The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAugust 16, 2005w~`F° MEETING AGENDA Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at this meeting. The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desk at the Arcadia Public Library and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any questions regarding any matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (626) 574 -5455. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three (3) business days before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting. 6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room ROLL CALL AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (S minutes per person) STUDY SESSION a. b. CLOSED SESSION a. Review, discussion and direction concerning private project prioritization. Review, discussion and direction concerning Emerald Necklace. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer about labor contract negotiations - California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union 911 (Confidential, Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit). City Negotiators: William W. Floyd and Tracey Hause. 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chamber INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation to the Arcadia Unified School District, the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Oak Tree Racing Association, Valley Vista Services, Waste Management, Inc. and Westfield Santa Anita regarding City's 2005 July 4th Celebration. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL a. Zone Change 2005 -03 from PR -1 to C -2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 60.5' deep for a commercial retail project at 253 East Foothill Boulevard. Recommendation: Approve b. Resolution No 6478, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report (LIR) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. Recommendation: Adopt AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION- (S minutes per person) REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the August 2, 2005 Regular Meeting Recommendation: Approve CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the Auaust 2, 2005 Regular Meetina. Recommendation: Approve C. Renewal of Local Emergency Proclamation for Winter Storm Damage. Recommendation: Approve d. Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC prevention maintenance and service contract for various City facilities Recommendation: Approve e. authorized maintenance and operating costs of the lighting district. Recommendation: Adopt f. Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreements Recommendation: Approve 3. CITY MANAGER a. Report and discussion concerning peafowl. Recommendation: Provide direction b. Designation of Voting Delegate for the 2005 League of California Cities Conference. Recommendation: Select and approve AD30URNMENT The City Council will adjourn this meeting to September 6, 2005, 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber Conference Room. ANNOTATED AGENDA Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency ° je.. r , r can ° STUDY SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 a. Review, discussion and direction concerning private project prioritization. b. Review, discussion and direction concerning Emerald Necklace. CLOSED SESSION The City Council directed staff to re, Prioritize current projects an that the Santa Anita Park Specific Plan can be Processed in a timely fashion while also meeting legal obligations for all other projects. 5 -0 Item was tabled for a future agenda. 5 -0 a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer about labor contract negotiations - California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees' Union 911 (Confidential, Supervisor, No Reportable Professional and General Employee Unit and Public Works Employee Unit). City Negotiators: William Action W. Floyd and Tracey Hause. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL a. Zone Change 2005 -03 from PR -1 to C -2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the Approved northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 503 deep for a commercial retail proiect at 253 East Foothill Boulevard. 4-0 Wuo "no" Recommendation: Approve b. Resolution No. 6483 finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report (LIR) in accordance Approved with California Government Code Section 65089. 5-0 Recommendation: Adopt 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the August 2 2005 Regular Meeting. Approved Recommendation: Approve 5-0 CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the August 2 2005 Regular Meeting. Approved Recommendation: Approve 5-0 C. Renewal of Local Emeroency Proclamation for Winter Storm Damage. Approved Recommendation: Approve 5-0 d. Award a one (1) Year contract extension in the amount of $105.490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC prevention maintenance and service contract for various City facilities. Approved Recommendation: Approve 5-0 ; "Mrons 3. e. Resolution No 6482 establishing the 2005 -06 debt service on the oeneral obligation bonds and authorized maintenance and o egg costs of the lighting district Approved Recommendation: Adopt 5-0 f. Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreements. Approved Recommendation: Approve 5-0 CITY MANAGER a. Report and discussion concerning peafowl. Approved to Recommendation: Provide direction implement items a., b., and c., from the staff report 5 -0 b. Desianation of Voting Delegate for the 2005 League of California Cities Conference Approved Recommendation: Select and approve 5-0 Marshall - delegate Kovach: - alternate 47:0077 MINUTES Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency o o' TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 6:00 p.m., City Council Chamber Conference Room mv Wi ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (5 minutes per person) None. STUDY SESSION a. Review, discussion and direction concerning private project prioritization. A study session staff report was made by Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator; they noted the timelines and impacts of various upcoming private and public projects including: Westfield Expansion, Santa Anita Racetrack Specific Plan (Caruso), Methodist Hospital Modifications, Single Family Design Review, Sign Regulations Update, General Plan Language Amendments, Alta Street Housing Project, RV Parking Analysis, Fire Station 105 Construction, Civic Center Design, Gold Line Construction, Review and preparation of a Transportation Master Plan, and the Rusnak development. After considerable deliberation and discussion, the City Council deferred the Sign Regulation Update and requested that the City staff attempt to complete the Caruso project prior to the 2006 municipal election. b. Review, discussion and direction concerning Emerald Necklace. Bill Kelly, City Manager, presented the report; the Emerald Necklace is a proposed park and trail network that will reconnect the Rio Hondo with the San Gabriel River and Whittier Narrows; it will link 17 miles of trails, parks, and greenways and two major urban rivers; in addition to running through municipalities, the Emerald Necklace Agencies will include water districts, utility companies, County Agencies, Conservation agencies and other relevant entities; the Emerald Necklace Accord 2005 is a first step to establish a framework for these agencies and entities to work together. A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Kovacic, and carried on roll call vote to table any action at this time. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 California Teamsters Public, Professional and Supervisor, Professional and General Employee Negotiators: William W. Floyd and Tracey Hause. to confer about labor contract negotiations - Medical Employees' Union 911 (Confidential, Unit and Public Works Employee Unit). City 08 -16 -05 47:0078 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber INVOCATION Reverend Jolene Cadenbach, Arcadia Congregational Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vince Foley ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo ABSENT: None. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Bill Kelly, City Manager, noted that the Resolution Numbers on Agenda items 1.1b., and 2.e should be changed to 6483 (1.b.) and 6482 (2.e.). REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, reported that the City Council /Redevelopment Agency did not take any reportable action on item a. on tonight's Closed Session agenda. He further noted that the Council considered two items during a Study Session. Regarding Study Session Item "a" (Private project prioritization) the Council directed staff to re- prioritize certain upcoming public and private projects. Regarding Study Session Item "b" (Emerald Necklace Accord) the Council voted unanimously to table action at this time (Segal motion, Kovacic second). MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall and carried without objection to read all ordinances /resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation to the Arcadia Unified School District, the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Oak Tree Racing Association, Valley Vista Services, Waste Management, Inc. and Westfield Santa Anita regarding City's 2005 July 4th Celebration. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL a. Zone Change 2005 -03 from PR -1 to C -2 for a oortion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 60.5' deep for a commercial retail proiect at 253 East Foothill Boulevard. Recommendation: Approve Staff Report Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, presented the report. Zone Change Application No. Z 2005-03 was submitted by Rich Development Company to rezone an approximate 200 feet wide by 60.5 feet deep strips of property at the central portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One- Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 1General Commercial. Rich Development is proposing a Walgreen's drugstore at this location; the Planning Commission at its July 12, 2005 meeting voted 5 - 0 to recommend approval of the requested Zone Change. The Development Services Department is also recommending approval of this zone change. Staff answered several questions from Council concerning the allowability of restricting certain land uses, alcoholic sales procedures, and related land use and design matters. Staff advised that restricting land uses is a different matter, unless there is some pervasive public health and /or safety problem. Staff also advised that this zone change, if approved, would not allow a project by itself; such further would require design review and /or a use permit pending a specific application. 08 -16 -05 47:0079 Public Hearing Tao Johnson, representing Rich Development Company (applicant), appeared to speak in favor of City Council Testimony approval of the requested Zone Change. Sue Mivahara representing Kenichi and Hideko Noda (Noda restaurant), appeared to speak in favor of City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Jim Shumaker, partner with Rich Development, appeared to note that the owners of the Shakey's restaurant at 245 E. Foothill Blvd. are in favor of City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Jim Wright. 