favor of the project because it complies with regulations, but that he would ask the applicant to work with staff to reduce the negative aspects of the wall. Chairman Beranek said that he cannot see any basis for denial of the application. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Chairman Beranek, to. approve Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille NOES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek L �yVO4. .., o PRELIMINARY ,,, .� EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption) Name or description of project: TM 69958 2. Location: 1402, 1406, 1410 S. Eighth Avenue 3. Entity or person undertaking project: F.11 X B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Dexter 8 Ave. LLC (Prop. Owner in escrow) (2) Address: 11819 Goldring Road Unit A Arcadia. CA 91006 4. Staff Determination: The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. The project is a Ministerial Project. C. The project is an Emergency Project. d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. X The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 32 f. The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency: Name of Lead Agency Date: January 5, 2009 Thomas P. Li Staff 7/02 STAFF REPORT March 31, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council Development Services Department FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrato '.1 SUBJECT: Correspondence regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 at 1402 -1410 S. Eighth Avenue. Attached is a letter from Mr. Patrick A. Perry, the attorney representing Dexter 8 th Avenue, LLC on their appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 69958. The appeal is on the City Council agenda for April 7, 2009 and the staff report is included in the agenda packet. Attachment c: Don Penman, City Manager RECEIVED CITY OF APCADIA MAR 3 9 2009 Allen Mains Via First Class Mail March 2, 2009 Mayor Robert C. Harbicht Mayor Pro Tem John Wuo Councilmember Peter Amundson Councilmember Roger Chandler Councilmember Gary Kovacic City of Arcadia P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, California 91066 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958 1402, 1406, and 1410 Eighth Avenue Dear Members of the Arcadia City Council: Allen is U4daaEFAallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law 515 South Figueroa, 0 Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 -3309 Telephone: 213.622.5555 1 Facsimile: 213.620.8816 www.allenmatkins.com Patrick A. Perry E -mail: pperry@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 213.955.5504 File Number: D2198 -002/LA820596.01 This firm represents Dexter 8 Avenue, LLC ( "Dexter ") in connection with its application for approval Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958 to subdivide the property located at 1402, 1406, and 1410 South Eighth Avenue (the "Property ") into five lots for the development of single family homes. On February 10, 2009, the Arcadia Planning Commission denied TM 69958 by a vote of 3- 2 on the grounds that the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, the site is not physically suitable for the type of development, and the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. As set forth in more detail below, Dexter respectfully disagrees with the determination of the Planning Commission and urges you to grant Dexter's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the grounds that none of the findings for denial of TM 69958 can properly apply. A. Findings for the Denial of TM 69958 Cannot Be Made. Section 9115.8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that a tentative map shall be denied if any of the following findings can be made: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights I Walnut Creek Allen Matkins Lock Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 2 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is not physically suited to the density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a City Council to determine that the public•At large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to violation of requirements of a California regional water quality control board. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Findings 5 through 8 above can be made in connection with TM 69958. Indeed, as stated above, the Planning Commission made findings for denial solely on the basis of Findings 1 through 4 above. The following discussion will therefore concentrate only on those findings on which the Planning Commission relied to deny TM 69958. Dexter will be prepared to address any questions regarding Findings 5 through 8 at the public hearing on the appeal. TM 69958 is consistent with the General Plan The Property is designated by the Los Angeles County assessor as Parcel Nos. 5780 -023- 069, 5780- 023 -070, and 5780- 023 -0.71. The Property has access to South 8 Avenue on the west and backs up to Santa Anita Wash on the east. The eastern edge of the Property is also subject to an easement in favor of the County Flood Control District for a riding and hiking trail. The property located immediately to the north of the Property is occupied by a single family residence. The property located immediately to the north of that is part of a cul -de -sac development along Camino Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 3 Grove Avenue. A copy of the Assessor's Parcel Map showing the Property and surrounding properties is attached for your convenience as Exhibit A . The General Plan land use designation for the Property is Single - Family Residential (0 -6 dwelling units per acre). The net area of the Property is approximately 70,740 square feet, or approximately 1.62 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted to be developed on the Property under the General Plan land use designation is therefore nine dwelling units. There is no applicable specific plan. The zoning designation for the Property is R -1 7,500, Single - Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Section 9113.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that the minimum lot width at the front property line for lots in the R -1 7,500 zone is 75 feet, except for reverse corner lots or comer lots fronting on a new street, which must have a minimum lot width of 85 feet. Section 9113.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that each lot in a subdivision must have a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. As shown on TM 69958, the Property is proposed to be subdivided into five single family residential lots which range in size from 9,226 square feet to 11,738 square feet. All of the lots comply with the minimum lot width and lot depth requirements, and no variances from existing site development standards would be required. TM 69958 is therefore fully consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the Property. A copy of TM 69958 is attached for your convenience as Exhibit B . 2. The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The Staff Report prepared in connection with the Planning Commission's consideration of TM 69958 recommended denial becduse the proposed residential lots would be required to be accessed from a single -sided cul -de -sac and because the development of the proposed subdivision would sandwich the property located to the north of the Property between two cul -de -sac developments. In support of its recommendation, the Staff Report cites the following community development goals set forth in the Community Development chapter of the Arcadia General Plan: • Direct the amount and location of land uses in a manner which enhances the environmental, social, physical, and economic well -being of Arcadia; • Protect the integrity and quality of existing residential neighborhoods. The Staff Report nevertheless acknowledges that the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the community development goal of promoting a balance among the following considerations: • Protecting existing residential neighborhoods; Allen Matkins Lock Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 4 • Meeting the need for new housing for all economic segments of the community; • providing a wide array of recreational opportunities; and The expansion of commercial, office, and industrial uses designed to meet the retail and service needs of Arcadia citizens, contribute to a sound local economic base, and provide local economic opportunities. The proposed subdivision would also further the following goals of the Community Development chapter: Ensure an adequate supply of lands which can generate a municipal revenue stream which furnishes the City with the long -term ability to continue providing a high level of services to its residents and businesses. • Ensure that the General Plan and City ordinances facilitate development of a mix of housing types, including single family detached, single family attached, and multiple family housing within a variety of price ranges. California law does not require that a proposed subdivision be consistent with each and every goal of a city's general plan. Rather, "state law does not require an exact match between the proposed subdivision and the applicable general plan." (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4 704, 717 (1993)). Moreover, the Staff Report does not explain how the proposed single -sided cul -de -sac is not consistent with the goals of the General Plan. The Staff Report merely asserts that the block wall that would be erected along the south side of the cul -de- sac would have a "stark and unattractive appearance" that would "introduce a physical element ... that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood." No design for the wall has been requested or provided, so it is difficult to understand the basis for this conclusion. Dexter is prepared to address this concern by agreeing to a condition of approval requiring the design of the wall to be subject to review and approval by the City's Community Development Administrator. The Staff Report also indicates that at least two other similar single -sided cul -de -sacs have already been approved by the City at Magnolia Court and Sharon Road. Additional research indicates that single -sided cul -de -sacs have also been approved at Luben Lane, Melanie Lane, Scott Place, and Encino Drive. Assessor's Parcel Maps showing the six examples of single -sided cul -de- sacs are attached for your convenience as Exhibit C . According to the Staff Report, the single -sided cul -de -sac at Magnolia Court was approved by the Planning Commission in 2004. The Community Development chapter of the General Plan is dated 1996. Therefore, it does not appear that the applicable General Plan goals have changed since 2004. It is therefore difficult to understand how Magnolia Court could have been determined to be consistent with the General Plan, but TM 69958 is not. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 5 Dexter also disagrees with the assertion in the Staff Report that the development of the Property as proposed will have an adverse effect on the property to the north. Dexter has identified three properties in the City that are similarly located between cul -de -sac developments. One of the three properties, 646 West Camino Real, which is located next to Melanie Court, which was approved in 2004. Again, it is difficult to understand how any possible effects of the development of the Melanie Court subdivision could be deemed to be consistent with the General Plan, but the possible effects of the development of TM 69958 are not. The other two properties that are located between two cul -de -sac developments are at 1103 South 8` Avenue and 558 West Longden Avenue. Assessor's Parcel Maps and photographs showing the properties at 646 West Camino Real, 1103 South 8 Avenue, and 558 West Longden Avenue are attached as Exhibit D . None of the three properties appear to be adversely affected by their proximity to cul -de -sac developments. The properties located at 646 West Camino Real and 558 West Longden Avenue are 50 feet wide and 60 feet wide, respectively. The property located north of the Property is 65 feet wide. It is therefore more favorably situated than two of the properties that are already similarly located between two cul -de -sac developments. Moreover, the properties located between cul -de- sacs are subject to greater privacy because they abut the rear yards of neighboring properties instead of the side yards. According to Section 9252.2.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the minimum rear yard setback for properties located in the R -1 7,500 zone is 25 feet. According to Section 9252.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the minimum side yard setback for properties in the R -1 7,500 zone is the greater of five feet or ten percent of the width of the lot. Based on the width of the existing lots, the side yard setback for a single family residence facing South 8th Avenue would be 5.8 feet. Proximity to a cul -de -sac development would therefore result in a greater distance from structures on adjoining properties. The conclusions in the Staff Report regarding this issue are therefore unfounded. The site is physically suited for the type of devel opment. The Property is generally level, has access to the existing public right -of -way along South 81h Avenue, and is already adequately served by existing utilities. The Property is zoned R -1, is currently developed with three single family residences, and is located in an area largely developed with single - family homes. The proposed subdivision will provide for the development of five single - family residences, which will comply with all applicable site development standards. The site is therefore physically suited for the type of development proposed by TM 69958. 4. The site is physically suited for the density of development As set forth above, the Property is designated Single - Family Residential (0 -6 dwelling units per acre) in the Arcadia General Plan. The net area of the Property is approximately 70,740 square feet, or approximately 1.62 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted to be developed on the Property under the General Plan land use designation is therefore nine dwelling Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 6 units. The zoning designation for the Property is R -1 7,500, Single - Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. TM 69958 proposes to subdivide the Property into five lots for the development of single - family homes. All of the lots comply with all minimum lot width and lot depth requirements, and no variances from existing site development standards would be required. As shown on the drawing attached as Exhibit E , the Property could actually be subdivided into six lots without requiring any variances; however, Dexter has proposed a lower density of development than what could be effectively achieved on the Property. The Property is therefore suitable for the density of development proposed by TM 69958. B. Deve lopment of the Property Will Not Interfere with Existing Rights to Mainta Horses on the Adjacent Property Concerns were expressed to the Planning Commission by the adjacent property owner to the south regarding the potential impact that the proposed development on the Property will have on his ability to keep horses on his property. Section 9252.1.4.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that two horses may be maintained on lots in the R -1 7,500 zone that have a minimum area of 16,000 square feet. One additional horse may be maintained on such lots for every additional 5,000 square feet in lot area. Section 4135.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that horses may not be kept within 100 feet of a human habitation other than the habitation of the owner of the horse. An exception provides that a horse may be kept within 35 feet of a new human habitation if the horse has been legally kept on the property for a minimum of six months prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a the new human habitation. The single - family dwellings to be constructed on the Property pursuant to TM 69958 will all be located at least 35 feet from almost all of the adjacent property to the south. The proposed cul- de -sac will vary from 55 feet to 57 . feet in width, and the proposed residences will be required to be set back an additional 25 feet from the cul -de -sac. Only a portion of the easternmost of the proposed residences will be located approximately 25 feet from the adjacent property to the south. The adjacent property owner would therefore be able to maintain any existing horses on his property if the Property were to be developed as proposed. It appears, however, that the adjacent property owner does not currently maintain horses on his property. If TM 69958 were to be approved and new residences constructed on the Property as proposed, the property owner to the south could be precluded from maintaining new horses on a significant portion of his property. That is not, however, a legitimate reason to deny the requested subdivision of the Property because one property owner should not be prevented from reasonably developing his or her property to protect a right that an adjoining property does not exercise and may never exercise. You are respectfully requested to approve TM 69958 as proposed. Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Mayor Robert C. Harbicht March 2, 2009 Page 7 Your prompt attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Please call if you have any questions or if I can provide further information with respect to this issue. Very truly yours, PA /-� /� Patrick A. Perry PAP Enclosures cc: Mr. Don Penman Mr. Jason Kruckeberg Mr. James Kasama Mr. Charles Huang 0 M m g ':3 AV H16 M O p rn C2 CQ h m m g u '3 AV w O UW N z6 a - U N 0 1 O LL ) N� O Q J U V t^ N �' oo�o a ul W - a J irve C9 J .z g kQ i rc L Y NN u - w0 ? n W J i N W 1 ap i Y N � m00 O r r g '3 AV H101 e M m g ':3 AV H16 M O p rn C2 CQ h m m g u '3 AV w O UW N z6 a - U N 0 1 O Ii : m er'u m 4 a O R a$N• g m�a :'• J a N isx � irve a J a g AVM rc L Y weir I u - om n n M m g ':3 AV H16 M O p rn C2 CQ h m m g u '3 AV w O UW N z6 a - U N 0 1 O Ii : m c w n N v. 09 F= 1n z W W J 9 09 H1B % \/ W m N �I N v. a 1 w^ 1 N, �N c o'm m om \/ m NI - : �I 1 I 1 p 1 N, m NI V' fi VON I g r r m ro 1 - ne wi co 0 I I V1NV5 k .0 � 0 N M d a , 6s f9_ — IT — d di i rro+ n z z z I I �: u i I r I pi a I I I it I $I I I ISI v I I I I I I� L R � F — r -- € 8TH ST a a 11 e % -- aFWp"1Y 5" w 65. r an r° �n w <Rb � �Z 4el I w m P w .till I �rl�r 6. —P`. Q If I P r JJ_ II �I I I D 'I I ,o .I •' b c sr a rq I P Z y D� Q��1 ^ZQN IJ tM1Q�Q�Y ° ,� MoMold w , OP N '• � Wf P r a 333 D 449 i I�IIo L Q c m _ D P a x T P w� F 4 q L 9 P p M x ` Y �4 X6666 is 9 aaaaaaa� v IR aaaaaaa� a��a `- `- �oBBJ4BRC0�� Q��1 ^ZQN IJ tM1Q�Q�Y -- ,� MoMold / � '• � Wf ® g ® ® ®® ®9 ®0 ®9 ®O QsP Pldeg�98�R q �g 21 4 1 B e � N 01'06'06 E k , 165.68 — y n,v« - N01'01'O6 "W n _ ®_ — — ` SANTA ANITA WASH 4 — --------- - - - - -- I ri� rn AVD2m f'1DZcm ° 0 mmm, v O N' W U1 Z / 07 ZD_ o_ 5 C -mF� m E5 rn o Tmm n � o Z D� <a r�* a .JV ��o� o0 D tin D� �o ^ -i 'j Z n 0 D D \ S C 1 ODD Z o a 1 Z o'Zm O 0� r mo°m O 0 0> z Z m0 y F x 'Alwi/ w x m W 5 C . ) z �D �v D ut n a N O O 5 -LOT SUBDIVISION s : _ EGL ASSOCIATES, INC. § 1402 1406 & 1410 S. 8TH AVE,, 11619 GOL0RIN0 ROAD, UNIT A (sg a t) z 8 g ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 TEL: 626 - 263 -3588 FAX: 626- 263 -3599 0 n IJ -- / � '• � Wf 333 449 N 01'06'06 E k , 165.68 — y n,v« - N01'01'O6 "W n _ ®_ — — ` SANTA ANITA WASH 4 — --------- - - - - -- I ri� rn AVD2m f'1DZcm ° 0 mmm, v O N' W U1 Z / 07 ZD_ o_ 5 C -mF� m E5 rn o Tmm n � o Z D� <a r�* a .JV ��o� o0 D tin D� �o ^ -i 'j Z n 0 D D \ S C 1 ODD Z o a 1 Z o'Zm O 0� r mo°m O 0 0> z Z m0 y F x 'Alwi/ w x m W 5 C . ) z �D �v D ut n a N O O 5 -LOT SUBDIVISION s : _ EGL ASSOCIATES, INC. § 1402 1406 & 1410 S. 8TH AVE,, 11619 GOL0RIN0 ROAD, UNIT A (sg a t) z 8 g ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 TEL: 626 - 263 -3588 FAX: 626- 263 -3599 0 I. MAGNOLIA i LN I� rA� — EL SUR i AVE D m w �m 'o' 90 7 i� i. L N � I i i I I a r SHORT z — STS i u.rs I na sum oz 6 °OA° a qSTio - --- -- la O PI�B O a, I I Q I �I� 4� I. MAGNOLIA i LN I� rA� — EL SUR i AVE D m w �m 'o' 90 7 i� i. L yI Wnn ZN WO� 0 i 0 O�� w O U O '11 11 11 1 1 1 1 3Z 1 r-- .4191 NOW $ 1 I l l ` w I flW 1 I ll 3 pZ L I a 3Rtl — a o� 9 I gl 1 1 it $ lox —0 mq w IMP MO O 1 1 � ii 111 U3 - . —� CL C,4 1 b' y„7tla eswl � 18 S 9 erc5� �p y$ O ¢ 1 O N ° 51 F♦� ,� N W W SL GO CL $ 1 l m oa I LZ 3 C g g 1R O a 8O $ F N ^ a W 'S5 ry 8 a p 3 SOM1 X N ON S a�. Nlll7y " O a Ul w � xe 5¢ec 5xx�' oa 1 t1ey 1` We 1 { 1S � LbZB �ze 9426 dtm+i i � YZN 1 Z4Z 7� 9 aZ�n 1 F � g N 8 `- - -- U wpm cn L lk Q 1 1 t 1 b / ° @ = I f 1 jA co Q 1 W � co CV CO � N �'/ �? ' eta ;; ; ° ^ o -z$`v hjM�Z. Aal hq4 k"44ZZ K�d aoa a•mm a °a S a L991-- = —bZ61 I i N m c= r h m W Q W Q LL. a J r ' m 1 Z O 17 g Q H N I W i (A m a m � w 01 CO w, 0 a QI U al N M: C) M 4 M b' f Z " a F-. N ul a '3AV lsl W O mN u S J .. o o r v 91 01 V I Q I Z m 0 u m a � F-, r 4n! <01 L of m Z F o U m a' P 0 T It a nd w CNZ I - 113AO - 1 0 m m v z U m N� In e Z 1 m .o ZI 1 . 0 o h- u UI m Ir yl 55 31N dl3VV 3INV�3VY roi I— 2h11 z � f Z O Z.e: � zz tN - vU m b O i 000 `- � u ai -` .J uy y , b 1rs• s' rra - �riro Eels cn's+ amp V 3A4 Wj N 3 U f � a W 9061 £fi BI al o� N za (0 co M o ro u O p ? O Z z� Z n F- Q Q Q• Q 1 J W. U'f � a IL; -1IIV V IZIVY ° v J NW+O' 1 d 8 ' Q N N 1 N 1 J m W� M a • o m �i O s Z o �i m U � 4 1 F H J1: J N b 4 U � r S 7 nmMN umomm �m o u� dnn "nf`„�O mdp9: b0 s '" 0 3 Ad '3a F v�9 a g'- p i y `o8o�a a,waa O 0 0 a m M u �o s K to a V ' j O $ .' OI O! 4j rr) v LoF QA . Q N N � N 1105 e O PI �47d r�svi G O 1 7 ON °tS'lL/ �a m Z Z c I—�m E�m O N g. qr:o erx Q Q ml fr .y le _SB i6 �:... V O gCCY orav i Srrod �? — D h U(3 '. SNIMOa °'"O 09 Ommm sS LO W kvM v tVIOI J-Vd £6B1 iaoi Q7 0 z ,- u r[ � lrroM U N P7. _ Q N ® F m g �C p m m co O r Q7 C O. 00 Q. O Z N J i N R S :1 m U � U• o C14 .D ,.Q Na —yy Q 14 fr :9 Q u �o s K to a V ' 1105 e O PI �47d r�svi G 0 °tS'lL/ O c nq .y _SB i6 �:... P D h U(3 '. SNIMOa °'"O 09 Ommm sS LO W £6B1 iaoi u �o s K to a V ' qn Qw8 °h5 2 �I ll0`mIV ^IV4VT h�l�^ y C $ v ap 3Ad O 91Z9 3007 O 3007 6029 300D q N' i O 1➢ b TT O � � (x' " '3AV mN� SIZ9 3000 7 a1 G� N c � c0 M n r 00 m O Ln a N p a p z U� U' � U � Q u W j W u a d LL 0 W u Q W O N Z 1991 3000' J W Ha u b� W m N w O o w O O V U C 0 O V 0 O I 7 Orm mN �� s 0 .0 0 $ I rn a eo O n m = N u n �0 d p °da oe � oogg oo o ° oo r �,+ � 3 AV 1 -13A01 $ `M§ gym k + . ° "a e�ee o ®I ; ^m'o I '� I ti b 09 W . 8o a $ 09 J O M 1. 8�� eo < 80'99/ rn O aa o © I .s : e O e I „ N wwo °o I OL 09 A 91'rL/ 9 /' >OE 60'991 06 O g IR U U M < e e "�, Mal ..� ya •Y .IYIk � ..� Jf e° 0,0 . a'N� 3NI151TIH� F 9 6 1. Q' n t ' yy [f JN v m N Ln U n 7 I 0 < SS z. 0 Z 31N 3W 31NV13vq 1u 00i 31NV13w — N i .,.� ,' $ 4 a — � °: C m y J 3. KfL K rt I9'9! 0 M1 L 9 * rssn trn tp� ® S9>'ZS/ 790 / o �� O I 9 a = k V' o M1 'q $ o I f f l 3 NY q1 `0- Q 9 nwi S9's75% z 0 Z �p !w FSfdi fr:Y - a F-'i m O z m 1 4 x `�' i< h .. w: $ 59VZ➢ N /rH V p nrT" < inn cr O A g V m :9'r4fs J EL 09 at Qyt Ysvf .j;9f, �,/ m l � ry i!'o<� 1ff19 6999 NIM01ed9 G I �NR Q JI M J WI < i u < 90fi1 E661 U L I �� rl 0) U-) o a IL < O I O r N V i wo Z ,!. Z N Z J r? W moma ° �T r1m r m W•� w; �mmmm o U. n ¢ cr Q < co P m p t' „J yy�+vv I t.� 1 f x l Ye ,N w Fa$ �� m o4F ^ono �^IN m � ^o Bps yymo 6 O v $ e e 09 O N m m_ Q NI YI'IONOYIN OI N f- m y W y u L� Wa �z r m m •Y �m sm� 0 Q ; Q c r Lo I "I cHAnwnIN N L99 N. 00' co w Q � z o U m Q N LO m � n zm m h U f° Q � T ml 0 oa � m � OI m q OBI Q. W m c :� B219 v O 'a4 ONI�N3 r L991 E691 0 P w r i fl YT uuuuu m { eXJEi E't Y YmA# { ,C: TN C E } y QW p for W. +!rt X I 1 � �� •t/ Y a � �,�, a1 1 � YC " k y ` M'y :ZZ vv P Y y yl i � k .M f �' iX ? Mw• 41 ��jl r M 6° X2''T 'k�'; "� °"''� �YP "' y�ia.. . 4 Y� � 1 f !' "5a �, t 'i"B S � nV lc ... Ci: O 'x.4N ZN_o 09 QQ W SJm d s m �N 'Nl V•2 31 *qu„ , Y a W � m O � O 0, u- i aa ON 32135'13 I i C of m OII z 1 0 U ro I, r co L 09 d ON �o 0 i- O^li U co 96' "52 N O � � } M Sa St 65'66 s sS'ESa � ^ Sb/ d y n 26'11 Z2'96 Pa'/ 66 Fb EI'fi `s b 86'69 [C6L• fb'b Q I �Z,Ib .O � •, Hlalnr Q , 20 O S6'E f4ia 12 L6 a hp O m. o O 1� w �; a �: b � O� V 2 d O M w' 09 d m ®N Of I m P u — O 0 i- (V. U co N O � � } M z N W M U m �. d �i b 50 Q D2'SL DZ'66 •, aJ'ITD I l m� Y 0 b 0 w �; a �: b � O� V 2 d O M w' m w O °` tl Oa N s N� ,.. � m n h O " a e m• mob a no ,e�. Y V N EL2Y Q � ` m 6M ¢� Lr � � 09 v � Z Y I " ON3»3S -13 usD Pt SPL!'lR a _ wa I PV fD ^• °N �a1d9 ummm o 6e0L »I.+ Q _ oi� R@V SD b a£J m ®N Of I m P u — O 0 i- (V. U co N O � � } M z N W M U m �. d �i r- (0 d O 0 z " U Q F- CO M O a Ld Z - U d w (— [T m Q O �- M Q •, a� m l m� Y 0 b 0 w �; a �: b � O� V 2 d O M w' Z w O °` tl Oa N s N� ,.. h LU a Y V 6M 09 v � Z Y I LO Pt SPL!'lR O� wa I PV fD ^• °N �a1d9 ummm o 6e0L »I.+ [T m m 8TH ST CA 0 0 165.69' ° N O w rn 165.68' v J :n DO 5� w co cn U o 'n O 110.70' 00 C4 o N O 0 110.70' N (D 00 L-4 J S5 O cn O O 'T1 - 110.70'_ J O p 0 �o �o 707 .09 00 C.0 0) co p 9 co (!) TI 133.24' 32.44' 165.68' v J :n DO �3.•po+rW CITY OF ARCADIA 0 Voli JOINT MEETING OF THE o @.moors ^ °r ARCADIA CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24,2009,6:00 p.m. MINUTES Location: Arcadia Police Department, Community Room/Emergency Operation Center 250 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL City Council/Redevelopment Agency Members: Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht Planning Commission Members: Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek OTHERS ATTENDING City Clerk Jim Barrows City Manager Don Penman City Attorney Steve Deitsch Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg City Engineer Phil Wray Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama Senior Planner Lisa Flores Assistant Planner Steven Lee Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone General Plan Advisory Committee SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kruckeberg pointed out that a copy of the Power Point presentation on the General Plan Project and a petition from the Highland Homeowners Association were given to each Councilman and Commissioner. Any wrltiegs or documents provided to a majority of the CAy Counoll regarding any Item on this agenda will be made evagable for pubec Inspection in the City Clerk's ofte located at 240 W. Huntington Dive, Arcadia, Cegfomia, owing normal business hours. Page 1 of 7 3. TRAE RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (FIVE MINUTE TIME LMT PER PERSON) Mr. Phil Consiglio, President of the Highland Homeowners Association, and Mr. Jeff Bowen, a past President of the Association, stated that members of their organization are strongly opposed to the proposed designation of the area east of Highland Oaks Drive as open space recreation. They feel this would bring excessive traffic and noise to their quiet residential neighborhood. Mr. Consiglio and Mr. Bowen said that their members want this study area to be removed from consideration in the General Plan update. 4. Discussion and/or direction on a. Affordable Housing options and strategies. Ms. Beth Stochl, Principal, Beth Stochl Associates, gave a Power Point presentation describing affordable housing options for the Redevelopment Agency and explaining the state mandate to provide housing units at different levels of affordability. Councilman Chandler said he understood that the affordable housing funds for senior housing had been depleted. Mr. Penman explained that the law has changed, i.e., previously the percentage of seniors in the city was the sole determining factor. Now, however, the percentage of low- income seniors to the overall low- income population in Arcadia is the determining factor. He further noted that some very low- income housing needs can be met through senior housing. Councilman Chandler asked if only new construction meets these housing requirements or if rehabbed units are acceptable. Ms. Stochl said that 20 -25% of the low and very low category can be met by previous market units that are substantially rehabbed and covenanted to provide low- income housing. For example, a building with a history of code violations and in need of substantial rehabilitation might be a good candidate for the city to acquire, rehabilitate and turn into affordable senior housing. Councilman Chandler asked about the city's obligations to provide shelter for people and Ms. Stochl explained that the city must designate sites that are zoned to allow emergency shelters by right; perhaps an industrial site. Councilman Kovacic asked if the city is required to create these units even after the designated funds are depleted. Ms. Stochl explained that the city is obligated to provide the opportunity for these facilities to be built. Councilman Kovacic said that the largest group of low- income residents is at the race track and he asked if the city can meet its housing obligations by assisting this group. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda wID be made evadable for public inspection in the City Clerk's ofte located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CelHomie, during normal business hours. Page 2 of 7 Councilman Chandler pointed out that the low- income housing status must be guaranteed for 55 years and the race track is not in a position to make this guarantee. Mayor Harbicht said that should the city fail to meet RHNA requirements the Housing Element of the General Plan may not be certified by the state. He asked what consequences could be expected in this event. Mr. Kruckeberg suggested that state funding might cease, and Mr. Deitsch said that the approval of subdivision maps could also be an issue. Mr. Penman pointed out that the city must make an effort to create a General Plan that will allow affordable housing units to be built. He noted that the RHNA numbers are based on growth projections that are no longer valid and suggested that the city might investigate the possibility of asking the state legislature to revise their estimates. Mr. Amundson noted that the city does not have to provide the housing itself but only the opportunity for development of affordable units. Mr. Deitsch added that these numbers must be reflected in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Ms. Stochl said that there needs to be enough sites available to meet low and very low income level requirements and Mr. Penman pointed out that the city can fulfill a large portion of the very low income requirements with senior housing. b. General Plan Update and Land Use Plan 2030. Mr. Kruckeberg, DSD, Ms. Flores, Senior Planner, and Ms. Laura Stetson, of Hogle- Ireland, gave a power point presentation on the General Plan Update and Land Use Plan 2030. Mayor Harbicht opened the meeting to discussion. Mr. Henry Nunez, GPAC member, spoke about the wide range of demographics in the city and suggested that the best way to create a vibrant life style for such a widely diversified group is through mixed -use development. He said he enjoyed working with the GPAC and although the GPAC members originally found it difficult to project thirty to forty years in the future, he felt that the final product was very good. Mr. Nunez also commended city staff for their efforts on the project. W. Scott Hettrick, GPAC member, thanked city staff and the consulting team for the high quality of the staff report and presentation. He said the GPAC was made up of a diverse group of residents representing almost all demographics and geographic areas of the city, yet they were able to set aside their individual needs and evaluate the options for the city as a whole. Mr. Hettrick noted that the GPAC recognized that even though the city is "built out" it is important to develop plans that would encourage new revenue sources and also to address Any wddngs or documents provided to a majodty of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's ofte located at 240 W. Huntington !rive, Arcadia, Ceitfomla, during normal business hours. Page 3 of 7 areas of the city where change is needed. Mr. Hettrick said the GPAC chose to endorse the mixed -use option to create a downtown -type area that would provide revenue potential. In addition, this option would also provide housing opportunities for people who work in the city but can't afford to live here now, such as policemen and teachers. Councilmen Chandler and Kovacic expressed concern that the mixed -use concept will encourage accelerated growth causing stress to infrastructure. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that only land use concepts are being explored at this point and the impact to utilities and schools will be addressed later in the process. Ms. Mary Dougherty, GPAC member, said she enjoyed working with the group and noted that they were all very respectful of each others' widely varying opinions. She said they recognized the importance of developing a plan for adding up to 2100 additional units over the next twenty to thirty years that would still allow enough flexibility to accommodate any required changes. She noted that the First Avenue revitalization effort has not been as successful as hoped and suggested that one of the main reasons for this is parking. Ms. Dougherty said that the proposed Gold Line Station will create an area of opportunity and that it is important to remember to include convenient parking and businesses that attract people. She stressed the importance of building flexibility into the plan for future development. Mr. Rich Dilluvio, GPAC member, stressed the importance of remembering that the plans being developed today will be implemented over a twenty to thirty year period. He said it is important to look to the future of transportation in the city, including the Gold Line, and to take this opportunity to improve Baldwin Avenue and First Avenue. He stressed the importance of remaining open - minded in considering the mixed -use option which could attract not only families with children but also working professionals and retirees, i.e., the types of people who want a lifestyle that provides the freedom and flexibility to simply lock their door and leave. Mr. Dilluvio suggested visiting cities where older neighborhoods have been successfully revitalized such as San Jose. He said the GPAC is a diverse group that, with the help of a forward looking staff, came up with a wide range of ideas for consideration in the General Plan Update. Councilman Amundson asked for the names of other cities besides San Jose that have successfully revitalized older neighborhoods. Mr. Dilluvio said that Brea and Fullerton are two examples of cities where businesses are thriving and property values are rising. Mr. David Lee, GPAC member, pointed out that the high property values in Arcadia make it difficult for young people to purchase homes. He suggested that mixed -use development would provide affordable housing for young families and noted that not all families require a yard, which is usually not available in a mixed -use development. He also noted that Arcadia has, and will continue to Any wnfings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any Item on this agenda will be made available fbr pubNc Inspection in the City Clerk's ofrkce located at 240 W. Huntington Ddve, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. Page 4 of 7 have, a large Asian community, and that many recent Asian immigrants are comfortable with the concept of higher- density living. Mr. Robert Lum, GPAC member, said that in the Asian culture, parents sometimes give their larger homes to the children with growing families and move to smaller homes. They would like to stay in the city and mixed -use properties would provide low - maintenance housing options for them. Mayor Harbicht said that over the last 27 years he has seen a lot of change in Arcadia, but that the ideas presented in the proposed General Plan Update seem to be contrary to his vision of the city. He said he often hears residents complain about new condos being built and that when the Caruso project was first proposed, it included residential units, which the public opposed. Mayor Harbicht questioned the necessity of adjusting standards for the sole purpose of allowing population growth, and said that thousands of condos and apartments is not his vision of Arcadia. Councilman Wuo said that his family moved from Alhambra to Arcadia in 1985. He said that he is very proud of the city and he disagrees with the GPAC about changing the city to make it more affordable. He indicated that his children cannot afford to purchase a home in Arcadia now, but will have to work their way up just like everyone else. He stressed that he is not against growth or change, but that he would prefer to see the city continue to develop at a pace that will not affect the lifestyle. Councilman Woo pointed out that many of the comments he heard at the meeting apply to an individual or a group, but the City Council is responsible for protecting the entire community as a whole. Councilman Kovacic thanked the GPAC for their efforts on the project. He noted that the GPAC is made up of a diverse group with widely varying interests and that they were dealing with difficult issues. He also pointed out that it is important not to implement a policy that favors one group over another. Councilman Kovacic said that the idea of mixed -use is intriguing, but perhaps the plan proposes too much of it. He suggested that the group clearly define what it is they are trying to promote. He said that this was a great discussion and that he felt the primary concern should be to protect the quality of the single - family residential neighborhoods and schools. He said he had some concern that the plan may be too ambitious. Councilman Amundson agreed that although the Live Oak area needs change and that the mixed -use concept might be a good option for that area, he is somewhat concerned with the overuse of the concept in other parts of the city. He said he does not view the subsequent increase in density and traffic as positive. Councilman Amundson commended the Architectural Review Boards of the Homeowners' Associations for their work in maintaining the flavor of the neighborhoods they serve. Any wd(ings or documents provided to a ma%ordy of the My 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 Drive, Arcadia, Calffomla, during normal business hours. Page 5 of 7 Councilman Chandler said he appreciated the consideration for long -range planning evident in the proposed plan. He particularly liked the idea of removing certain uses like paint and mechanic shops from the center of the city. He noted that RHNA numbers seem to be a major factor in planning and cautioned that every time commercial land is converted to residential, the city loses an opportunity to earn revenue. He said that he is not opposed to growth and noted that he supported the Westfield Mall and Caruso projects and Downtown 2000. He reminded the group that when the Caruso project was first presented, there was a lot of opposition to the housing development that was included in the plans. He pointed out that "mom and pop" type shops, though charming, are not usually competitive. Mayor Harbicht said that it is not likely the county would ever stop using Study Area `A' for flood control but if it is designated as a recreation area it means we are agreeable to this option. He said he envisions this area as an open space area that should be protected. Mayor Harbicht noted that it in the future, the County no longer needed the area for flood control, the City could adopt a General Plan Amendment at that time. Commissioner Parrille asked, will the city stagnate if housing is not increased? He said he is concerned with the cost of providing services like fire, water, schools, sewage, etc. as housing is added. He pointed out that parking and traffic on Huntington and Baldwin are already problematic and asked how these problems would be addressed when more businesses' are added. Commissioner Baderian noted that the'Planning Commission deals with parking issues at almost every meeting and that mixed -use will only create more problems. He said that parking is a major challenge for most cities. He also noted that there were not a lot of parks and green space proposed in conjunction with the mixed -use option. Chairman Beranek, a GPAC member, pointed out that the plan allows only for the possibility of mixed -use in the city; it does not mean that mixed -use is required. He noted that most of the city is not changed on the chart. Chairman Beranek stressed the importance of planning for the future and being open to possibilities.. He said it is important to think 20 to 30 years ahead and that no plan is not a good plan. Commissioner Hsu thanked the GPAC and staff for their work on the plan. He said it was well conceived and quite ambitious, but that perhaps something in the mid -range would be more acceptable. Commissioner Baerg said that he agrees the Live Oak area needs some change and perhaps mixed -use is the answer. He said that it seems the plan changes the character of the city and increases the density to a point where traffic would be unmanageable. Any writings or documents provided to a mejoiNy of the City council regarding any Item on this agenda will be made available for pubNc inspection in the City Clark's office located at 240 W. Huntington Ddve, Arcadia, Cati/omia, during normal business bouts. Page 6 of 7 Mr. Kruckeberg said that staff had done a lot of public outreach to gather information before developing the plan, but that they would consider ways to address the issues raised tonight at the meeting. He said that the land use concept must be firmed up before staff can proceed. Mayor Harbicht noted that although the plan leaves most of the city unchanged, he has concern over the dramatic increase in condos and rentals in the community. He said that Live Oak may need special attention, but not other parts of the city. Councilman Kovacic said that all the areas pointed out in the presentation need attention. Mr. Nunez, GPAC member, asked if the Council and Commission were opposed to the mixed -use, transit - oriented development concept in the proposed Gold Line area. Mayor Harbicht said that he thought the Gold Line might help to revitalize the area. Councilman Kovacic said he would support transit- oriented development around the Gold Line Station. Mr. Penman said that downtown is a special area with lots of opportunities and special requirements. Mayor Harbicht thanked staff, the GPAC and the Planning Commission for their work in developing the plan. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting to March 3, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room. The Planning Commission adjourned this meeting to March 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Robert C. Harbicht, Mayor ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission R. Edward Beranek, Chairman, Planning Commission Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any Item on this agenda witl be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive. Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. Page 7 of 7 51:0043 Arcadia City Council /Redevelopment Agency and State Senator Bob Huff THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009 CONTINUED ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 2:00 P.m. Location: City Council Chamber Conference Room, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER Mayor Robert Harbicht called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: By way of roll call Council Agency Members Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht introduced themselves and provided a brief summary of their background. Others Present: Senator Bob Huff David Munroy, Field Representative for Senator Huff SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Daugherty, Arcadia resident appeared the downtown First Avenue /Huntington Drive incorporated into a parking structure. and spoke about ways to increase the viability of area and would like to see the Gold Line Station CITY MANAGER a. Update from Senator Huff regarding the State Budget and the Impact on Local Government. Senator Huff reported on the State Special Election in May; he explained the different revenue generating items. He discussed the state budget for 2008 -09 and 2009 -10 and the impact on local government which included the business license information sharing between City's and the Franchise Tax Board; relaxed categorical funding for schools which will allow the schools to spend money as they see fit; 1.15% increase on vehicle license fees of which .15% will fund local COPS programs. Senator Huff also reported that the state budget eliminated a portion of the State Transit Assistance Program for five years. The SB 2X4 regarding public private partnerships which will allow several agency's to use private investors was discussed. In response to the Council query regarding the California Education Fund, Senator Huff noted that the State General Fund pays for the various school bonds. 03 -05 -2009 51:0044 b. Discussion of City Capital Projects. C. Update on City Operational Budget. Don Penman, City Manager provided a brief overview on City operational budget and several city -wide Capital projects. The Gold Line Extension project was discussed. Mr. Penman expressed concern with regard to the Federal Funds and Cal Trans role on it. With regard to the Low Income Housing Projects, Mr. Penman noted that complying with Moderate Income Housing requirements is easier than Low Income Housing. In order for the city to fulfill its low income housing requirements, the City Council expressed interest in getting into some kind of agreement with Santa Anita Race Track in providing low income housing for the race track employees who live in track property. It was noted that race track owners are not in favor of such a project and do not want to place a covenant on their property. Considerable discussion ensued with regard to the Senate Bills and how a suggestion becomes a bill. Senator Huff assured that the City of Arcadia is in a good shape and hoped that the state will not take any funds away from the city. The City Council /Redevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting at 2.55 p.m. to March 17, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. James H. Barrows City Clerk 0 Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Records Manager 03 -05 -2009 6W IM CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tern Wuo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Reverend Larry Eckholm, Lutheran Church of the Cross PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Fire Chief Tony Trabbie ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council /Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic and Wuo ABSENT: Mayor Harbicht A motion was made by Council /Agency Kovacic seconded by Council /Agency Member Amundson to excuse Mayor Harbicht. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Penman noted two items were distributed to the City Council regarding City Manager Items 2.b and 2.c on the regular agenda. 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 Kovacic and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. PUBLIC COMMENTS None REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK Council Member Chandler announced that Jimmy Venegas, Senior Citizens Supervisor will be leaving the City to be the Deputy Director of Community Services for the City of Alhambra and wished him the best. Council Member Kovacic recognized Dr. Richard Cordano who was the principal. at Arcadia High School when he attended. 03 -17 -2009 51:0046 Council Member Amundson announced various events at the Historical Museum; he noted a photography contest going on at the Museum; and encouraged Home Owner Associations and other residents to meet with the Police Chief regarding burglary safety tips. Mayor Pro Tern Wuo wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day; he announced the Mayor's Community Breakfast is sold out; and noted that spring break is coming up and encouraged residents to take precautions to prevent their homes from being burglarized when taking vacations. City Clerk Barrows announced the elementary track meet held last week and commended the Recreation staff for a job well done and encouraged everyone to attend next weeks middle school track meet. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. Adopt Ordinance No 2247 amending the City's Architectural Desig Review regulations as set forth in sections 9295 et sea of the Arcadia Munic Code and the related single - family design guidelines. Recommended Action: Adopt a A Avenue in the amount of $29.525. Recommended Action: Approve Approve Foothill Transit Joint Power Authority Agreement Amendment for inclusion of the City of Pasadena. Recommended Action: Approve N Recommended Action: Approve 03 -17 -2009 Recommended Action: Adopt 51:0047 h. Authorize the Citv Manaaer 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. Recommended Action: Approve A motion was made by Council Member Amundson seconded by Council Member Kovacic and carried on roll call vote to approve items 1.a through 1.h on the City Council /Agency Consent Calendar. AYES: Council /Agency Member Amundson, Kovacic, Chandler and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Harbicht 2. CITY MANAGER a. Recommended Action: Phil Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services /City Engineer explained the California Vehicle Code requires cities to conduct Engineering and Traffic surveys every five years in order to legally set enforceable speed limits on city streets. He further explained the survey process, prevailing speeds, collision information and roadway conditions. He discussed the five roadway segments recommended for a change. A motion was made by Council Member Chandler seconded by Council Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6670 setting forth prima facie speed limits. AYES: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Harbicht b. Approve the Design Development for the proposed New City Hall Proiect. Recommended Action: Approve the Design Development Package and pursue funding options. Phil Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services presented a report on the proposed new City Hall project. He discussed building features and important facts of the building through the design development phase including energy efficient design features. He reported the cost for the building and site work have been refined and is now $9,626,616 and with furniture, utilities, design and other soft costs less what has been spent to date is $12,270,333. He discussed the bidding environment, the budget and the next steps for the project and City Council consideration. A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Amundson and carried on roll call vote to approve the design development package, put the project on hold and pursue further options for financing. AYES: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Harbicht 03 -17 -2009 51:0048 C. Report from Southern California Edison Company regarding the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Proiect. Recommended Action: Receive and file Elisa Clifford, Southern California Edison Company Region Manager for the City of Arcadia provided a project overview of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. ADJOURNMENT The City Council /Redevelopment Agency adjourned. this meeting at 8:20 p.m. to Thursday April 7, 2009, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. James H. Barrows, City Clerk . �� av'n'� � By: Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Clerk/ Records Manager 03 -17 -2009 April 7, 2009 . � , Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director -TLr By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinance No. 2256 amending various sections of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 2256 SUMMARY On October 7, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2246 amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a new Section 4630.2 to Article IV (Noise Regulations) regarding hours of operation for gardeners and landscapers and amending and adding various sections to Article IX (Zoning Regulations and General Provisions). These revisions were considered "clean -up" amendments that would streamline the City's existing regulations. The proposed amendments were based primarily on staffs and the Planning Commission's experiences with various issues and were drafted to provide efficiency in our land use regulations. The amendments addressed a variety of land use issues including, but not limited to, accessory buildings, driveways, fences, and entry height. Several code sections were inadvertently excluded from Ordinance No. 2246. These code sections were discussed in the staff report but were not added to the Municipal Code due to errors in the ordinance. Also, there were some discrepancies with the order of the fence regulation code sections for the R -0, Single- Family Residential zone that were approved under Ordinance No. 2205. Staff has prepared Ordinance No. 2256 to amend the Municipal Code as originally intended. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Introduce Ordinance No. 2256: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California amending various sections of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Approved By: 'T�� RAA,., Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2256 Ord. No. 2256 April 7, 2009 Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2256 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9251.2.6.1 is hereby renumbered to become 9251.2.6.2, and a new Section 9251.2.6.1 is hereby added to Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: "9251.2.6.1. DRIVEWAY. A driveway is a paved area that provides vehicle access from a public right -of -way to a parking area or garage. Only one driveway may be permitted for each residential lot. This number may be increased to two for an approved circular driveway. The driveway shall not be less than nine (9) feet in width. Pedestrian walkways and driveways shall not occupy more than forty percent (40 %) of the required front yard or street side yard setback. Materials — All parking areas and driveway shall be paved with cement concrete. Other paving materials, including brick may be substituted with approval by the Community Development Administrator through Single Family Architectural Design Review." SECTION 2. Section 9251.2.6.2 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 9251.2.6.2. CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS. Lots with street frontage of 75' -0" or greater are eligible for circular driveways. On lots with more than one (1) street frontage, a circular driveway shall be located on the street frontage that is 75' -0" or greater; provided, however, that not more than one circular driveway shall be allowed for any one lot. The circular driveway shall not be less than nine (9) feet in width, and shall not have a width greater than fifteen (15) feet, and the furthest point from the street shall be a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet measured perpendicular from the property line at the right -of -way to the furthest distance of the inside edge of the circular driveway. Pedestrian walkways and driveways shall not occupy more than forty percent (40 %) of the required front yard or required street side yard setback. Materials — All parking areas and driveway shall be paved with cement concrete. Other paving materials, including brick may be substituted with approval by the Community Development Administrator through Single Family Architectural Design Review. EXCEPTION: The Modification Committee, pursuant to the modification regulations may grant a modification to allow a circular driveway on a lot with street frontage of less than 75' -0 ". SECTION 3. Section 9252.2.6.1 is hereby renumbered to become 9252.2.6.2, and a new Section 9252.2.6.1 is hereby added to Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: "9252.2.6.1. DRIVEWAY. A driveway is a paved area that provides Vehicle access from a public right -of -way to a parking area or garage. Only one driveway may be permitted for each residential lot. This number may be increased to two for an approved circular driveway. The driveway, shall not be less than nine (9) feet in width. Pedestrian walkways and driveways shall not occupy more than forty percent (40 %) of the required front yard or street,side yard setback. Materials — All parking areas and driveway shall be paved with cement concrete. Other paving materials, including brick may be substituted with approval by the Community Development Administrator through Single Family Architectural Design Review." 2 SECTION 4. Section 9252.2.6.2 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "9252.2.6.2. CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS. Lots with street frontage of 75' -0" or greater are eligible for circular driveways. On lots with more than one (1) street frontage, a circular driveway shall be located on the street frontage that is 75' -0" or greater; provided, however, that not more than one circular driveway shall be allowed for any one lot. The circular driveway shall not be less than nine (9) feet in width, and shall not have a width greater than fifteen (15) feet, and the furthest point from the street shall be a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet measured perpendicular from the property line at the right -of -way to the furthest distance of the inside edge of the circular driveway. Pedestrian walkways and driveways shall not occupy more than forty percent (40 %) of the required front yard or required street side yard setback. Materials — All parking areas and driveway shall be paved with cement concrete. Other paving materials, including brick may be substituted with approval by the Community Development Administrator through Single Family Architectural Design Review. EXCEPTION: The Modification Committee, pursuant to the modification regulations may grant a modification to allow a circular driveway on a lot with street frontage of less than 75' -0 ". SECTION 5. Section 9252.2.3.1 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "9252.2.3.1. CORNER LOTS. On corner lots the required side yard setback adjoining the interior lot shall be as specified in Section 9252.2.3. The required side yard setback on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than twenty (20) feet, unless a greater setback is specified in Chapter 3 of this Article. Any portion of a single story in excess of twelve (12) feet high and/or any portion of a second story including second story architectural features and walls shall be tj setback not less than twenty (20) feet or twenty percent (20 %) of the width of the lot as measured at the front property line; whichever is greater, unless a greater setback is specified in Chapter 3 of this Article. The lot width for determining setbacks on lots with more than fifty percent (50 %) frontage on a cul -de -sac terminus shall be measured at the required building setback line. No portion of any structure shall encroach through a plane projected from an angle of forty, (40) degrees as measured at the ground level along the street side property line. The point shall be located at the intersection of a horizontal projection of the adjacent grade elevation and its intersection with the street side property line.. Architectural projections, with the exception of roof eaves shall not project into the required setback." SECTION 6. Section 9251.2.3.2 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "9251.2.3.2. REVERSE CORNER LOTS. On reverse corner lots the required side yard adjoining the interior lot shall be as specified in Section 9251.2.3. The required side yard on the street side of a reverse corner lot shall be not less than twenty -five (25) feet, unless a greater setback is specified in Chapter 3 of this Article. Any portion of a single story in excess of twelve (12) feet high measured from the adjacent finished grade to the top plate and/or any portion of a second story including second story architectural features and wall shall be setback twenty (20) feet or twenty percent (20 %) of the width of the lot as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater, unless a greater setback is specified in Chapter 3 of this Article. No portion of any structure shall encroach through a plane projected from an angle of forty (40) degrees as measured at the ground level along the street side property line. The point shall be located at the intersection of a horizontal projection of the adjacent grade elevation and its intersection with the street side property line. Architectural projections, with the exception of the roof eaves shall not project into the required setback. F1 The lot width for determining setbacks on lots with more than fifty percent (50 %) frontage on a cul -de -sac terminus shall be measured at the required front setback line." SECTION 7. Section 9251.2.9.1 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9251.2.9.1. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. REGULATIONS. Accessory buildings, except for Accessory Living Quarters /Guest Houses are not to be used as dwelling units. The required front and side yard setbacks for accessory buildings shall be the same as those specified for main dwellings in this Division and shall not have more than one (1) story and shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height. Accessory buildings shall not occupy more than twenty -five percent (25 %) of a required rear yard and shall not be located within three (3) feet of a rear lot line nor within ten (10) feet of another building. Accessory buildings utilized for occupancy shall not be located within ten (10) feet of a rear lot line. An accessory building other than an Accessory Living Quarters /Guest House shall not contain more than one (1) room and a three- quarter ( 3 /) bathroom. The total floor area of detached accessory building(s), not including Accessory Living Quarters /Guest Houses shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the ground floor area of the main dwelling. On corner lots an attached garage portion of a main dwelling that does not exceed one (1) story and sixteen (16) feet in height may be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line." SECTION 8. Section 9252.2.9.1 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9252.2.9.1. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. REGULATIONS. Accessory buildings, except for Accessory Living Quarters /Guest Houses are not to be used as dwelling units. The required front and side yard setbacks for accessory buildings shall be the same as those specified for main dwellings in this Division and shall not have more than one (1) story and shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height. Accessory buildings shall not occupy more than twenty -five percent (25 %) of a required rear yard and shall not be located within three (3) feet of a rear lot line nor within ten (10) feet of another building. Accessory buildings utilized for occupancy shall not be located within ten (10) feet of a rear lot line. An accessory building other than an Accessory Living Quarters /Guest House shall not contain more than one (1) room and a three - quarter ( 3 /) bathroom. The total floor area of detached accessory building(s), not including Accessory Living Quarters /Guest Houses shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the ground floor area of the main dwelling. On corner lots an attached garage portion of a main dwelling that does not exceed one (1) story and sixteen (16) feet in height may be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line." SECTION 9. Section 9292.2.3 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Administrative Modification as may be necessary to secure an appropriate improvement may be granted upon the approval of the Planning Division. The Planning Division shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny modifications of the following: 1. Rear yard setbacks; 2. Distance between buildings; 3. Special setbacks; 4. Setbacks for mechanical and plumbing equipment; 5. Fence and wall heights along the side and rear property lines except along the street side of a corner lot; 6. Interior side yard setbacks for detached accessory structures (with the exception of guest houses /accessory living quarters) in the R -M, R -0, and R -1 zones; 7. Interior side yard setbacks for single -story additions to an existing dwelling in the R -M, R -O, and R -1 zones, where the portion of said addition(s) which does not comply with the setback requirements consists of a total of thirty (30) linear feet or less and maintain(s) the same or greater setback than the existing building walls; and provided, that a minimum interior T side yard setback of three (3) feet in the R -1 and five (5) feet in the R -M and R -0 zones is maintained; 8. The rebuilding of single - family dwellings, provided that the new portion(s) of the project comply with current code requirements." SECTION 10. Section 9251.2.12.4 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby renumbered to become 9251.2.13.4 and is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9251.2.13.4. FENCES, WALLS, AND GATES. FLAG LOTS REGULATION. A fence or wall may be permitted in the front yard and driveway area, provided that it does not exceed four (4) feet in height. When a fence or wall is located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of that flag lot abuts the rear property line of an adjacent lot, it may be permitted up to six (6) feet in height (see Figure 6). Figure 6 F rwce ae wa,i� i, I I 1 rsrvc� oa wnu� I I � II II I II SECTION 11. Section 9251.2.13 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby renumbered to become 9251.2.13.5. `J SECTION 12. Section 9251.2.13.3 of Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following language at the end of the section to read as follows: No spears (i.e. apache, aristocrat with crushed spears, or any spear - like features) shall be permitted on a fence, wall or gate. Chain link, corrugated, fiberglass, bamboo fencing, and wire type fencing are not permitted. SECTION 13. This Ordinance shall become effective on the thirty first (31st) day following its adoption. SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 8 11 \s \�� April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council STAFF REPORT Library and Museum Services Department FROM: Carolyn Ganier- Reagan, Director of Library and Museum Services SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase order contract to Gale Ceneaee Learnine for the purchase of subscriptions to five electronic databases in the amount of $37,025.85. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council waive the formal bidding process and award a sole source purchase order contract with Gale Cengage Learning, the publisher of online databases, for the purchase of five online databases in the amount of $37,025.85. Sufficient funds are available in the Public. Library Funds Trust Account. DISCUSSION The Library proposes to renew subscriptions to Learning: • Business and Conipany ProFile ASAP • General Reference Center • Health and Wellness Center • Opposing ViewPoints and • Literature Resource Center. five online databases produced by Gale Cengage These databases provide a wealth of up -to -date information from a variety of sources in an easy to use fonnat. Most of the articles that are indexed and included in these databases contain the full text of articles, providing an extension of materials available to Library patrons beyond what the Library could purchase and house. In addition, the public can access these databases from home computers twenty - four hours a day, seven days a week, extending the services the Library can provide beyond the Library's weekly total of sixty hours of in- person service. Use statistics show that there is substantial use by the Library's patrons at all hours of the day and night, seven days a week. Library staff continues to carefully evaluate other similar online databases available from other vendors and has concluded that these databases provide the best mix of resources and materials for the citizens of materials and has an excellent track record of providing service for and availability of online databases. The Library does subscribe to other online databases from other vendors in the cases where Gale Cengage Learning does not provide a particular product. Staff previously negotiated a mutually acceptable contract with Gale Cengage Learning using as the basis a standard license agreement for online content providers developed specifically for the Library by the City Attorney and Best, Best and Krieger. This contract will stay in force for this renewal. FISCAL IMPACT A total of $37,025.85 has been budgeted from the Public Library Funds Trust Account for the purchase of these databases and the Library Board of Trustees has approved this expenditure. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to waive the formal bidding process and award a purchase order contract to Gale Cengage Leaming for the purchase of five online databases in the amount of $37,025.85. Approved by: Don Penman, City Manager STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: FROM SUBJECT: SUMMARY Mayor and City Council Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Lubomir Tomaier, Principal Civil Engineer Tiffany Lee, Assistant Civil Engineer The City of Arcadia's Water Main Replacement Program is designed to replace aged and deteriorating water main pipes throughout the City's water distribution system. The small size and age of the pipes, coupled with corrosion and sediment accumulation over the years have affected the flow rate through the water mains in the City. The Water Master Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in June 2008, has determined that the four (4) inch cast iron water main along the north side of Foothill Boulevard installed in 1936 has reached the end of its service life and must be abandoned. Existing service lines will be reconnected to the twelve inch (12 ") water main along the south side of Foothill Boulevard. Included in this project will be the installation of additional fire hydrants, the replacement of inoperable valves on Old Ranch Road, and the Longden Blending Pipeline Project that will improve water quality at the Longden Well Facility. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with MNR Construction, Inc, for the 2008 -09 Water Main Replacement Project in the amount of $369,097. DISCUSSION Many of the pipes in Arcadia's water distribution system were installed in the early 1900's and are small in comparison to modern standards in water distribution systems. The existing four inch (4 ") cast iron water main along the north side of Foothill Boulevard has reached the end of its service life. It was installed in 1936 and has reduced flow due to corrosion on the inside the pipe. Replacement of the pipeline is necessary to increase water flow in the distribution system. The project has been Page 1 of 3 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 designed to abandon the existing four inch (4 ") water line and reconnect all the services to the exiting twelve inch (12 ") cast iron water line along the south side of Foothill Boulevard. This solution is more economical with less interference to traffic on Foothill Boulevard. The work also involves replacement of the fire hydrants on Foothill Boulevard to meet current fire protection requirements and the replacement of inoperable water main line valves on Old Ranch Road. Main line valves are crucial for the maintenance of the water distribution system because they allow crews to isolate portions of the main pipe by shutting off the valve which stops water flow to that portion of the pipe for emergencies and repairs to be completed. Additionally, on January 20, 2009, the City Council authorized the addition of the Longden Blending Pipeline Project to the Water Main Replacement Program with the appropriation of $90,000 for design, inspection and construction of the project. In March 2008, Longden Well No.2 was placed out -of- service due to nitrate concentration levels in the water pumped from the well that were above what is allowed by California drinking water standards. Longden Well No.2 is an important well in the supply of water to the City's water system. The Longden Blending Pipeline project will provide the means to continue use of the well while meeting California drinking water standards. Notice inviting bids was published in the adjudicated paper, and bid packages were acquired by area contractors. The City Clerk publicly opened seven (7) sealed bids on March 10, 2009 with the following results: RANK FIRM LOCATION BID AMOUNT 1 MNR Construction, Inc. San Dimas $369,097 2 J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. Arcadia $396,693 3 A.R. Sarmiento La Habra $437,230 4 Engineered Pipeline, Inc. La Canada $446,655 5 C.P. Construction Co., Inc. Ontario $555,945 6 Miramontes Construction Co.,. Inc.. City of Industry $566,600 7 Kennedy Pipeline Company Aliso Viejo $1,138,348 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This project involves the replacement, operation and minor alteration of existing utility systems and mechanical equipment, therefore it is categorically exempt per 15301(b), 15302 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the California Department of Health Services requirement a Notice of Exemption for the Longen Blending Pipeline has been filed with the State Clearinghouse as a part of their approval process. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $570,000 have been budgeted as a part of the 2008 -09 Capital Improvement Program, for the design, inspection, and construction of Water Main Replacement Project. On January 20, 2009, the City Council allocated an additional Page 2 of 3 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 $90,000 to the project for the design, inspection and construction of the Longden Blending Pipeline. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Award a Contract in the amount of $369,097 to MNR Construction, Inc. for the Water Main Replacement Project. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. Waive any informality in the bid or bidding process. Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager PM: LT:TL Attachment Page 3 of 3 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT VARIOUS STREETS LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE � u NORTH P CITY OF ARCADIA GRANOVIEW PROJECT LOCATION FOOTHILL BLVD sI RA DOE FROM SAN CARLOS TO : SANTA AN ITA nx �: ORANGE GROVE E f ZZZ COLORADO ST Pxls j ♦ A' (] ` M O � � 1MIP , Lo eL P O ' • 9T P f SA ST A O ♦ — ♦; W PV ° �i A IN{ N Nr h9yF d'u ♦o � i [ S aww Nlu OR �oAOIA x G PROJECT LOCATION �,pmE LONGDEN FACILITY o '< a REPy � CAMIND R A' O Z 6 y LONODEN pV L PROJECT LOCATION OLD RANCH ROAD 4VEO PV LA9 TUNpS OR 0 LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Direc r I Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director SUBJECT: dation: Approve SUMMARY For the past 15 years, Arcadia and the City of Sierra Madre have received federal grant funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) through the Water Resources Development Act's (WRDA) Infrastructure Seismic Reliability Program. The intent of the program is to address this region's water supply reliability, quality, and water system infrastructure restoration to full service following the event of major earthquakes. The East Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan (ERBWRP) study was conducted to find ways to increase water storage and production in the East Raymond Basin. The East Raymond Basin serves as one of the main sources of water for both Arcadia and Sierra Madre. Therefore, the addition of groundwater supplies to the East Raymond Basin would benefit both cities significantly. The ERBWRP identified rehabilitation and expansion projects to existing water infrastructure that would increase ground water supplies in the East Raymond Basin. With the goal of ensuring effective and efficient water management, the U.S. Congress authorized $20 million in 2008 under WRDA, to Arcadia and Sierra Madre for the completion of these improvements. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the Los Angeles Flood Control District and the City of Sierra Madre for the East Raymond Basin Water Resources Program. These improvements to increase groundwater supplies in the East Raymond Basin span across the boundaries of Arcadia, Sierra Madre and the Los Angeles County Flood Page 1 of 3 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 Control District (LACFCD). This Agreement will establish mutual accord among the three agencies in an effort to collaboratively move forward with the ERBWRP as well as establish a cost sharing schedule. DISCUSSION The enduring drought in this region, the uncertainty of replacement water and the significant increased cost of both replacement water and surface water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) have caused staff to explore new and innovative solutions to acquire and produce additional sources of potable water. Increasing the water supply to the East Raymond Basin will provide a reliable source of groundwater for the City and decrease the City's dependency on imported water from MWD in times of water shortages. Arcadia and Sierra Madre are the only two agencies that pump water from the East Raymond Basin. There has been a steady decline in water supplies in this region as a result of extreme climate change and other environmental factors such as increased population. The East Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan (ERBWRP) investigated the potential to develop alternative backup groundwater supplies to Arcadia and Sierra Madre by rehabilitation and expansion of following existing water infrastructure: • Santa Anita Dam; • Santa Anita Creek Diversion Structure; • Santa Anita Debris Basin; • Sierra Madre Spreading Grounds Diversion Pipeline; and • Sierra Madre Creek Diversion Structure. Under the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990, Congress authorized $20 million for the ERBWRP to fund planning, design, and construction of the projects listed above. Acting as the enforcement agency for Congress under WRDA, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will provide direct administrative oversight and ensure that all projects are completed according to the ERBWRP. Recognizing that the cost of the ERBWRP is beyond individual local agency staffing and budget limitations, the Cooperative Agreement will establish mutual understanding between Arcadia, Sierra Madre and LA County Flood Control District to move forward with the improvements and to collectively fund the costs of the projects. Under the WRDA 2008 Authorization the cost - sharing ratio of federal to local funds is Federal — 75% and Local — 25 %. The total projected cost of the ERBWRP is $26.7 million. WRDA funds have provided $20 million for project costs, leaving a balance of $6.67 million for the three agencies to share over six (6) years. Based upon the City's projected benefits from the projects denoted on Attachment A, Arcadia's overall total cost would be $2.3 million as indicated on Table 1 (attached). For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control Page 2 of 3 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 District and the City of Sierra Madre for the East Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan. FISCAL IMPACT The total projected cost of the ERBWRP is $26.7 million and WRDA funds have provided $20 million for project costs, leaving a balance of $6.67 million for Arcadia, Sierra Madre and the LA County Flood Control District to share over six (6) years. Based upon the City's projected benefits from the projects, Arcadia's overall total cost would be $2.3 million, which would be budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program with Water Funds. Authorize the City Manager to executive the Cooperative Agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the City of Sierra Madre for the East Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager PM: TT Attachments Page 3 of 3 Oi N E L m (6 Q c O w m N O t 7 Q co O E O N N O LL a` E N � U p L L 7 O 0 N O) N � � N N C m O p C � � N m N � C C Ecw >, cc m 1 O N N � O_ O LL1 �: U O N M N m N O ([1 O M M M w O u7 V r O (D I s O O O H N N O N V N O M ° M r t O C 7 V O V O m m m O N O O M r 0) co M a0 M V N O V I� M 1D M O M (n V O N N O m M N M V O M D m N O O W cl N O � N N m N M N N O _ V I� Cl) (D M V co O M N r O O N O O 0 ( w O O N T �( r C p C N M V lm (D I� a0 m m v � a C c a in m m m m¢ m m d d LD d a d d Q Ka �g V CD N 0U) d U co a d d c I N N ° m m �a a cu a v` a ° a Q wK d) CL m.« N N N O m 3 m W O 0 m a W m ° m V o m N N m m m ` , mc v � m E r (A m �. c d a ° V1 o H o = ° °te ° ° m ° �' (n m s m m s (n c H y� j m c U m m� T H m m y m> 'p m — y m C t m — m O 0 O y E mp a5D a� E ma3 UU U d NY m an d m m ¢(n H N G a y �' m n e o m v n E 1 m � m N U m d° c y d U a (n m -- ° LL E m m .o 2 M d E¢¢¢ Q¢ °° N n m a d o a m J c m m m m C7 m m m m m d `mO < y -F, w m m d m(n an d m m m O ° E o IL cn (n (n (n o o c LU LU a 6 ¢mUOwLL 1_j ° z I J } \ \ \ _ \ { � � } / $ � co / 44 4 \ _ _ _ — / \ ` � } k � » i - � — � .# It D � %« / ,, . J ^ ?k y y C ! ; N a ¥ — <Ry: § ?%0 IL .> k E2 f = / \ Mn z ƒ °°°ltY °= STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council }} FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director I Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services irector Lubomir Tomaier, Principal Civil Engineer SUBJECT: SUMMARY The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted storm drain and sewer regulations in an effort to improve the quality of surface waters due to contamination by sanitary sewage overflows. The new sewer regulations, called Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) were adopted on May 2, 2006 and apply to all public sewer systems. These regulations apply directly to the City of Arcadia. One of the requirements of the WDR is preparation and implementation of a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The purpose of the regulation is to provide agencies with a document to assist the agency in minimizing the frequency and impacts of a sewer system overflow and a mechanism to control the flow of sewage in the event of a backup. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following elements of the SSMP; Emergency Response Plan, Legal Authority, Operations and Maintenance Plan and Fats, Oils and Grease Plan. These are the 3, 4, 6 and 7 sections required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. BACKGROUND In May 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirement (GWDR), which requires all public wastewater collection system agencies in the State of California to document their sanitary sewer system activities. The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) is a Page 1 of 3 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Recommendation: Approve Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 document that describes the activities the City uses to manage the wastewater collection system effectively. Public Works Services is in the process of revising our Sewer Management Program to be in compliance with State mandates. All elements in the development and implementation of the SSMP must be approved by the City Council at public meetings and then certified by the State Water Resources Control Board. There are eleven (11) sections of the SSMP. On November 6, 2007, Council approved Phase 1 of the SSMP which included the Plan, Schedule, Goals and Organization sections of the Sewer Management Plan. The Public Works Services Departments' current sewer management program has many elements required in the SSMP. These elements are being re- formatted to match the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirement Order. When the SWRCB adopted the General Waste Discharge Requirement, they also adopted a time schedule for when various sections of the SSMP were to be completed by the City. Below is the time schedule for the City of Arcadia. Sewer System Management Plan Task Deadline Phase 1 Plan and Schedule Completed in Goals November 2007 Organization Phase 2 Legal Authority Operations and Maintenance Plan May 2009 Emergency Response Plan Fats, Oils, and Grease Plan Phase 3 Design and Performance Standards System Capacity Plan Monitoring and Program Modifications August 2009 Program Audits Communications Program Final Completion of SSMP and Certification DISCUSSION Phase 2 of the SSMP requires that the City prepare and approve the following sections: Legal Authority The Legal Authority element identifies the City of Arcadia's legal authority to operate and maintain its sewage collection system. The Arcadia Municipal Code provides the necessary legal authority to be able to effectively operate the sewer system, insure new sewers are constructed adequately, solve operation and maintenance problems, interact with the public and developers.and reduce sewer overflows. (See Attachment, pg- 1 ) Page 2 of 3 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 Operation and Maintenance Plan The Operation and Maintenance Plan includes elements that are appropriate to maintain up -to -date maps of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater conveyance facilities. This operation and maintenance plan describes routine preventative operation and maintenance activities by staff, including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system. (See Attachment, pg.2 and pg.3) Emergency Response Plan The Emergency Response Plan identifies measures to protect public health and the environment. Included within this response plan is the proper notification procedure that primary responders must take in order to effectively inform regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities of all sewer system overflows in a timely manner. (See Attachment, pg.4) Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program The FOG Control Program provides a plan to assure that there is a public outreach program promoting proper disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease. The FOG Control Program assures to remind residents of the correct way of removing and disposing of fats, oil and grease, addresses the legal authority to prohibit discharges to the sewer system and identifies measures to prevent sewer system overflows due to fats, oils and grease. (See Attachment, pg. 5) Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Emergency Response Plan, Legal Authority, Operations and Maintenance Plan and Fats, Oils and Grease Plan Elements of the Sewer System Management Plan Required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. FISCAL IMPACT At the May 16, 2006, Study Session, staff presented the Sewer Master Plan Update and Hydraulic Modeling report, and the States adoption of the Waste Discharge Requirement for Sanitary Sewer Overflows which included funding in the City's CIP to comply with this regulation. At this time existing funding is sufficient to provide for successful implementation of the WDR program. Should additional financial requirements be necessary, staff will include it in the annual CIP Budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Emergency Response Plan, Legal Authority, Operations and Maintenance Plan and Fats, Oils and Grease Plan Elements of the Sewer System Management Plan Required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. Approved by: PM:TT:LT — Attachments Donald Penman, City Manager Page 3 of 3 Attachment Section 3.0: Legal Authority The City of Arcadia is committed to complying with the requirements. of Order No. 2006 -003 which establishes General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for all publicly owned or operated sanitary sewer systems within the State of California. The City of Arcadia's legal authority to operate, maintain and manage its sewer system is derived from the County Sanitation District Act and Califomia Health and Safety Code. The City of Arcadia has organized much of their authority into the City of Arcadia Municipal Code in Chapter 4 Sewers and Chapter 10 Industrial Waste Control. The City of Arcadia reports the "Legal Authority" requirements as follows: SSMP Required Function City of Arcadia Sewer System Legal Authori Legal Authority to prevent illicit Chapter 4. (Sanitary Sewer Ordinance) of the Municipal discharges into its sanitary sewer Code; Part 7- Regulations (attached), Section 7472.; system (examples may include 1 /1, Section 7472.1 D.; Section 7472.11.; Section 7472.12 and stormwater, chemical dumping, Chapter 10. (Industrial Waste Control) of the Municipal unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.). Code; Part 2- Industrial Discharge Prohibitions ( attached) Section 7020. Legal Authority to require that sewers Chapter 4 (Sanitary Sewer Ordinance) of the Municipal and connections be properly designed Code; Part 3- Permits and Plans (attached). Section and constructed. 7435.; Section 7441;. Chapter 4 Part 5 -. inspections Section 7450.2.; Section 7452.; Part 6 Design Standards of Chapter 4 Sections 7460. -7467. and all sections of Part 8 House and Industrial Connection Sewer Construction of Chapter 4 Legal Authority to ensure access for Chapter 4 (Sanitary Sewer Ordinance) of the Municipal maintenance, inspection, or repairs for Code; Part 2- Specific Applications (attached), Section portion of the lateral owned or 7424. and Chapter 4 Part 5- Inspections Section 7455. maintained by the Sanitation Districts. Legal Authority to limit the discharge of Chapter 4 (Sanitary Sewer Ordinance) of the Municipal fats, oils, and grease and other debris Code; Part 5- Inspections Section 7453.2. Chapter 4; Part that may cause blockages. 9- Interceptors Section 7490.; Section 7492.; Section 7492.1 and 7494.1. Legal Authority to enforce any violation Chapter 4 (Sanitary Sewer Ordinance) of the Municipal of its sewer ordinances. Code; Part 7- Regulations Section 7470 Chapter 10 (Industrial Waste Control) Part 4 Enforcement Section 7041. Section 7042. and Section 7043. Page 1 of 5 Attachment Section 4.0: Operation and Maintenance The Operation and Maintenance Plan includes up -to -date maps of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater conveyance facilities The operation and maintenance plan describes routine preventative operation and maintenance activities by staff, including system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system. (The Operation and Maintenance Program: Atlas of Sanitary Sewer System, Mapping and schedules are available for review at the Public Works Services Department). Mapping The City of Arcadia maintains up to date mapping of its sewage collection system facility including all manholes and storm drains. Preventative Maintenance Program The City of Arcadia is responsible for maintaining 135 miles of sanitary sewer. City Staff has established an 18 -month schedule for cleaning of all sewer lines throughout the City. Higher -risk areas are on a 30, 90, or 180 -day accelerated cleaning schedule. The sewer lines are cleaned using trucks capable of hydraulically washing pipe walls followed by vacuum removal of the sewer debris at the next downstream manhole. Accelerated Preventative Maintenance areas are placed on a Trouble Spot list. Trouble spot segments have a history of blockages or Sewer System Overflows mostly due to grease and roots. Inverted siphons of all diameters are typically placed on an accelerated schedule and receive more frequent care due to grease build up and/or debris settlement. Sewers that have not presented any problems receive a lower level of inspection and cleaning and are generally cleaned once every 18 months. Arcadia has developed and is continuing to develop asset - specific maintenance tasks for the care of each sewer line throughout its life cycle. Major Preventative Maintenance tasks include: • sewer inspection • condition assessment • sewer cleaning Rehabilitation & Replacement Program The City of Arcadia utilizes the Sewer Master Plan to plan and construct projects that will help maintain the reliability of the Sewer System. The Sewer Master Plan is updated on a periodic basis and Capital Improvement Projects are budgeted in five (5) year increments to ensure the continuity of system improvements. Page 2 of 5 Attachment Inspection Program The City of Arcadia schedules regular visual and CCTV inspections of the system. Video taken of the internal system can be found at the Public Works Services Department Engineering Section. The entire system was video taped over a five (5) year periods to develop a baseline assessment of all lines, which future reviews and problems can be compared to in the future. Staff Training Training is the key to the success of this Plan. Employees participate in an orientation exercise every six months and one tabletop/functional full -scale exercise annually. Equipment & Parts Inventory City staff provides an updated record of all available equipment needed for sewer spill overflow response and have identified a list of critical replacement parts needed. Page 3 of 5 Attachment Section 6.0: Overflow Emergency Response Plan The Public Works Services Department is responsible for the maintenance of all collection pipelines in the sanitary sewer collection system. The Department is also responsible for the construction /reconstruction of sewer lines, response to sewer system overflows and maintenance of manholes and sewer siphons. The purpose of the system is to convey wastewater to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Sewer Trunk lines for transmission and treatment. Failure at any point within the collection system can cause spillage of raw sewage onto private or public property, increasing the risk of a possible public health hazard and contamination of the environment. All Sewage spills are reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Services, the Office of Emergency Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Spills are also be reported on -line on the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) web site. Responding: The first crew responding to a sewer backup has the immediate responsibility to protect the public, property, and the environment from the effects of a sewage spill overflow. To meet these objectives in a rapid, effective and organized manner, staff has the responsibility to follow three major items: Contain, Control And Cleanup (CCC) as directed by this Plan: CONTAIN spilling sewage from entering waterways • Capture the sewage where it can be recovered and returned to the sewer • Contain sewage in advantageous locations (i.e. flood control facilities, Construction excavations, vacant lots, etc.) • Containment materials include sand, sand bags, poly sheeting, socks, etc. CONTROL the spill overflow and bypass area of failure • Bypass the obstructed line by pumping the spillage into another non- restricted line or vacuum with sewer cleaning equipment CLEANUP the affected areas to ensure public health • Remove all visible debris • Wash down and contain run -off being careful not to wash sewage into storm drain system • Determine whether to disinfect or not to disinfect • Consider requirements of other agencies • Consider beneficial use of receiving waters • Consider the uses and ownership of affected property • Clean all hard /soft surfaces (These elements are included in the Overflow Emergency Response Plan available for review at the Public Works Services Department) Page 4 of 5 Attachment Section 7.0: Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program The City of Arcadia maintains a wastewater collection and conveyance system that receives wastewater flow from approximately 135 miles of sanitary sewer lines. The City is responsible for business licensing for all businesses . within the City boundaries and have been able to effectively implement regulations on food service establishments through the Fats, Oils and Grease Program and through Chapter 10 of the AMC. As part of the City of Arcadia's on going public outreach activities, informational pamphlets are periodically included in industrial waste permit or permit renewals that recommend Best Management Practices be undertaken by restaurants to reduce the amount of fats, oils and grease that can be poured down the drain and contribute to sewer blockages. The City of Arcadia's Environmental Calendar also reminds residents of how fats, oils and grease can be harmful to the sewer system. (See Fats, Oils and Grease Program located available for review at the Public Works Services Department) Page 5 of 5 r . °F`` STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director `"`� Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Servicesq�� By: Linda Hui, Transportation Services Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6672 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) DRAFT 2009 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) RELATING TO EXPEDITED FUNDING FOR THE METRO GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Los Angeles County voters passed Measure R, the County one -half percent ( %) sales tax increase, in November 2008 which included a minimum of $758 million to construct the Gold Line Foothill Extension project to Claremont. However, the measure was vague on the timing and priority of the projects. The Foothill Extension project could begin as early as within ten months and could be operational in 2013, or the project start could be delayed as much as four years. In order to begin construction as soon as possible, the project needs to be included in the earlier part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (Metro) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 6672 requesting the Metro Board to amend the draft 2009 LRTP to expedite funding for the Foothill Extension project, and to approve the Fund Transfer Agreement to begin construction in 2010. BACKGROUND In November 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure R, a one -half percent ('/ %) sales tax increase to build projects that would reduce congestion, improve air quality and expand public transit options for all areas of the county, including $758 million for the Gold Line Foothill Extension project. Metro is responsible for the development of Los Angeles County's Long Range Transportation Plan including Staff Report Resolution 6672 April 7, 2009 Page 2 projects and programs that were included in the voter approved Measure R. The draft 2009 LRTP will be presented to the Metro Board for its adoption this month. DISCUSSION The Foothill Extension project is ready to proceed into the construction phase. With all the necessary pre- construction processes — environmental documents, right of way purchase, engineering and design for design /build procurement — completed, the construction could begin within 10 months and the Foothill Extension could be operational in 2013. Measure R was vague on the timing and priority of projects and provided a three year window for the start of the Foothill Extension. Metro's draft 2009 LRTP in its current form includes funding for the Foothill Extension at the latest point necessary to meet the commitments made to the voters. This delay in the plan would push the project out by four years. The Foothill Extension project could potentially create over 37,000 jobs during construction, 3,500 permanent jobs during the first 20 years of operation and more than 500,000 transit - oriented development construction- related jobs. Given the current economic climate and high unemployment rate, the delay of the Foothill Extension project could mean delaying the economic recovery in the San Gabriel Valley as well as the region. In addition, the delay in the project could mean a loss of more than 13 million rides on the Metro rail system. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 6672 requesting the Metro Board to amend the draft 2009 LRTP to expedite funding for the Foothill Extension project, and to approve the Fund Transfer Agreement to begin construction in 2010.' FISCAL IMPACT Staff does not anticipate any immediate fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 6672 requesting the Metro Board to amend Metro's draft 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan to expedite funding for the Foothill Extension project. Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment: Resolution 6672 RESOLUTION NO. 6672 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DRAFT 2009 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) RELATING TO EXPEDITED FUNDING FOR THE METRO GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION WHEREAS, the Foothill Extension project is of critical importance to the City of Arcadia and its residents; and WHEREAS, the 'voters passed Measure R in November 2008 by an affirmative vote of over 66.6% with a clear directive to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to use the tax revenue to build projects that could reduce congestion, improve air quality, and expand public transit options for all areas of the county, including a minimum of $758 million to construct the Foothill Extension project to Claremont; and WHEREAS, the nation and the county are currently experiencing an unprecedented recession, with job losses growing and economic development slowing; and WHEREAS, the Foothill Extension project is ready to be built — having its environmental documents approved, right of way purchased, engineering and design at the stage necessary for design build procurement, and all cities along the corridor having signed agreements to move forward; and there is no other rail transit project close to this stage in the approval and planning process; and WHEREAS, Metro's draft 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) currently includes funding for the Foothill Extension at the latest time necessary to meet the commitments made to the voters, resulting in an unnecessary four year delay in the. project; while expediting funding for other projects which would be undertaken years ahead of what voters understood when they voted to approve the new tax; and WHEREAS, the Foothill Extension could begin construction within 10 months, creating over 37,000 jobs during construction, 3,500 permanent jobs during the first 20 years of operation, and more than 500,000 construction - related jobs to build transit- oriented developments — generating an estimated $40 billion in economic benefits for our region; and WHEREAS, the Foothill Extension can be operational in 2013, adding more than 3.3 million passengers every year to the Metro system by extending the line just to Azusa (a four -year delay results in a loss of more than 13 million rides on the system); and WHEREAS, the Foothill Extension' is included in the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) air quality conformity model as completed in 2008, an important component for our region's air quality attainment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: -2- SECTION 1. The City of Arcadia requests that the Metro Board amend the draft 2009 LRTP to expedite funding for the Foothill Extension project at the level necessary to begin construction in 2010. SECTION 2. , The City of Arcadia further requests that the Metro Board approve the Fund Transfer Agreement to allow funds to begin being transferred to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority as soon as deemed necessary to meet this expedited schedule. SECTION 3. 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 of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- DATE: April 7, 2009 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Hue C. Quach, Administrative Services Director Shannon Huang, Financial Service Manager /City Treasurer SUBJECT: Authorize City staff to continue using the MBIA Asset Management Group for investment management services for the coming year. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY In April of 2007, the City entered into a contract with the MBIA Asset Management Group for investment management services with respect to a portion of the City's. portfolio. At that time, the Council directed that an annual review of MBIA's performance be conducted, and that the matter be brought back to the City Council to decide whether to continue using those services or pursue other alternatives. Staff has recently completed the required annual review, and believes that MBIA is living up to the City's expectations. It is recommended that the City continue using MBIA's services for the coming year. BACKGROUND The City entered into an agreement with the MBIA Asset Management Group to provide the City with investment advisory services in April 2007. The purpose of this agreement was to utilize MBIA's investment expertise to enhance the overall rate of return on the City's portfolio. MBIA was selected from among five proposals. The firm was established in 1990 and is a member of the MBIA family of companies. It has approximately $58 billion in assets under management and a staff of 118 assigned to the asset management division. MBIA was allocated $50.0 million in City's assets to manage. The basic concept was to have MBIA oversee assets available for longer term investment, while City staff was to retain control over assets requiring greater liquidity. Page 1 of 2 The agreement with MBIA does not impose a specific term. Staff and at least one Council member, however, were to conduct an annual review of the firm's performance. After each review, a formal recommendation was to be made to the City Council for direction either to continue services with MBIA or to consider other alternatives. The City has the ability to terminate the agreement for any reason by giving a written notice to MBIA no less than thirty (30) days prior to the requested termination date. DISCUSSION On March 31, 2009, Mayor Robert Harbicht, City Manager Don Penman, Administrative Services Director Hue Quach, and Financial Services Manager /City Treasurer Shannon Huang met with MBIA representatives to review the past year's performance. As of the month ended February 2009, the City's investment portfolio totaled $86 million had a overall rate of return. of 3.16% as two -year and five -year Treasury Note were earning 0.98% and 1.88% respectively. And MBIA managed assets had a total rate of return equal to 3.42% after management fees. Staff has not encountered any problems during the year working with MBIA and believes that the firm has adhered to all the requirements of its contract with the City. FISCAL IMPACT MBIA charges fees for services based on the amount of assets under management. It is estimated that the annual cost will be about $41,000. This amount, however, should be more than offset by higher interest earnings. Funding for the agreement has been provided for in the adopted budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Authorize City staff to continue using MBIA Asset Management Group for investment management services for the coming year. APPROVED: Donald Penman, City Manager Page 2 of 2 u 9 CoI,��+yq „�o {N °F`• STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Directo� Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director SUBJECT: SEWER RATES AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE SUMMARY Utility rates fund the operations and maintenance of the water system and the sanitary sewer system. Every year it is necessary to evaluate current utility rates to ensure proper funding to provide quality services to the residents of Arcadia. Based upon the Public Works Services Department's proposed 2009/10 Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, Water Master Plan, and Sewer Master Plan, it is recommended that the City Council consider adjusting the water and sewer rates by the 2007 -2008 California Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 3.7 %. The proposed monthly rate adjustments are as follows: Water Sewer Residential (Single & Multi - Family) Commercial Current Proposed $1.26 /CCF $1.31 /CCF $3.80 /unit $3.94 /unit $11.36 + $0.10 /CCF $11.78 + $0.11 /CCF Staff is recommending that the City Council direct the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 balloting procedures for water and sewer rates and conduct a public hearing at the June 16, 2009 City Council meeting with prepared resolutions authorizing the proposed rate increases that include a 3.7% Cost of Living Page 1 of 4 2013/2014 FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Recommendation: Approve Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 Adjustment (COLA) for fiscal year 2009/10 and is an automatic COLA adjustment according to the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fiscal years 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. DISCUSSION Water Rates The cost of operating the City's water distribution system has increased, as a result of the uncertainty of replacement water and the significant increased cost of surface water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Most recently, MWD has increased the cost of replacement water and surface water effective March 1, 2009. Replacement water has increased from $251 to $337 ( +34 %).and the cost of surface water has increased $549 to $681 ( +24 %). The City of Arcadia relies on MWD water to supplement water pumped from the Main San Gabriel Basin and the East Raymond Basin to meet demand from the residents. The enduring drought in Southern California and an impending lawsuit regarding an endangered species on the California Delta has made it apparent that water agencies need to prepare for a cut in surface water deliveries from both the Colorado River and the State Water Project (Delta). Staff continues to explore new and innovative solutions to acquire and produce additional sources of potable water. Future water conservation efforts will be needed to ensure that a sustainable supply of potable water is available for use by Southern Californians. While the City has a Water Conservation Plan in the Municipal Code, which outlines measures to prevent unreasonable use of water, staff is also recommending a tiered water rate study be conducted in next year's capital improvement program. Following the completion of the study, staff will present the report to the City Council for direction. The value of the City's water system is estimated at $200 million and industry standards recommend a ten (10) percent reserve to offset costs in the event of a catastrophic event or emergency that would affect the water system's infrastructure. This proposed rate adjustment is predicated on annual operating budget, capital improvement projects outlined in the Water Master Plan Update and maintenance of a $20 million fund reserve. Additionally, staff took into consideration the recommendations from the Water Master Plan Update which was completed in March 2008. In preparation of the 2009/10 budget, staff has evaluated each account, and where possible, reduced operation and maintenance expenditures while continuing to maintain the reliability of the water system, complying with water quality standards and retaining the existing level of service. Staff recommends a 3.7% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to the water rate for fiscal year 2009/10 and is recommending an automatic COLA adjustment according to the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fiscal years 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. This proposed rate adjustment would change the existing water rate from $1.26 to $1.31 per 100 cubic feet (CCF) for FY09 /10. Page 2 of 4 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 Sewer Rates The City Council approved the Sewer Master Plan Update on June 20, 2006. The Sewer Master Plan is a comprehensive report outlining a long -range program of capital improvements and preventative maintenance measures to upgrade and maintain the City's sewer system. The Sewer Master Plan Update and Hydraulic Modeling Report evaluates the adequacy of the City's wastewater collection system through the year 2026. The City provides wastewater collection for approximately 56,000 residents and numerous businesses within eleven (11) square miles. The City's sewer pipes are on average, fifty -years old and include 138 miles of pipe throughout the City. The rate adjustments are necessary to fund the operations and maintenance activities of the sewer system to ensure that the City's sewer system is in compliance with State Regulations that mandate the elimination of sewer backups and overflows. Accordingly, the Sewer Master Plan proposes annual rate adjustments in order to recover operational sewer service costs, fund Capital Improvement Projects and to build a five (5) million dollar fund reserve to be used in case of an emergency or catastrophic event. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a 3.7% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) in sewer rates for fiscal year 2009/10 and is recommending an automatic COLA adjustment according to the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fiscal years 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. This proposed rate adjustment would change the existing residential rate from $3.80 to $3.94 per month per dwelling unit, reflecting a $0.14 increase monthly or $1.68 annually. The proposed rate adjustment for the commercial rate would change from $11.36 per month for each sewer connection and an additional $0.10 per 100 cubic feet of water used per month to $11.78 per month for each sewer connection and an additional $0.11 per 100 cubic feet of water used per month. CONCLUSION In accordance with Proposition 218, the City must engage in the proper balloting process when increasing water and sewer rates. Therefore, staff is recommending the City Council authorize the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for a 3.7% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for water and sewer rates, conduct a public hearing at the June 16, 2009 City Council meeting and to prepare resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal year 2009/10, 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. FISCAL IMPACT Water and sewer rate increases are necessary to fund the Capital Improvement Program and the Operating Budget, and to maintain a reserve fund balance in case of a natural disaster or emergency. The lack of a rate increase would not allow the City to recover increasing operations and maintenance costs of running the City's water and sewer system. (See Attachment) Page 3 of 4 Mayor and City Council April 7, 2009 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 balloting procedures for the increase of water and sewer rates and conduct a public hearing at the June 16, 2009 Council Meeting with prepared resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal years 2009 -10, 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 . Approved by: Donald Penman, City Manager PM:TT Page 4 of 4 STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager DATE: April 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council �Q FROM: Donald Penman, City Manager w Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney S P b Prepared by: Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6674 ADOPTING A WRITTEN POLICY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CITY CONTROLLED TICKETS AND /OR PASSES TO CITY OFFICIALS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 18944.1, AS AMENDED BY THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Recommendation: Adopt BACKGROUND The Fair Political Practices Commission ( "FPPC ") recently amended its regulations pertaining to disbursement of tickets to and from a public agency which are used by individual public officials. New regulations apply to tickets for admission to entertainment, recreational, amusement and similar types of events. Unless specific circumstances exist, such tickets constitute a gift to a public official subject to the annual gift limitation of $420 from any one source in a calendar year, as set forth in FPPC regulations. However, if the tickets fit within certain descriptive uses (such as a City business use) then such tickets do not constitute a gift to the public official. In order to comply with FPPC regulation 18944.1, it is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6674. DISCUSSION In December 2008, the Fair Political Practices Commission significantly amended Section 18944.1 relating to tickets or passes to events distributed to, or at the behest of, public officials. This revised Regulation which became effective on March 1, 2009, sets forth new conditions under which a ticket or pass to an entertainment event distributed by an agency to or at the behest of an official will not be treated as a gift to the public official under the Political Reform Act and the FPPC regulations. The effect of the amended Regulation is to further restrict the use of event tickets and passes by City officials and employees. Page 1 of 2 From time to time, the City receives complimentary or discounted tickets or passes from outside sources for distribution to City officials and /or employees. The distribution to and use of such tickets and passes by employees or officials frequently serve legitimate governmental purposes. For such tickets and passes, FPPC Regulation 18944.1 now requires that, unless the City employees or officials report the value of the tickets or passes they receive as income in accordance with applicable state and federal income tax laws, the tickets may only be distributed in accordance with an officially adopted written policy. This policy must be posted on the City's website or provided to the FPPC for posting on its website within thirty (30) days after the distribution of the ticket and remain for a reasonable period of time. Tickets that are instead "gifts" must be reported by the official on the officials Form 700, instead of this new form. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to City Council action. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager and City Attorney recommend the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6674 adopting a written policy for distribution of City controlled tickets and /or passes to City officials in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Section 18944.1, as amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission. Page 2 of 2 I 111We1 lll[IW'VyLI A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A WRITTEN POLICY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CITY CONTROLLED TICKETS AND/ OR PASSES TO CITY OFFICIALS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, SECTION 18944. 1, AS AMENDED BY THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION WHEREAS, the California Fair Political Practices Commission ( "FPPC ") recently amended Section 18944.1 of the California Code of Regulations relating to tickets and/or passes to facilities or events for entertainment purposes distributed by the City to, or at the behest of, public officials to further restrict the use of event tickets and passes by City officials and employees; and WHEREAS, from time to time, the City receives complimentary or discounted tickets and/or passes from outside sources for distribution to City officials and/or employees; and WHEREAS, the City occasionally will purchase tickets or passes to entertainment events for its employees or officials for governmental purposes; and WHEREAS, based on such practices and the amended regulations, the City Council desires to adopt a clear and concise policy regarding tickets and/or passes to facilities or events for entertainment purposes. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Ticket Distribution Policy, Administrative Policy No. II -08. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 1 2009 Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 2 J" ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Policy No.: Adopted: Amended: II -08 CITY MANAGER PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all Tickets and /or passes provided to the City shall be distributed in furtherance of governmental and /or public purposes as required under Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Regulation 18944.1. APPLICATION 1. This policy applies to Tickets and /or passes which provide admission to a facility or event for an entertainment, amusement, recreational or similar purpose, and are either: a) gratuitously provided to the City by an outside source; b) acquired by the City by purchase at full price or at a discount; c) acquired by the City as consideration pursuant to the terms of a contract for the use of a City venue; or d) acquired and distributed by the City in any other manner. 2. This policy does not apply to any other item of value provided to the City or any City Official, regardless of whether received gratuitously or for which consideration is provided. 3. This policy shall supersede and replace any other City policy pertaining to the distribution of Tickets and /or passes. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, words and terms used in this policy shall have the same meaning as that ascribed to such words and terms in the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq., as the same may from time to time be amended) and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC'� Regulations (Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 18110 et seq., as the same may from time to time be amended). 1 � a ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Policy No.: II -08 SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Adopted: Amended: CITY MANAGER 1. "City" or "City of Arcadia" shall mean and include the City of Arcadia, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, any other affiliated agency created or activated by the Arcadia City Council, and any departments, boards and commissions thereof. 2. "City Official' means every member, officer, employee or consultant of the City of Arcadia, as defined in Government Code Section 82048 and FPPC Regulation 18701. Such term shall include, without limitation, any City board or commission member or other appointed official or employee required to file an annual Statement of Economic Interests(FPPC Form 700). 3. "Immediate family" means spouse and dependent children. 4. "Ticket" means and includes any form of admission privilege to a facility, event, show or performance. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. No right to Tickets: The use of complimentary Tickets is a privilege extended by the City and not the right of any person to which the privilege may from time to time be extended. 2. Limitation on Transfer of Tickets: Tickets distributed to a City Official pursuant to this policy shall not be transferred to any other person, except to members of such City Official's immediate family solely for their personal use. 3. Prohibition against Sale of or Receiving Reimbursement for Tickets: No person who receives a Ticket pursuant to this policy shall sell or receive reimbursement for the value of such Ticket. TICKET AD MINISTRATOR i. The .City Manager or his /her designee, shall be the Ticket Administrator for purposes of implementing the provisions of this policy. In such case where the City Manager desires to obtain a Ticket, or pass; the City Council authorizes the City Manager to exercise the City's sole discretion in determing whether the City Manager's use or behest of Tickets and /or passes is in accordance with the terms of this policy. 4 � ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY a SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY 40, a p .a Policy No.: Adopted: Amended: II -08 CITY MANAGER 2. The Ticket Administrator shall have the authority, in his or her sole discretion, to establish procedures for the distribution of Tickets in accordance with this policy. All requests for Tickets which fall within the scope of this policy shall be made in accordance with these procedures. 3. The Ticket Administrator shall determine the face value of Tickets distributed by the City. The face value shall be calculated in accordance with FPPC Regulation 18946.1. 4. The Ticket Administrator, in his or her sole discretion, may revoke or suspend the Ticket privileges of any person who violates any provision of this policy or the procedures established by the Ticket Administrator for the distribution of Tickets in accordance with this policy. 5. If available, the City Manager shall attend all events to which the City obtains control of Tickets as the City's primary representative. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TICKETS MAY BE DISTRIBUTED Subject to the provisions of this policy, complimentary Tickets may be distributed to City Officials under the following conditions: 1. The City Official reimburses the City for the face value of the Ticket(s). a) reimbursement shall be made at the time the Ticket(s) is /are distributed to the City Official: b) the Ticket Administrator shall, in his or her sole discretion, determine which event Tickets, if any, shall be available under this section. 2. The City Official treats the Ticket(s) as income consistent with applicable federal and state income tax laws or reports the Tickets as a gift on their Conflict of Interest Statement. 3 u u.o� ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Policy No.: II -08 SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Adopted: •^' Amended: CITY MANAGER 3. The distribution of the Ticket(s) to, or at the behest of, the City Official accomplishes a governmental and /or public purpose. The following list of governmental and /or public purposes the City may accomplish through the distribution of Tickets is illustrative rather than exhaustive: a) Facilitating the performance of a ceremonial role or function by a City Official on behalf of the City at an event. b) Facilitating the attendance of a City Official at an event where the job duties of the City Official require his or her attendance at the event. c) Promotion of intergovernmental relations and /or cooperation and coordination of resources with other governmental agencies, including, but not limited to, attendance at an event with or by elected or appointed public officials from other jurisdictions, their staff members and their guests. d) Promotion of City resources and /or facilities available to Arcadia residents. e) Promotion of City-run, sponsored or supported community programs or events. f) Promoting, supporting and /or showing appreciation for programs or services rendered by charitable and non - profit organizations benefiting Arcadia residents. g) Promotion of business activity, development, and /or redevelopment within the City. h) Promotion of City-owned businesses. i) Promotion of City tourism on a local, state, national or worldwide scale. j) Promotion of City recognition, visibility, and /or profile on a local, state, national or worldwide scale. k) Promotion of open government by City Official appearances, participation and /or availability at business and /or community events. 11 r ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Policy No.: Adopted: Amended: II -08 CITY MANAGE 1) Increasing public exposure to, and awareness of, the various recreational, cultural, and educational venues and facilities available to the public within the City. m) Attracting or rewarding volunteer public service. n) Encouraging or rewarding significant academic, athletic, or public service achievements by Arcadia students, resident or businesses. o) Attracting and retaining highly qualified employees in the City service. p) Recognizing or rewarding meritorious service by a City employee. q) Promoting enhanced City employee performance or morale. r) Recognizing contributions made to the City by former City Council members or City employees. s) Sponsorship agreements involving private events where City specifically seeks to enhance City's reputation both locally and regionally by serving as hosts providing the necessary opportunities to meet and greet visitors, dignitaries and residents. t) All written contracts where City as a form of consideration has required that a certain number of tickets or suites be made available for its use. u) Charitable 501 (c)(3) fundraisers for the purpose of networking with other community and civic leaders. v) Spouses of City official in order to accompany him or her to any of the events listed above. w) Any purpose similar to above included in any City contract. 4. Unless exempted otherwise under state law, any Ticket received or directed for use by a City Official not in conformance with this policy remains subject to separate disclosure requirements and the annual gift limit. E J� °Of ^'4 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Policy No.: II -08 SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Adopted: 0 a' Amended: CITY MANAGER 5. This policy does not generally apply to political or nonprofit fundraisers which are governed under a separate policy. 6. Tickets to events that primarily provide informational material and are provided to assist the City Official in the performance of his or her official duties or those of his or her elected office are also not generally subject to this policy. To the extent that any event becomes more entertainment - oriented, this policy a well as the City Attorney's office should be consulted. 7. Tickets provided to public officials as part of their official duties, or Tickets provided so that the public official may perform a ceremonial role or function on behalf of the City shall not be subject to this Ticket Distribution Policy. These Tickets are exempt from any disclosure or reporting requirements. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Tickets distributed by the City to any City Official where the City treats the Ticket as income, or the Ticket was provided pursuant to one of the aforementioned public purposes or a similar purpose, shall be posted on Form 802, or such alternative form as may be approved or amended, from time to time by the FPPC, in.a prominent fashion on the City's website within thirty (30) days after distribution. These forms shall be posted for 12 months and may be removed at the City's discretion anytime thereafter. Such posting shall include the following information. a) The name of the recipient, except that if the recipient is an organization, the City may post the name, address, description of the organization and number of Tickets provided to the organization in lieu of posting the names of each recipient; b) a description of the event; c) the date of the event; d) the face value the Ticket; e) the number of Tickets provided to each person; 9 � ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY SUBJECT: TICKET DISTRIBUTION POLICY Policy No.: Adopted: Amended: II -08 CITY MANAGER f) if the Ticket is requested by an official, the name of the official who requested the Ticket; and g) a description of the public purpose under which the distribution was made or, alternatively, that the Ticket was distributed as income to the official. Tickets distributed by the City for which the City receives reimbursement from the City official, or which are reported as a gift on FPPC Conflict of Interest Statements, shall not be subject to the disclosure provisions listed above. FA Tickets Provided by Date of original Flling: ft Date(s) of Event:.__-J._._.J— Description of Event: Face Value of Ticket: $ Agency Event ❑ Yee ❑ No (Identify source of ilckets below.) Name of Outside Source of Ticket(s) Provided to Agency: Number of Tickets Received: Ticket(s) Provided to Agency: ❑ Graluttously ❑ Pursuant to Contract 3. Agency Official(s) Reaelving Ticket(s) (use a continuation sheet for additional names) Describe the Public Purpose for the Distribution or Organization Receiving Ticket(s) (Provided Name of Behesting Agency Official: Name of Individual or Organization: Description of Organization: Number of Tickets: Address of Organization: store Tao code Numeerane sorom CRY Purpose for Distribution: (Describe the public purpose for the distribution to the organization.) S. Verification I have determined (hat the dialrlbrdlon of lWmIs set forth above Is in accordence with the provisions of FPPO Regulation 19944.1. 61aYlare Y Heed or Oedpme Pr a (mmnR deli Yeah Comment: (Use N>< s apace Oren ettedrmen7 ror any adddfosel nlarmaltan MducPng amendment exptenetldn.) A Public Document flel¢79 na Data Stamp Foror9del ❑ Amandmeat plautorplalnln Pa46.1 of an agency official.) FPPC Form 802 TWO) FPPC Tell-Free iklpena•. 8661A914FPPC (98812763772)