250 E. Sycamore, appeared to speak in opposition to City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Michael Rule. 307 Foothill Blvd., appeared to speak in opposition to City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Ed Littv 236 E. Sycamore, appeared to speak in opposition to City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Jay Lee 300 E. Sycamore, appeared to speak in opposition to City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Ge ne Wim, appeared to speak in opposition to City Council approval of the requested Zone Change. Tap Johnson representing Rich Development Company (applicant), noted that the applicant is prepared to incorporate the community's concerns into their project proposal. Jay Lee noted that he was not contacted by the applicant Motion to Close A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Public Hearing Marshall, and was carried unanimously. Council Council Member Kovacic noted that under the existing Zoning, Walgreen's could go into the Shakey's building Deliberation without a drive thru window. Staff noted that the reason for requesting the Zone Change at this time was to ensure that the Zone type is appropriate for the neighborhood. The current zoning is antiquated and reduces Flexibility for future uses. Council Member Chandler noted that the potential Walgreens project will reduce the on- premise liquor sales that currently may be impacting the neighborhood. Mayor Wuo noted that if the Zoning Change was not approved tonight Walgreen's could still operate on the property. Motion A motion was made by Council /Agency Member Chandler to approve Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 and file the Negative Declaration to rezone an approximate 200 feet wide by 60.5 feet deep strip of property at the central portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One- Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance for adoption at a subsequent meeting. The motion was not supported by a "second" motion. Another motion was made by Council /Agency Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to approve Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 and file the Negative Declaration to rezone an approximate 200 feet wide by 60.5 feet deep strip of property at the central portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One- Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 /General Commercial and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance for adoption at a subsequent meeting. ROLL CALL AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, and Segal NOES: Council /Agency Member Wuo 08 -16-05 47:0080 b. Resolution No. 6478. findinq the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Reoort (LIR) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. Recom mendation:'Adopt Staff Report Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director, presented the staff report. Each city in the state of California is required to submit annually a Local Development Report (LDR) and certify by resolution to the local Congestion Management Agency that it is in compliance with the local Congestion Management Program (CMP); conformance with the CMP assures that local agencies are providing transportation improvements to offset the traffic congestion resulting from new development; to assure conformance with the CMP, local agencies must perform the following actions: 1) implement a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and a Land Use Analysis Program, and 2) Submit to the Local Congestion Management Agency by September 1st of each year, a resolution finding that the City is in conformance with the CMP, and a Local Development Report showing that the City is meeting its traffic congestion mitigation responsibilities. Public Hearing None. Testimony Motion to Close A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Public Hearinq Seqal, and was carried unanimously. Council Council Member Kovacic questioned staff on the analysis and use of the statistics, and Mr. Penman explained Deliberation the use and applications of the analyses. Motion It was moved by Council/Agency Member Kovacic, seconded by Council /Agency Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to Adopt Resolution No. 6483: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Development Report (LDR) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089; and direct the City Clerk to transmit a fully executed copy of Resolution No. 6483 and the Local Development Report to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by September 1, 2005, ROLL CALL AYES: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo NOES: None. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (S minutes per person) Yvonne Rosas Pet[v Arcadia Relay for Life Committee, to thank Mayor John Wuo and the City Council for their support of the Arcadia Relay for Life Program. REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS MARSHALL Announced that cell phones are now "call boxes" for road -side assistance by dialing #399 to request Metro Freeway Patrol Service; announced that the Arcadia Fire Department is now able to offer free smoke alarms through a special grant program. SEGAL Announced that he recently arrived from a vacation trip to Alaska. CHANDLER Congratulated Mayor Wuo's efforts for the Arcadia Relay for Life; he further congratulated Mayor Wuo's recent block party. KOVACIC Noted that the City Council has received another anonymous letter regarding the project proposed at the Santa Anita Race track; noted that all letters, whether anonymous or signed, will be included during the formal EIR review process, however that public comment process has not been opened. 4 08 -16 -05 47:0081 WUO Thanked Council Members Chandler and Marshall for participating in his recent block party as well as the City for providing the mechanism for block parties to be supported. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. Minutes of the August 2. 2005 Regular Meeting. Recommendation: Approve CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL b. Minutes of the August 2, 2005 Regular Meeting. Recommendation: Approve C. Renewal of Local Emergency Proclamation for Winter Storm Damage Recommendation: Approve d. Award a one (1) Year contract extension in the amount of $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC prevention maintenance and service contract for various City facilities. Recommendation: Approve e. Resolution No. 6479, establishing the 2005 -06 debt service on the general obligation bonds and authorized maintenance and operating costs of the lighting district. Recommendation: Adopt f. Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreements. Recommendation: Approve Motion A motion was made by Agency /Council Member Chandler, seconded by Agency /Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll call vote to approve items 2.a. through 2.f on the Redevelopment Agency /City Council Consent Calendars. Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo Noes: None 3. CITY MANAGER a. Report and discussion concerning peafowl. Recommendation: Provide direction Bill Kelly, City Manager, presented the report; in response to comments made by residents at the July 19, 2005 City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepair a report discussing "peafowl in Arcadia" and offering alternative courses of action for the Council's consideration; Mr. Kelly outlined provisions within the City's Municipal Code regarding feeding of animals within the City; several alternative were outlined regarding a potential peafowl management policy including education efforts, signage, and relocating and potentially euthanizing peafowl which are creating a neighborhood nuisance; staff is recommending a community public education and signage program. Steve Selba 341 Oxford, Inquired whether the City has any responsibility for stewardship of the peafowl. Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, noted that the City has no fiduciary or liability responsibility regarding management of the peafowl. Sharon Scollard 400 block of Harvard Drive, appeared to ask the City Council not to take any aggressive action toward the peafowl population in Arcadia. Brett Powers appeared to request the reduction of the peafowl population, not elimination of the population. Sharon Greth 473 Harvard Drive, appeared to speak regarding alternatives suggested in the staff report on this item. 08 -16 -05 47:0082 David Medina 332 Harvard Drive, appeared to request that the City Council not take any action regarding the peafowl population. An Arcadia resident (name unintelligle), appeared to note that the City should take a more assertive approach regarding peafowl management. Council Member Marshall noted that she is in favor of improved signage in the particular areas experiencing rapid peafowl proliferation. Council Member Kovacic thanked Bill Kelly and Linda Garcia for their staff work on this item; noted that he is in favor of a public education effort regarding peafowl as suggested by items a., b., and c., in the staff report. Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, noted that signage could note the fine imposed for a particular violation of the Municipal Code. Motion A motion was made by Agency /Council Member Marshall, seconded by Agency /Council Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to implement public education and signage efforts as outlined by items a., b., and c., in the staff report and to include wording regarding fine amounts for violation of the Municipal Code. Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo Noes: None b. Designation of Voting Delegate for the 2005 League of California Cities Conference. Recommendation: Select and approve Bill Kelly, City Manager, presented the report; The League of California Cities is requesting that each member city select a voting delegate and alternate to attend the Annual League of California Cities Conference and Business Meeting in order to expedite the conduct of business. Motion A motion was made by Agency /Council Member Chandler, seconded by Agency /Council Member Segal, and carried on roll call vote to select Council /Agency Member Marshall, as the voting delegate, and Council /Agency Member Kovacic, as the alternate to attend the 2005 League of California Cities Annual Conferhece and Business Meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal, and Wuo Noes: None ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned this meeting at 10:08 p.m. in memory of Nathan Asher, to September 6, 2005, 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber Conference Room. James H. Barrows By: Vida Tolman Chief Deputy City Clerk 6 08-16-05 Q POSI't1 STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager DATE: August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager SUBJECT: EMERALD NECKLACE ACCORD 2005 Recommendation: That the City Council review and discuss the ratification of the Amigos De Los Rios Emerald Necklace Accord and provide direction. SUMMARY The Emerald Necklace is a proposed park and trail network that will reconnect the Rio Hondo with the San Gabriel River and Whittier Narrows. The Emerald Necklace was developed by the non - profit organization, Amigos de dos Rios, in the context of preparing a Vision Plan for the Rio Hondo Sub Watershed initiated by the Sierra Club. The open space study was funded by the City of El Monte, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the Upper San Gabriel Water District, The Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the Friends of the Angeles Chapter Foundation of the Sierra Club. It will link 17 miles of trails, parks, and greenways and two major urban rivers. The Emerald Necklace runs through 10 cities. In addition to municipalities, Emerald Necklace Agencies will include water districts, utility companies, County agencies, conservation agencies, and other relevant entities. DISCUSSION The Emerald Necklace Accord 2005 is the first step to establishing a framework to work together. By signing the Accord, the City of Arcadia and other agencies agree to the following: 1. To work with agencies in the region to preserve the open space in the watershed for the purposes of both active and passive recreation, education and native habitat preservation/restoration;' reservation/re storation; " 2. To review requests for mutual support from other Emerald Agencies in the form of resolutions and correspondence; 3. To foster greater dialogue concerning ways to develop a sustainable vision for the health and welfare of residents; and 4. To be an active supporter of the process and to attend regular meetings. Mayor and City Council August 16, 2005 Page 2 Amigos de los Rio has also contacted the Arboretum, the Race Track and the Caruso Company relative to their positions /attitudes towards the channels on their properties being modified. The City of Arcadia has not been informed of these organizations positions on this matter. Finally, the City of Arcadia may opt out of the Accord_ with a 30 days notice. FISCAL IMPACTS No direct fiscal impact is related to the City of Arcadia signing the Emerald Necklace Accord. Costs to the City in the future are unknown relative to maintenance or public safety (Police /Fire) issues or costs. It is recommended that the City Council provide direction. Attachments: Map of Network Emerald Necklace Accord 2005 0 ,. EMERALD NECKLACE ACCORD 2005` THIS EMERALD NECKLACE ACCORD (hereinafter, "Emerald Necklace Accord ") is entered into by and among the municipalities and agencies of (the "Emerald Cities ") for the purpose of establishing a network of support, cooperation and collaboration among the cities of the San Gabriel Valley to preserve the rivers and tributaries in this Valley for recreational, open space and natural habitat conservation/restoration purposes. REC PTALS WHEREAS, the Emerald Necklace Cities recognize that the increasingly urbanized development of the San Gabriel Valley has reduced the amount of available recreational space and open space for its residents; WHEREAS, the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers and their tributaries (collectively, the "Watershed ") are part of a significant ecological area that is home to a rich variety of plants and animals and provides a welcome sanctuary for the people who call this Valley home; WHEREAS, the collaborative efforts of the Emerald Necklace Cities to preserve the Watershed is, urgently needed to protect this ever shrinking sanctuary for humans and wildlife. NOW, THEREFORE, the Emerald Necklace Cities agree as follows: SECTION 1. The Emerald Necklace Cities acknowledge and agree that: (a) The Watershed is a precious and invaluable recreational and environmental resource conferring both tangible as well as intangible benefits to the health and welfare of the residents of the San Gabriel Valley; (b) The preservation of the open space in the Watershed for purposes of recreation, education and natural habitat preservation/restoration is a highly desirable regional objective; (c) Fulfillment of this objective is best achieved by the cooperative efforts of cities and other relevant agencies in the region; ; (d) The efforts of any one Emerald Necklace City to preserve the Watershed produces benefits for the residents of the San Gabriel Valley as a whole by enhancing the overall beauty and value of this precious regional resource; and (e) The Emerald Necklace Cities' demonstration that preservation and development of open space in the Watershed is an important regional objective will increase the likelihood of outside funding support for such efforts. (f) Preservation of open space in the Watershed enhances property values and the quality of life for the residents of the San Gabriel Valley while also creating invaluable educational opportunities for the youth of the San Gabriel Valley. SECTION 2. The Emerald Necklace Cities agree to review and consider requests for mutual support from one to another in the form of resolutions and correspondence voicing support for the efforts any one of the Emerald Necklace Cities to secure grant funding for the preservation/restoration of any portion of the Watershed for purposes of recreation, environmental education, natural habitat preservation, community health and open space in the common interest. SECTION 3. The Emerald Necklace Cities agree to foster greater dialogue concerning ways in which the Emerald Necklace Cities can work together to develop a coordinated plan for the preservation of open space in the Watershed for purposes of recreation, environmental education, development and enhancement of regional trails, natural habitat conservation/restoration and maintaining the health of the population. SECTION 4. This document is not intended to create any financial obligation or commitment on the part of any one of the Emerald Necklace Cities. Any one of the Emerald Necklace Cities may opt out of the Emerald Necklace Accord upon notice to the other Emerald Necklace Cities. SECTION 5. Each Agency may sign individually and the City of El Monte will coordinate the distribution of true and correct copies of the fully executed document to all of the Emerald Necklace Cities. In addition to municipalities, agencies will include Water Districts, Utility Companies, County Agencies, State Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and other relevant entities. 2 SECTION 6. Each Agency signing this accord commits to be an active supporter of the process, attending regular meeting, participating in exchange and dissemination of information, and relevant tasks that advance the development and implementation of the regional vision. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Emerald Necklace Agencies that have executed this Emerald Necklace Cities Accord on or as of the date first written above. Mayor City -of By: City Clerk i3 / � � 0 � 2 � E t � g c § u � � m k E CL 0 % ■ c \/ /{ 2E \) \/ I# !!a ) \[ \\{ }2 ƒ))> (*`J =e... \\\ / \j \j /\ 0 �m J , ■| §�) C4 . c z I o CD C) § E /mac \\ S re k)\ �� _ CL - E: \ k § / \ 0 \ \\ j/ / ~ !� < 0 {)/ <(D /5 > +022 »4� ��- = £ 22 > e >�c Q =�>wC: 'r- => 2 %@ 0. £)\a £GemaE2)8G£ =%± >_ _ e= =y– = ==m2g.e; a) & /3eec]eu(n - oe s a- w=E0 auE&2 [If =Ee \\ \ /,....,.. // ....) . ... \/ /{ 2E \) \/ I# !!a ) \[ \\{ }2 ƒ))> (*`J =e... \\\ / \j \j /\ k @ � 0 2 2 ■ E t CL ■ c ■ g v � ■ n 2 ■ E CL 0 > � O // /§ o r . 2 . _ � . < � EU- Q5 _ z . . . �° �m . / _ § $ \ ^ co m \ § . $ 2 _= e8 / § a` § LO /$ § -±8 37 a. \ / §2 @ \ 3 /�� § \) m/ ec = /\ \) }/ k) -� kƒ $+ v$ ±±C oc & CD CD om 0 m E«!EE /c { E @ J5f7 0 (n C) §>0) a ' e o - \ ƒ�\ _§ moo a) �{ m7 §m =_ =, \ E 2 E z = « z 2 2= 2&Jo&eeo =o==,o /� /f�&7 = ca • \ \ __gym /oe E7 / /\euE=r =2$ e-e ==coos= =zf « oa=ueo IL Q) \ . , . . /) " \ v$« mJ \C < // /§ T , N r.+ V d �O L a L- 0 . G d E CL N (D V N w C E Q O O MLO a) o O7 N (Q r Q 00 O N 7 Q 3 Q O O LL O N Z O N O N Cn U) w „ C U ,O E C o - o d w E 0 0 O C r u Q i O U w U¢ E Q c O E a m m m o c E E E L o cY C a I co ( nU m o CL `m m wa �� N -o° Q) O > m C.1 7 .C. N Cn C C :- Q C_ (B N N LL C� - O Q 0 C U N [6 f0 Q 7 O N 0 7 r C ` O 61 C O d +-' U > Q L = U 2 S cn m C a� O a) •� c Q O c U U .° LL O c N° 'C � 0 �.0 C.J Lu d0 f0 C..) N � O O �Y dLL NLLf 0 IL U c a C) tv V J) � c ��0 i� U� C��F MLO a) o O7 N (Q r Q 00 1,q.„ A. p.n 5, 1101 STAFF REPORT � of �oR Development Services Department August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner n SUBJECT: Consideration of Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 to rezone a central portion of the properties located at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. Recommendation: Approve Zone Change SUMMARY Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 was submitted by Rich Development Company to rezone an approximate 200 feet wide by 60.5 feet deep strip of property at the central portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C -2 /General Commercial. Rich Development is proposing a Walgreen's drug store at this location. The Planning Commission at its July 12, 2005 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the requested Zone Change. The Development Services Department is also recommending approval of this Zone Change. BACKGROUND The properties from 235 to 317 E. Foothill Boulevard (north side of Foothill) have a.split zoning, the northerly portions of these properties are zoned PR -1 and the southerly portions are zoned C -2. The C -2 designates a General Commercial zone that permits a wide range of retail, office, and other commercial uses. The PR -1 zone allows parking for adjacent commercial uses or single - family residential uses. It is unknown when the northerly portions of the subject lots were zoned PR -1, but most PR -1 zones are gradually being changed to be consistent with adjacent zones throughout the city for the purpose of providing more appropriate land use transitions. Z 2005 -03 August 9, 2005 Page 1 In 1977, a Zone Variance was granted at 245 E. Foothill to construct the existing Shakey's restaurant allowing the commercial building to be located in both the C -2 and PR -1 zones. The existing Shakey's building straddles theseitwo zones. The property at 251 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard (east of Shakey's) is improved with a commercial. building (including Noda's Restaurant) constructed in 1957, and a duplex in the rear portion of the property also constructed in 1957. On January 27, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the applicant's original. Zone Change Application No. Z 2004 -00.1 to the City Council. The application was a proposed rezoning of the entire rear portion of the subject property from PR-1 to C -2. The item was tabled by the City Council because it was the consensus of the Council members that such a proposal should be considered after a City -wide general plan and zoning consistency study was completed. The above - mentioned study resulted in the City Council adopting an ordinance on February 1, 2005 to rezone most residential zones with a parking overlay neighboring commercial zoned property to general commercial for consistency purposes. The subject property 'was not included in the change because staff recommended that the PR -1 zone to remain based on the concern of the adjoining residents and the fact that it is possible to building commercial on the front portion of the properties. The applicant has since revised the original proposal to reduce the potential impacts of the project upon the surrounding. neighbors. Specifically, instead of rezoning the entire rear portion of the subject property, the current request is to rezone the central portion of the property and maintaining the. PR -1 zoning on the northerly 95' -0" of the property adjacent to the residential properties. DISCUSSION The applicant's current request is to rezone approximately 60.5 feet of the southerly 155.5_feet PR -1 zoned property at 245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd. from PR -1 to C -2, as shown on the following aerial illustration. The northerly 95 feet will remain PR -1. All existing buildings on the two properties, including a duplex, Shakey's Restaurant, Noda's Restaurant, Tokyo Education Institute, and Cindy's Nails, would be removed for the subsequent construction of a Walgreen's Pharmacy. It is staffs opinion that the remaining 95 feet wide PR -1 zoned area between the residential properties to the north and northeast and the commercially zoned portion of the properties provides ample area to adequately buffer the residents to the north and northeast of the property from any future commercial development of the properties. Z 2005 -03 August 9, 2005 Page 2 This application, if approved, would bring the zoning of the central portion of the property into consistency with the General Plan. The Land Use Designation of the northerly 155.5 feet of the-two properties is Commercial. The existing PR -1 zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. If this Zone Change is approved, the Architectural Design Review (ADR 05 -07) and subsequent Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05 -12) for the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy will be scheduled for the Planning Commission's consideration. A petition opposing the project and a letter from Noda's Restaurant that were presented to the Planning Commission are attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission at its July 12, 2005 meeting voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the requested zone change. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and felt that this was an appropriate zone change proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the Z 2005 -03 August 9, 2005 Page 3 habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been drafted for this Zone Change. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 and file the Negative Declaration to rezone,an approximate 200 feet wide by 60.5 feet deep strip of property at the central portion of 245 -253 East Foothill Boulevard from PRA /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2 /General Commercial and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Ordinance for adoption at a subsequent public hearing. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: 1) Vicinity Maps 2) Walgreen's Pharmacy Conceptual Plans 3) July 12, 2005 Planning Commission Draft Minutes 4) Negative Declaration & Initial Study. 5) Petition of Opposition and letter from Noda 6)' Photos Z 2005 -03 August 9, 2005 Page 4 a 100 0 100 200 Feet ® 253 E Foothill Blvd Arcadia G2 Zone Development Services Department Engin eeringDivfston �2f�E j 253 E Foothill Blvd Z 05 -03 Prepered6y RS.Gmzalez, June, 2005 N 100 0 100 Feet (250) 1 (307B) I I I (10") (307A) I I (307C) (221) (223) (225) (227) (229) (235) (212) (224) (128) (230) ( (234) (240) (244) Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by. R.&Go alv, June, 2005 Lj . (3091 (317) FOOTHILL BL 0) 1 (302) (306) (310) (312) (314). (300) Q W O Z r (11 (11 (11' (11 1 (31 II P 253 E Foothill Blvd. Z 05 -03 b bun4y °r H° 2. PUBLIC HEARING Z 2005 -03 253 E. Foothill Blvd. Rich Development Co. Consideration of a zone change from PR -1 to C -2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 60.5' deep for a commercial retail project. The staff report was presented. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. Li indicated that the building height for the proposed Walgreen's is 22'. The Planning Commission is considering the zone change tonight. All other issues with respect to development will be considered at a later date. The public hearing was opened. Tab Johnson, 23456 Madero St., 9230, Mission Viejo, said they have been working with staff on this issue. A similar zone change request was before the City Council previously, however, they understood the project, they wanted more study done on it. They feel that the proposed Walgreen's is designed well and will put the main activity of the use in the front of the property between the proposed building and Foothill Blvd., which is especially important during the evening hours and weekends. Most of the activity will be screened from adjacent residents. It is their intent to heavily landscape the area abutting the residences, which will protect them from noise, glare and any light. They feel that this is a much better solution than the current Shakey's restaurant that has a liquor license and sits in very close to the rear property line. This development will be much more user friendly than a restaurant with a full service bar. It would be poor planning to move the building closer to Foothill Blvd. and push the parking to the rear of the building. Sue Miyahara, 15 E. Foothill Blvd., presented a letter from Mr. And Mrs. Kenichi Noda, owners of the property to the east of the subject site. The letter in part stated that since they have owned their property, they have never received any complaints about noise or glare, considering that the fence to the property to the north is broken down and the existing foliage does not provide any sound barrier. They felt that the proposed project, which will be located over 100' away from the rear property line, has addressed all possible issues, including noise and light. The project will reduce traffic from the existing level and there will be no sale of liquor. Jim Wright, 250 E Sycamore,, said that they reside directly behind proposed project. He was confused about the property line measurements, i.e., the discrepancy between the agenda and the public hearing notice. He stated that they have filed a second petition in opposition to this request, signed by the homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood. They did not want this zone change to go through that would allow a drug store at the subject site. Many of the homeowners have lived in the area for a long time and do not want it changed because their's is a unique situation. The do not feel that extending the C -2 portion of the property would be to the best interest of the homeowners, albeit, it will accommodate this 24 -hour business. They do not want a drive thru window facing the rear of their properties, nor do they want loading docks there, or portions of the building that will be even closer to their properties and protrude beyond the main building. Their property values will undoubtedly drop as a result of this development. There will be absolutely no benefit from this project for them, only Arcadia City Planning Commission 4 7/12/5 hardship. At the previous meeting, it was mentioned that this building would be consistent with Ralph's but that is not true. They prefer to have an office building at the site, which would have minimal impact. Most of the residents utilize their backyard in the evenings and weekends. While an office use would cease operation at those times, it would be the peak time of use for this commercial operation. He asked the Planning Commission to keep the welfare of the community in mind when voting on the project. Michael Ruyl, 307 E. Foothill Blvd., said that his is a unique situation due to the configuration of his lot. This use will definitely impact his property values. It will ruin his views. He was concerned about the headlights, which would shine right into their properties as well as the glare. The sound wall is not high enough to buffer the sound. They will feel the vibrations and it will be uncomfortable to live in their homes. The zone change should be done from the most southerly residential property. If this is approved, trucks would be much closer to their properties than the current situation. In rebuttal, Mr. Johnson said they realized the concerns. raised by the neighbors and that is why they have a 20' landscape buffer. It is their intent to screen the buildings from the backyards of these properties so they will not be visible. Currently, there is .chain link fencing there but they will be planting more landscaping which will create a park like setting. The issues raised are well founded but they will work with staff to resolve the concerns. They feel that this is a well planned project and will provide many benefits to the community that is currently not available. This would be a much more desirable use than a full size restaurant.. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas NOES: None Ms. Butler, explained that it is not definite that Walgreen's would occupy this space, so if they back out another use could occupy the space. The Planning Commission needs to review the zone change only and determine if the zone change is appropriate rather than what retailer may occupy the space. She went on to say that the maximum building height in the C -2 zone is 40' and explained that there are design limitations when abutting residential use. For example, an office building cannot have windows facing the residential properties. Walgreen's is proposing a single -story building. The Shakey's building is within the PR -1 zone. If the zone change is approved, any project at this site would require architectural design review and possibly a CUP depending on the use. For example, a drive thru would require CUP. Through the CUP process, the Planning Commission could impose reasonable conditions that they deem necessary. Commissioner Baderian felt that at the previous hearing it was the intent of the Planning Commission to move forward with the proposed .zone change. This body is concerned about the surrounding neighborhood .and. their quality of .life and will afford them the opportunity to have input during subsequent hearings. They will take any and all mitigation measures to reduce noise and traffic. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5 7112/5 Commissioner Olson was pleased that they would have the opportunity to review the architectural design review and that the project would require a CUP, where they could impose additional conditions if necessary. This would give them the opportunity to determine the best use for the site. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to recommend approval of Z 2005 -03 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas NOES: None Arcadia City Plamung Commission 6 7/1215 File No.: Z 2005 -03 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON'DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION "DRAFT " *' A. Name, if any,'and a brief description of the project: Zone Change Application No. Z 2005 -03 to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep. B. Location of Project: 245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd. In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project: A. X B. Other (Private) (1) Name Rich Development Co (2) Address 1000 N Western Avenue Suite 200 San Pedro CA 90732 The Planning Commission ❑ City Council ❑, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed -the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Planning Commission /City Council, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a siginificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Planning Commission's /City Council's findings are as follows: The City Council ❑ Planning Commission ❑, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgement. A copy of the Initial Study maybe obtained at: Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declartion are as follows: Community Development Division City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -542 Date: fio ' Zo- OS' Date Received for filing st6ff' Form "E" 4103 File No. Z 2005 -03 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE .. ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Application No. Z 2005 -03 2. Project Address (Location) 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Rich Development Company 1000 N. Western Avenue, Suite 200 San Pedro, CA 90732 (310) 547 -3326 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial (C) 7. Zoning Classification: PR -1/C -2 8. Description of Project: -1- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 File No. Z 2005 -03 Proposed Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1lSecond One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Properties to the north are zoned R -1 and are improved with single- family residences. Properties to the south, west, and east are zoned C -2 and are improved with commercial land uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Geology /Soils J ] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Recreation [ ] Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use & Planning Noise Public Services Transportation / Circulation [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ } I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the -2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7102 File No. Z 2005 -03 mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department , " 4 June 20, 2005 Signature Date Thomas Li Donna Butler Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. -3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No. Z 2005 -03 3. " Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a `Less Than Significant Impact," The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may, be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. -4- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion bf the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5'_ deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Waigreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ Z their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? CEQA Checklist 5 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion bf the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5'_ deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Waigreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ Z their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? CEQA Checklist 5 7102 File No.: Z 2005 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The proposed project shall only affect the central portion of 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. Agricultural areas do not exist at this location. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑. ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish CEQA Checklist 6 7102 File No.: Z 2005 -03 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed and are subject to the provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? CEQA Checklist 7 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory, fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed and are subject to the provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? CEQA Checklist 7 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 6. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding cultural resources. As such, no adverse impacts on cultural resources are anticipated. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning .Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Uniform Building.Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? CEQA Checklist 8 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding geology and soils. As such, no adverse impacts on geology and soils are anticipated. 7 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? CEQA Checklist 9 7102 File No.: Z 2005 -03 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- ilSecond One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. a. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering 'of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 10 7/02 Less Than ' Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- ilSecond One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. a. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering 'of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 10 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on ❑ ❑ ❑ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ or redirect flood flows? 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Potential impact of project post- construction activity on storm ❑ ❑ ❑ water runoff? m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material ❑ ❑ ❑ storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm ❑ ❑ ❑ on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ ❑ ❑ uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? CEQA Checklist 11 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact impact The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65:5' deep at 245 - 253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- I /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/Generai Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed Zone Change will not alter the way individual projects are evaluated regarding hydrology and water quality. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 0 LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E..Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1/Second One - Family Zone with an .Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed- Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated due to the Zone Change. 10. 11 MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource recovery site delineated on a local general,plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No mineral resources are known to exist at the sites, which are currently developed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure`of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? CEQA Checklist 12 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. All proposed projects will be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and those 'standards outlined in the General Plan. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Only the project site shall be affected, which includes two properties that include various commercial uses and one residential duplex. It is anticipated that due to this Zone Change and subsequent projects, the residential duplex will be razed. Losing two residential units is not considered significant. As such, no adverse impacts to population growth or housing are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. All proposed projects will be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and those 'standards outlined in the General Plan. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Only the project site shall be affected, which includes two properties that include various commercial uses and one residential duplex. It is anticipated that due to this Zone Change and subsequent projects, the residential duplex will be razed. Losing two residential units is not considered significant. As such, no adverse impacts to population growth or housing are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 File No.: Z2005-03 The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to 0- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested to construct a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed development will most likely, be less dense than the existing development on the site and will comply withh .all applicable building and fire codes, potentially decreasing the need for public safety protection. Therefore, impacts to public services are anticipated to be less than significant. 14. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the E ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- f /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's'project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. This will not result in increased population, as the Zone Change will prohibit construction of new residential units at the project site. As such, the project will not create a significant impact upon recreational services. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: CEQA Checklist 14 7/02 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No -- - Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® o Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to 0- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested to construct a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. The proposed development will most likely, be less dense than the existing development on the site and will comply withh .all applicable building and fire codes, potentially decreasing the need for public safety protection. Therefore, impacts to public services are anticipated to be less than significant. 14. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the E ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- f /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's'project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. This will not result in increased population, as the Zone Change will prohibit construction of new residential units at the project site. As such, the project will not create a significant impact upon recreational services. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: CEQA Checklist 14 7/02 File No.: Z 2005 -03 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property fine, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Parking for these types of projects will be located onsite unless special approval is granted through the conditional use permit process. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CEQA Checklist 15 7102 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is a Zone Change to rezone a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property fine, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR- 1 1Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 2/General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. Parking for these types of projects will be located onsite unless special approval is granted through the conditional use permit process. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CEQA Checklist 15 7102 File No.: Z 2005 -03 The proposed project is a Zone Change to a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ El 19 cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means CEQA Checklist 16 7102 .. Less Than - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ o ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, at seq. ,(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code.Section 664737 (SB221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The proposed project is a Zone Change to a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial. This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ El 19 cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means CEQA Checklist 16 7102 File No.: Z 2005 -03 that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project is a Zone Change to a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line, and measuring 200' wide and 65.5' deep at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard from PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay to C- 21General Commercial, This Zone Change is requested for a proposed Walgreen's drug store project at 245 -253 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Walgreen's project itself shall be submitted separately and when received, the potential environmental impacts of that project shall be addressed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. CEOA Checklist 17 7102 Neighborhood Petition Neighborhood Petition opposed to zone change at the property of 245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia from PR -1 to C-2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the Northerly property line measuring 50' deep and 200' wide for a commercial retail project. We the person(s) by signing this petition are opposed to any . zone change now or in the future and would like to keep the above mentioned properties zone AS IS: a PR -1 /Second One - Family Zone with an Automobile Parking Overlay. We feel this is in the best interest for the entire neighborhood. Print Name Signature , Address i 1t r9'1fF 6/28/05 Print Name: Signature: Address: /la� /- r A& I 4Rr /I/ aj ql� 2 uo �al -'�' 12 AVC- E ? �aow --4 I n , )A (' 1, .- -4 "1 ( - -Z; -�� - /) F - IT , /I /' . / %' / %' ), !'x_; " Print Name Signature Address w �e J cz Al ,k VA c� Print Name LiI� n n lI r31uA- JU��i Z94 4 -7 7�� Itii�t t,� l/ "`'/�J YL'GCJ mot-.. G��2. �/�,�j'J"��!'X �(.G�/�¢^��'�[L�o�(i�CVl��l./ 11✓ Simature Address I t ic? , Print Name: S i ature: Address: c - 71 ;_ � , L >��'� tCX l� 1��SC�i"1 n - �i�J�r'�'t y�l�'��c % ✓�: -r��, . �'Q' �"rC,/6 -3V3 s 011 f-,c Z I A I Print Name; Rios G Signature; Address: 206 i,AuP L AV NCnOva- � � •� /1.1E�i4 o /S,/ sT zc. K AuP r n L 4nR� v 23o S�Hmroc P r Ln_t N ame; flIe., A &M4- l e"&'Al l '� -5. LAVI , si mature" L Njo\- VZ C ) ( t/oL A VC Pat N C J&\-1 kJ G: Dear s %v^ 95/ OUr 12arne.3 are_ KA1any (?� suo K %/n, h4.56and acrd w!.fe, the owner o� /voa kestaarant Lvhieh 4.)1:11 be- demol:she i f C, - fy cf /}r7a a r ve 7121,5 / P eo . Th %s . restaurra4t has beer) here for m ore than a� year,) . A lot of 4rcAc6A rPS %a°'en>`s and / %� r'es�G/er7ts Knorr �`h %s restauran7" as Pare o f their' MemoAies. We have been here --or S acrd %- years s %r; ve 7r�o oVPr fh 75 .f6us ;mess. GJher� we Star -�ecC this bus,r�e� We worked Very harp( acid oper2ed -7 arays a week build 4h bus % /7ess . t)C had 5 years _ lea.a.e, anoC 5 years op -�ion fo rer2eci. feet rre could roof use the'_ 6 years o� f or! becaw-se o f ghat -there t,)" 17o de7`zti..CL rent amount That means 4hat /ara'lord Care raise uP die Yer7 G�ha fever �aey t lant • GJe- d C( hot- KnO c,> th %.5 K %nd o� �rauc( way wa %�� fir' us. We are di e h yhest da2naged bus %rless pwr�er a f ffiis Pi�j ect -rf we Lose our bus %ness ue c/o not have eocuyh mooey ifv estc+b / T-ch aoo�ier res�'zcura.�� Bob? our son and cl a uyh fv- c,,ho are_ 74 1q;;-cad 7i5% h`yyh school 1, Lsc hPeel Gc. 1 �� r; • ,r die �i /eye Soar! . �✓e Wocc Id really Nish 4z> corlti merle our % r1e5$ Evey one says �ha�' if Ps a r %d i eu l vas /art beca there Care arMeady 4.)o 6,- 1 pharma cy cha ;r7 Sta /es nearby. jhere is no i'easoi? - fv Aave ano7` Pharma h ere . rJe Krraw -1l?at ocLr personal S%-f�ec ifo/7 C.0A5;de1- i f (here '7-5 . a\ b % f1Z j& cap G�h i clr %S gOOd f 'the 0; f}r • Bcr� Uc are cv ge e; f ire fi�rcacl � /es%r/errts and 110 1PC b(f- 711 �}r - race r ti f very /ony vi�rr� GJe, ; our SeVerz� erri�v/oyees do rrcr} wan7` 'tb aP� ve fh 5 zone ehan y %r y Goh� ch a� %l/ v �lire� ten % � par l %veZ ;12 the future , 772 a17 yc�i, %nrerr/ iii ;rte y I,., .n ..... . ..... i . T I NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE . P ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL uveo" Pursuant to law, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to determine whether the following request should be approved, conditionally approved, or denied: Application No.: Z 2005 -03 Location: 245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd. Request: A Zone Change from PR -1 to C -2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 60.5' deep and 200' wide for a commercial retail project. Applicant: Rich Development Company Environmental Document: See the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration on the reverse of this notice. Time of Public Hearing: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Place of Public Hearing: City Council Chamber at Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California The application file and plans of the proposed Zone Change are available for review at the Planning Services offices. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed Zone Change. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the Zone Change, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. Persons wishing to comment on the proposed application may do so at the Public Hearing or by writing to Planning Services prior to the August 16th Public Hearing. For further information regarding this matter, or to submit comments, please contact Assistant Planner, Thomas Li by writing to Planning Services at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, or by calling (626) 574 -5447. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Public Hearing, please contact Planning Services at (626) 574 -5423 at least three (3) working days before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. This notification will help city staff in making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the Public Hearing. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on Friday, August 5. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manager Publish Date: July 25, 2005 � s 3 I NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that Planning Services of Arcadia. CA has completed an Initial Study of the Zone Change from PR -1 to C -2 for a portion of the property approximately 95' from the northerly property line measuring 60.5' deep and 200' wide for a commercial retail project at 245 -253 Foothill Blvd. in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose .of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant,effect on the environment, and has '"therefore prepared a Diaft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative "Declaration The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Project site _ is X is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project _ is X is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area -wide significance. The proposed project — will X will not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. A scoping meeting _ will X will not be held by the lead agency. Provide the date, time and location of scoping meeting if the project meets the criteria requiring the meeting or if agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting: Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall, Planning Services and are available for public review. Comments will be received until August 16, 2005. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on August 16, 2005 and the City Council will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the City.Council finds that the project will not have a sigrj fcant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Thomas Li Staff Associate Planner Title Notice of Intent 7/02 2.40 -ZDS h. Poott ll blvd. 1 2 2 .Occupant Occupant Occupant 245 E. Foothill BI. 247 E. Foothill Bl. 249 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 2 2 3 Occupant Occupant Occupant 251 E. Foothill BI. 253 E. Foothill BI. 211 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 7 21 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 226 E. Sycamore Ave. 301 E. Foothill BI. #100 301 E. Foothill Bl. 4201 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 21 21 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 301 E. Foothill BI. #205 301 E. Foothill Bl. #208 317E. Foothill Bl. #100 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 21 21 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 317 E. Foothill BI. #102 317 E. Foothill Bl. #104 317E. Foothill BI. #106 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 22 22 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 319 E. Foothill BI. #A 319 E. Foothill BI. #B 323 E. Foothill Bl. #A Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 22 22 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 323 E. Foothill BI. #B 323 E. Foothill Bl. #C 323 E. Foothill Bl. #D Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 22 23 29 Occupant Occupant Occupant 323 E. Foothill Bl. #E 1139 Valencia Way 1115 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 31 31 32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1012 North View Ave. 302 E. Foothill 131. 310E. Foothill Bl. I' Mr. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 32 33 33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 310 E. Foothill BI. 2n' Mr. 312 E. Foothill BI. #A 312 E. Foothill BI. #B Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 n4 AVERy® Address Labels Laser 5160® �� AVERYO Address Labels Laser 5160® L4D —LAS h. r'OOtnlll Blvd. 33 33 38 Occupant Occupant Occupant 312 E. Foothill BI. #C 312 E. Foothill BI. #D 315 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 39 39 39 Occupant Occupant Occupant 292 E. Foothill Bl. #A 292 E. Foothill Bl. #B 292 E. Foothill Bl. #C Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 39 39 42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 292 E. Foothill Bl. #D 292 E. Foothill Bl. #E 232 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 42 43 43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 234 E. Foothill Bl. 230 E. Foothill Bl. #A 230 E. Foothill BI. #B Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 43 44 46 Occupant Occupant Occupant 230 E. Foothill Bl. #C 228 E. Foothill Bl. 222 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 �� AVERYO Address Labels Laser 5160® 245 -253 E. Foothill Blvd. 1 5771- 028 -05 ,Sterling Foods, Inc., 3813 Durbin St. Irwindale, CA 91706 2 5771- 028 -06 Noda, Kenichi & Hideko 584 Acacia St. Sierra Madre, CA 91024 3 5771- 028 - 28,37,38,39,40 Ralphs Grocery Co. P.O. Box 54143 Los Angeles, CA 90054 4 5771- 028 -34 Chan, Samuel & Christina 212 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 7 5771- 028-48 Lin, Simon & Shyr 64 Oak Knoll Ln. Bradbury, CA 9 10 10 10 5771- 028-44 Litty, Edward & Roswitha 236 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 13 5771- 028 -26 Chiang, Hsiu Lan 246 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 16 5771- 028 -18,47 Bray, William & Peggy 314 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 19 5771- 02845 Santos, Roger & Sally 307 E. Foothill BI. #C Arcadia, CA 91006 5771- 028 -35 Same As 21 24 5771- 029 -20 Schroeder, Richard & Colleen 1135 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 27 5771 - 029 -23 Natham, Curtis & Kimberly 1123 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 n0 AVERY@ Address labels 5 5771- 028 -13 Thistlewaite, Edward 220 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 8 5771 - 02849 Shin, James & Edna 228 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 11 5771 - 028 -09 Guiwits, Stella 238 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 14 5771- 028 -27 Wright, James & Kathryn 250 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 17 5771- 028 -22 Ou, Tony & Grace 307 E. Foothill BI. #B Arcadia, CA 91006 20 5771- 02846 Deliman, Alice 307 E. Foothill BI. #D Arcadia, CA 91006 22 5771- 028 -29,30 Whipple, Ettelene 3838 E. Foothill BI. Pasadena, CA 91107 25 5771- 029 -21 Snelling, Byron & Betty 1131 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 28 5771- 029 -24 Truong, Mike & Angela 1119 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 6 5771- 028 -42 Song, Yuhe 222 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 9 5771- 02843 Klein, Jeffrey & Linda 234 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 12 5771- 028 -08 Hsin, Wei 242 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 15 5771- 028 -19 Lee, Jay 300 E. Sycamore Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 18 5771- 028 -23 Ruyle, Mikel & Brenda 307 E. Foothill BI. #A Arcadia, CA 91006 21 5771- 028 -24,25 Tang, Diana 1123 1l St. #5 Santa Monica, CA 90403 23 5771- 029 -19 Chu, Stella 1330 Bedford Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 26 5771- 029 -22 Basinger, Scott 1127 Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 29 5771- 029 -25 Siu, Wayne & Mona 201 N. Brea Ave. #A Brea, CA 92821 Laser 51600 L4:, —ZXS b. Poothtll Blvd. 30 Wong, Frank 11 I I Valencia Way Arcadia, CA 91006 5771- 029 -26 31 5772- 017 -15 Holakoui, Ali & Margit 743 Crescent Dr. Monrovia, CA 91016 33 5772 - 017 -33 Dau Partners Ltd. 475 W. Palm Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 36 Humphrey, Michael 307 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 34 5772- 017 -32 Earl], Terry 320 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 5772 - 017 -17 37 5772- 017 -18 Snelson, Joy 311 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 39 5772 - 016 -01 Wong, John & Shiangling 307 E. Colorado Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 42 5772- 016 -04,05 Harbich, Robert & Patricia 663 Gloria Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 45 5772- 016 -08 Li, Shi H. & Zhao Su P. 244 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 48 5772 - 016 -21 Shu, Hui Wang 225 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 40 5772- 016 -02 Kalish, Stefan & Olga 244 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 43 5772 - 016 -06 Megerdichian,John & Nilda 230 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 46 5772 -016- 09,10,11 Patzakis, John & Roulakis, Steven 830 Gainsborough Dr. Pasadena, CA 91107 49 5772 - 016 -22 Henriquez, Robert 229 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 51 5772- 016 -24 52 5772 - 016 -25 Diaz, Saul & Cecilia Yeung, Raymond & Branda 237 Laurel Ave. 241 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 Arcadia, CA 91006 54 5772- 016 -27 Campisciano, Miguel 1005 Northview Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 C AVERY0 Address Labels 32 5772- 017 -31 Pedroza, Robert & Susan 310 E. Foothill BI. Arcadia, CA 91006 35 5772- 017 -16 Lin, Hsien Min 303 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 38 5772- 017 -19 Carlsten, Katherine 890 W. Mabel Ave. Monterey Park, CA 91754 41 5772 - 016 -03 Huang, Lei 240 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 44 5772- 016 -07 Mellinger, Larry & lane 226 E. Foothill Bl. Arcadia, CA 91006 47 5772 - 016 -20 Venzon,John 221 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 50 5772 - 016 -23 Arasawa, Tetsuro & Sheila 233 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 53 5772 - 016 -26 Lewis, Stephen & Naomi 245 Laurel Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 Laser 51601D umsez ie gaoarn 5ieu° i - avu u�- vcRr 19 5771- 028 -45 Santos, Roger &Sally 24095 Plata Ct Wildomar CA 92595 -7843 ®o9LS ®J1213gd► Ab3AV-O9-008-L 0091S 31V1dW31 ®tianV asO wOYAJane•AVAM ® 6ui3uud aaii 96pnwS pue wet Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160u wr L» n. rouu„r,® U- rivcnl Tab Johnson CT Investors Ptich Development Co. 611 W. 6` St. #1600 23456 Madero St. #230 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Attn: Jim Shuemaker Tab Johnson CT Investors Rich Development Co. 611 W. 6 St. #1600 23456 Madero St. #230 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Attn: Jim Shuemaker Tab Johnson CT Investors Rich Development Co. 611 W. 6" St. #1600 23456 Madero St. #230 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Attn: Jim Shuemaker Tab Johnson CT Investors Rich Development Co. 611 W. 6' St. #1600 23456 Madero St. #230 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Attn: Jim Shuemaker Joseph W. Rich Rich Development Co. 1000 N. Western Ave. #200 San Pedro, CA 90732 Joseph W. Rich Rich Development Co. 1000 N. Western Ave. #200 San Pedro, CA 90732 Joseph W. Rich Rich Development Co. 1000 N. Western Ave. #200 San Pedro, CA 90732 Joseph W. Rich Rich Development Co. 1000 N. Western Ave. #200 San Pedro, CA 90732 AUMV - 008 - 1 009151!jege a! zesimn ®09t5 ®Jl?13AW wowa9Ae•AUAM ® ap!dea a6eyo9s a 19 a6eunogpue uo!ssardw! NOT DELIVERABLE NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING — Z 2005 -03 Lin, Simon & Shyre 64 Oak Knoll Lane, Bradbury Chu, Stella 1330 Bedford Road, Arcadia Snelson, Joy 311 E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia Holakoui, Ali & Margit 743 Crescent Dr., Monrovia Tang, Diana 1122 11"' St. #5, Santa Monica Occupant 222 E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia Humphrey, Michael 307 E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia Occupant 301 E. Foothill Blvd., #100, Arcadia Occupant 317 E. Foothill Blvd., #106, Arcadia Occupant 317 E. Foothill Blvd., #104, Arcadia Occupant 317 E. Foothill Blvd., #100, Arcadia Occupant 317 E. Foothill Blvd., #102, Arcadia Occupant 319 E. Foothill Blvd., #B, Arcadia Occupant 323 E. Foothill Blvd., #A, Arcadia Occupant 323 E. Foothill Blvd., #C, Arcadia Occupant 1115 Valencia Way, Arcadia Aug 12 OS 12:40p Michael (Mick) Clark STERLING FOODS, INC. 3810 DURBIN STREET IRWINDALE. CALIFORNIA 91706 (626) 318 -6900 • FAX (816) 397-360a June 23, 2005 Planning Commission City Council Attn: Ms. Donna Butler Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia, City Hall 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Ms. Butler: (626)337 -3624 p.1 This letter is in support of the above application, and requests that the Planning Commission adopt an affirmative recommendation to the City Council for their adoption. For over 35 years, we have operated a Shakey's restaurant at 245 E. Foothill Blvd. and have been an active, positive corporate community supporter and good neighbor. The restaurant building over these years has been in a portion of the "P" zone, in fact a larger area of this zone than the application. Our restaurant operation, which also has more intensive patron usage and trip generation than the proposed drugstore use, has not had any negative complaints over these years. Therefore we believe that the application and the proposed use is benign and will be a positive influence in the surrounding community, and will continue as an excellent and supportive community corporate citizen. Please forward this letter to the Commission and Council members to be included in all hearings relative to Zone Change and Conditional Use Applications. Very truly urs, Vvl Michael "Mick" Clark President Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/05 Arcadia City Council C/O Ms. Donna Butler Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Calif. 91066 Re: 253 E. Foothill Blvd. — Proposed Walgreens Arcadia Dear Ms. Butler: We have owned this property for over 30 years. During that time there has been two structures and a swimming pool in the "P" zone and one of the structures is located 5 feet from the rear property line. The rear property fence has been a simple see - through old chain link type of fence without any sound barrier qualities and is currently broken down. The existing foliage does not provide any sound barrier characteristics. Throughout this entire time there never have been any complaints about noise, headlights from cars, or other possible nuisances to the adjacent rear neighbors. The proposed project, as revised, has addressed all possible questions about noise and light far beyond what has existed for over thirty years and far beyond what has ever been required by the City. Further, the proposed building structure is situated over 100 feet from the rear property line with 20 feet of extensive landscaping of 20 feet along rear sound wall and 40 feet in front of the proposed single lane drive thru area. The building also incorporates an enclosed trash area which does not exist at the existing Shakeys building next door. In fact, the existing Shakeys building is located 85 feet away from the rear property line, and has not had complaints from us, the rear neighbors, or from our tenants who have lived closed than 85 feet away from that building and trash area for all these years. Thus, the proposed realignment of the "P" zone is larger than the current Shakeys building allows. The proposed project also provides more amenities in sound reduction, landscaping, and pleasing elevations than the existing Ralphs to the West. The proposed project will reduce traffic from the existing levels, will eliminate existing liquor sales, and is a smaller building than allowable under City Codes. For all the above stated reasons and more, we and our broker at Coldwell Banker view the proposed project as a positive improvement on the two parcels and will enhance the streetscape. We urge the planning Commission to recommend approval of the realignment of the "P" zone to the City Council and that the City Council adopts the approval. Further, we urge the Planning Commission to adopt the CUP. Sincerely, K enichi and Hiid Noda �e Miyahara / �� -nom August 12, 2005 To: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City of Arcadia From: Kwang Kim Sun Kim Business Owner of NODA Restaurant 249 East Foothill Blvd., Arcadia, CA 91006 Re: Withdrawal of the letter submitted on July 5, 2005 Dear Sir A letter dated July 5, 2005 from Noda restaurant that was presented to the Planning Commission has now been withdrawn. August 12, 2005 Kwang Kim Sun Kim Dear srr; � /5jo our rJarnes are_ Kk 2 Sun K %rn ha..56al7w and G� �e the oraner °� /�lo d� Kes faurar�t r✓h %ch w "// be- demo/ i f C c7 �jrracl A aPprUve yh %s �roJeet. 7h T-5 restaurant has ,been here {ci-- more fhari a7 years • A /07 o f ; ArYAdiO IPS;a'Pnts re5i de/JfS Knox✓ 716%5 uo Park o f �he:r meno� %es We have b &en here -fir S cv2al % years 5;12 re w� FocK over 5 bus%ness. G�herr we SfarteoE fh:5 bus;r we worKed very hard at2l opened a vc+ys a c.wPe,k' 7V ba ld 6�0 4h %5 bus%ness . 6.le had 5 years /e a zQ ancC 5 years c l p tio/1 - fo 3 at rje could rJof- use the years o / Pf CvJ bec�+use °f that there c✓aa rio o%�`a %P rent Cl/1 CW2t That �e�r�s ghat /andlor�l �� va;se uP `�ic rer7t GJ/'1ate�er - �iey cant. l.�'e d;d ho7' �i�0(.� + K;nd °� franc( ciao wa %f %hy f us. lti'e are -{�'ie hi�hesf e'aina�ed bws %'less Gwr�er °f- is we /ose our busirless ue alc not have erlouyh money estz+bl %Sh al)ct7her res�`zaurar�t 3caft our Scn and d a uyh fr r c lho are- ;4 lqrzadr°, h`yyh soho°/ c-so i�Pe�f c lo vncney 7CC -MC Ccl /eye soot . �✓E ,>ou ld Yea // wish -�-D our s5 . Everyone says 4hAt it %s a r ; d ecclous Plan be ca n „se Wh ere Oke a /rea dy - W L2 6, - 9 Pha rma c Sfieres nearby. There is r%o rea5cr7 -ft 1,)ave uhothe`- Pharmacy here . rye K/�ow `that occ.r persona/ S %7�r'a7�iorr %ll r%ct IPe Gets %tiered s there %s h % P/aJ wh%C1-7 iS �oGc(r the y • 8u7 GJe are or/e f 7�e /�rrr c�� res %der7ts and hope fo b� Tip <Jr�Aa';ti �cr ve.y /orgy �� e ;r� c/tid our � eVerm -C 1-2 w an rb Gt�Pti ✓E fh�5 cL he CJjanyir�a -t-hefure , 9 8/16/05 Good Evening, My name is Jim Wright. My wife Kathy and I own the property at 250 East Sycamore Avenue. We live there with our two children. Our property is directly behind the proposed zone change. I have spoken before at meetings concerning this issue. I'll try not to waste your time repeating our same concerns. Forgive me if I do, I'll try to make it brief. Our feelings have not changed, and they are on file in your records. The neighborhood has filed a second petition against this new proposed zone change. Every single homeowner in this neighborhood has signed this petition. The new proposal is improved over the first one but several issues still remain. Most importantly, the drive through and the loading dock location. We are totally against this change, which would allow a retail drug store to be built in the portion of the PR -1 zone that was originally designed as a buffer for the neighbors. Our situation is very unique in that the rear portion of the PR -1 zone has existing residential properties. Almost every neighbor that borders this'zone has lived there at least fifteen years and some up to twenty and thirty. We wish it to remain as it is. Unfortunately through all of these meetings we have learned that there is a possibility for this residential property to be torn down and replaced with a parking overlay. This is under the guidelines of the existing zoning. We as a neighborhood do not feel that this new proposal to extend the C -2 and shorten the buffer zone is fair or in our best interest whatsoever. This proposal is to accommodate a developer whose project the entire neighborhood is against. When this all started, a similar situation happened with the PR -1 zoning behind Cocos. The residence objected and signed a neighborhood petition. They stated the same concerns that we have. The city counsel voted to leave the existing zoning. In your last notice about this public hearing it states that the planning services of Arcadia conducted a study of this project. They concluded that this project will have no significant effect on the environment. We do not understand how they came to that conclusion. We live in this environment and we feel it greatly impacts us. We do not want a retail store that is open seven days a week, open late, and possibly even twenty four hours. This project will cause noise and air pollution, neither of which we have with the residential properties. We have mentioned at prior meetings all of the negative impacts this project will cause. Can someone please express even one benefit the neighborhood will gain? We do not want a drive through window which,forces all traffic around the east side and back of the building. We do not want a rear loading dock that will have deliveries all hours, day and night. This site plan shows a loading dock that is a covered building. It sticks out another- twenty five to thirty feet past the main building. This is clearly beyond the zoning. Can they now build beyond the zone change? This puts all the trucks and noise right behind us. For these reasons, we do feel this will have a significant effect on the environment where we live. Another major issue is how do the homeowners recover the loss in their property value? I am sure everyone can relate to that. Our properties are surrounded by residential homes. If this proposal goes through, we will have the development and all the negative impacts that come with it. I personally have invested all I can borrow to build our home. We were right in the middle of construction when these proposals all started. We bought this property with the current zoning and invested in our home to increase it's value. This project will certainly take that value away. How are we expected to absorb that? We ask you to put yourselves in our shoes; we think you would feel the same way. In past meetings, we were told from the developers and from the planning commission that it is possible to build this project within the existing zoning. We were also told that situation could possibly have and even higher impact on the neighborhood. We do not understand how that assumption can be made without a plan for the neighbors to evaluate. A plan which addresses the neighbors concerns and is built within the existing zoning. We feel we are being pressured to accept the plan with the zone change without any options. Let us see an alternative plan conforming to the current zoning. We should have the right to all options so we can make an informed decision on which impacts us the least. - The developers have stated this new building is consistent with the Ralph's building. We agree it is consistent. I have talked to those neighbors who live behind Ralph's. They do not like the constant unloading of trucks; they do not like the constant traffic from the public who use the alley for a short cut. They admit they bought their homes with that condition, and that is the big difference. With this new project, their situation will be even worse because now all the local traffic will use that short cut to get to Walgreen's. You can bet on it. The new building is consistent with Ralph's, but it is totally inconsistent with what is there now. It is totally inconsistent with the office buildings that are directly to the east. There you have two large office buildings, with a driveway in between with access for parking and the neighbors that live behind them. I have talked to those neighbors as well. They also say they bought their homes with that situation, and say it has very little impact on them. We do not understand why a similar type commercial development cannot be done with our situation. A development like that is within the existing zoning. The building is on the street front, and all the parking is in the rear. All of the activity happens Monday through Friday, eight to five. It has virtually no impact at night other than low lights. Evenings and weekends are when people are home with their families. This would be a much more acceptable development for all of us. We understand Noda and Shakey's have the right to sell: We also know the city cannot be forced into a development they feel would not serve the city or it's residents favorably. All we are asking is to replace the existing zoning with something that has the same low impact that the neighbors have enjoyed for the last thirty years. Do we really need three drug stores all within three blocks on the same street? Is it really worth compromising the lifestyles of the Arcadians who lived in, and loved this city for so many years? Since this whole issue started I have watched many Arcadia government broadcasts. In all cases, it was very clear That all decisions were made for the welfare of the s,�rt,;i aZ and it's residents. We ask for your support and thank you for listening. Sincerely, Jim Wright 1. 6, A.,.n f 1.01 STAFF REPORT � of " 0' Development Services Department August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator j Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner -TL- SUBJECT: in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Development Report (LDR). Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY Each city in the State of California is required to submit annually a Local Development Report (LDR) and certify by resolution to the local Congestion Management Agency that it is in compliance with the local Congestion Management Program (CMP). For the City of Arcadia, the report and resolution are sent to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) as the Local Congestion Management Agency. The report is due each year by September 1 st. Staff is recommending that the attached Resolution No. 6478 be adopted and sent to the MTA with the Local Development Report. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) was developed. in response to the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. Proposition 111 provided an increase in the State Gas Tax to fund regional transportation improvements (Streets and Highways Code, Section 2105) and included the CMP to monitor regional transportation conditions. Conformance with the CMP assures that local agencies are providing transportation improvements to offset the traffic congestion resulting from new development. If a city does not conform to the CMP, that city's share of the Gas Tax increase provided by Proposition 111 may be withheld and allocated to the County to use on regional Reso. 6478.- CMP August 16, 2005 Page 1 transportation projects. To assure conformance with the CMP, local agencies must perform the following actions: 1. Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (Ord. 1984) and a Land Use Analysis (LUA) Program (Reso. 5780). 2. Submit to the Local Congestion Management Agency, by September 1 st of each year; a resolution finding that the City is in conformance with the CMP, and a Local Development Report (LDR) showing that the City is meeting its traffic congestion mitigation responsibilities. For the City of Arcadia, the resolution and LDR must be submitted to the MTA, and the LDR consists of a Deficiency Plan Status Summary; a New Development Activity Report; and Exempted Development Activity. The requirements of the TDM Ordinance (Ord.. 1984) and the LUA Program (Reso. 5780) are being applied to relevant projects, and the attached Resolution No. 6478 and LDR verify that the ,City of Arcadia is in conformance with the CMP. Compliance Action No The City Council adopted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (Ord. 1984) and a Land Use Analysis (LUA) Program (Reso. 5780) in 1994. The TDM Ordinance is applied to new, non - residential developments of 25,000 or more gross square feet. The LUA Program is applied to any project that is subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Compliance Action No. 2 Annually, a resolution and Local Development Report (LDR) must be submitted to the MTA by September 1st to show that the City is meeting its traffic congestion mitigation responsibilities. The CMP requires that cities mitigate traffic congestion resulting from new development. Historically,. cities are required to track all new development activity. and the CMP assesses debits and credits based on new development and demolition activity. In addition, cities may submit to the MTA a list of transportation projects that reduce local and /or regional traffic congestion for credits. This year, the only requirement for CMP compliance is to report on all new development activity using the LDR and adopt the self- certifying Resolution. The attached Resolution No. 6478 finds the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the CMP and adopts the Local Development Report (LDR) in accordance with Reso. 6478 - CMP August 16, 2005 Page 2 California Government Code Section 65089. For the current reporting period (June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005) the LDR consists of the following: Deficiency Plan Summary This form (Section 1, Page 1) summarizes the LDR and shows the City's development totals. ' Part 1: New Development Activity This form (Section 1, Page 2) shows the number of residential units built and other development activity based on building permits that were issued during the current reporting period. Part 2: New Development Adjustments This form (Section 1, Page 3) shows the adjustments to the new development debits based on demolition permits that were issued during the current reporting period. Part 3: Exempted Development Activity This form (Section 1, Page 4) shows that development which is exempt from being reported as "new development activity' such as low- income housing, and reconstruction of earthquake damaged buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Reporting on compliance with a local congestion management program is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The development or adoption of transportation improvement programs is exempt by statute (CEQA Guidelines Section 15276). FISCAL IMPACT Nonconformance with the CMP could jeopardize Gas Tax funds. If the MTA determined that a city is not in conformance with the CMP, the State Controller is notified to withhold from that jurisdiction its annual allocation of the State Gas Tax increase enacted by Proposition 111 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 2105). If, after 12 months, a city still has not conformed to the CMP, the withheld Gas Tax funds will be allocated to the County. For the City of Arcadia, the amount that is currently subject to CMP conformance is approximately $340,000.00. The City of Arcadia, however, is in conformance with the CMP, so these funds are not in jeopardy. Reso. 6478 - CMP August 16, 2005 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: A. Adopt Resolution No. 6478: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Development Report (LDR) in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089; and, B. Direct the City Clerk to transmit a fully executed copy of Resolution No. 6478 and the Local Development Report to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by September 1, 2005. Attachments: Resolution No. 6478 Local Development Report Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager Reso. 6478 - CMP August 16, 2005 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 6483 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. WHEREAS, CMP statute requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( "LACMTA "), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, to annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, LACMTA requires submittal of the CMP Local Development Report by September 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 16, 2005, concerning the CMP and the LDR. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Arcadia has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 2004 CMP adopted by the LACMTA Board on July 22, 2004. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management chapter. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program chapter. The City has adopted a Local Development Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the 2004 CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan consistent with the LACMTA Board adopted 2003 Short Range Transportation Plana SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Passed, approved and adopted this 16` day of August, 2005. /S/ JOHN WU® Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /S/ JAMES H. BARROWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FQRM: P City Attorney of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6483 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 16th day of August, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia City Of Arcadia Date Prepared: August 4, 2005 2005 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2004 - MAY 31, 2005 Contact: Thomas P. LI Phone Number: 626- 574 -5447 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY All "#values" cells on this page are automatically calculated. DEVELOPMENT TOTALS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Single Family Residential Multi - Family Residential Group Quarters Dwelling Units 10.00 59.00 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) Freestanding Eating & Drinking NON - RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Lodging Industrial Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) Office (50,000- 299,999 sq.ft.) Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) Medical Government InstitutlonaUEducational University (# of students) OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ENTER IF APPLICABLE ENTER IF APPLICABLE 1,000 Net S .Ft 10.74 0.00 6.08 Nei 14.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Trips 0.00 1 0.00 EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS Exempted Dwelling Units 1 0 1. Note: Please change dates on this form for later years. Section 1, Page 1 2. Net square feet is the difference between new development and adjustments entered on pages 2 and 3. City/ of Acadia Date Prepared: August 4, 2005 2005 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2004 - MAY 31, 2005 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." PART DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 63.00 Multi-Family Residential 90.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial less than 300,000 s .ft. 10.74 Commercial 300,000 s .ft. or more 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 6.08 NON - RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 14.73 Office less than 50,000 s .ft. 0.00 Office 50,000 - 299,999 s .ft. 0.00 Office 300,000 s .ft. or more 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University # of students 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description Attach additional sheets If necessary) Daily Trips Enter "0" if none ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 Section 1, Page 2 City/ Of Arcadia Date Prepared: August 4, 2005 2005 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2004 - MAY 31, 2005 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0. '•' T 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both Issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any structure with the reporting eriod. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 53.00 Multi-Family Residential 31.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial less than 300,000 s .ft. 0.00 Commercial 300,000 s .ft. or more 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON- RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office less than 50,000 s .ft. 0.00 Office 50,000 - 299,999 s .ft. 0.00 Office 300,000 s .ft. or more 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional /Educational 0.00 University # of students 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description Attach additional sheets If necessary) Daily Trips Enter "0" if none ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 Section I, Page 3 City of Arcadia Date Prepared: August 4, 2005 2005 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2004 - MAY 31, 2005 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." •. EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TOTALS) LowNery Low Income Housing Dwelling Units High Density Residential Dwelling Units Near Rail Stations Mixed Use Developments 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet Near Rail Stations Dwelling Units Development Agreements Entered 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet into Prior to July 10, 1989 0 Dwelling Units Reconstruction of Buildings 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet Damaged in April 1992 Civil Unrest Dwelling Units Reconstruction of Buildings 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet Damaged in Jan. 1994 Earthquake Dwelling Units Total Dwelling Units 0 Total Non - residential sq. ft. (in 1,OOOs) 1 0 Section 1, Page 4 Exempted Development Definitions: 1. LowNery Low Income Housing: As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as follows: - Low - Income: equal to or less than 80% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size. - Very Low - Income: equal to or less than 50% of the County median Income, with adjustments for family size. 2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: Development located within 114 mile of a fixed rail passenger station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre Is automatically considered high density. 3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: Mixed -use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger staflon, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing. 4. Development Agreements: Projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section 65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989. 5. Reconstruction or replacement of any residential or non - residential structure which Is damaged or destroyed, to the extent of > or = to 50% of Its reasonable value, by fire, flood, earthquake or other similar calamity. 6. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and where the local jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally precluded projects do not have to be reported in the LDR. 4 C. U� ° Tg STAFF REPORT Office of the City Clerk DATE: February 1, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY Recommendation: Renew the Director of Emergency Services issuance of a local emergency proclamation. SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session. The Director of Emergency Services (Director) of the City of Arcadia found that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property arose within Arcadia caused by torrential rain, which began on January 8, 2005. The Director signed and issued a local emergency proclamation on January 13, 2005 (see attached). Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1432, Section 2213.2.1., whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by the Director, the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven (7) days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect. In addition, the City Council must act to renew the proclamation at each of their subsequent meetings until final termination of the emergency. At their January 18, 2005 meeting, the City Council acted to approve the local emergency proclamation via Resolution No. 6459, which reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY WITHIN SAID CITY PERTAINING TO THE TORRENTIAL RAIN AND RELATED MATTERS COMMENCING ON JANUARY 8, 2005. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that the City Council act to renew the local emergency proclamation by again approving Resolution No. 6459. APPROVED: William R. Kelly, City Manager Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ARCADIA '�MWVI PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session, and; WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Arcadia does hereby find; that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within said City caused by torrential rain; which began on the 8ch day of January, 2005. and; That these conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of said City, and; That the City Council of the City of Arcadia is not in session and cannot immediately be called into session; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMS that a local emergency now exists throughout said City, and; IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency the powers, functions and duties of the emergency organization of the this City shall be those prescribed by state law, by ordinances and resolutions of this City, and; that this emergency proclamation shall expire in 7 days after issuance unless confirmed and ratified by the governing body of the City of Arcadia. January 13, 2005 By :: tllt�t1 b� William R. Kelly City Manager/Director of Emergency Services RESOLUTION NO. 6459 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY WITHIN SAID CITY PERTAINING TO THE TORRENTIAL RAIN AND RELATED MATTERS COMMENCING ON JANUARY 8, 2005 . WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to ratification by the City Council within seven (7) days; and WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have. arisen within this City,. caused torrential rain commencing on January 8, 2005, at which time the City Council was not in session; and WHEREAS, said City Council does hereby find that the aforesaid conditions, of extreme peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence. of a local emergency; and WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within said City on the 13"' day of January, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 SECTION 1. That said local emergency proclamation is hereby ratified and confirmed by the Arcadia City Council and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, State of California. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this ATTEST: /S JAMES H. BLARROWS . City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 18th day of January , 2005. /S IGGAR Y A. KOVACI Mayor of the City of Arcadia 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City . Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6459 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council'held on the 18111 day of January, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None JARMIES H. . . ■ l uyclEiEaf tfie City of Arcadia 3 CJ, , 4 , STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Directo Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Sery ices Manager Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Recommendation: Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC preventative maintenance and service contract for various City facilities SUMMARY On August 19, 2003, the City Council approved a one (1) year Agreement with optional contract extensions to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Service Contract for various City facilities. Sheldon Mechanical is reaching the end of their first contract extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the existing contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the existing agreement. The contractor's offer of extension does not reflect a change in price and all other conditions of the Agreement are to remain in effect. Based on the excellent service provided by Sheldon Mechanical during the previous years, staff recommends that the City Council award a second contract extension in the amount of $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC preventative maintenance and service contract at various City facilities. DISCUSSION The Public Works Services Department is responsible for the maintenance of all City facilities. The day -to -day operation, monthly scheduled maintenance and extraordinary equipment repairs of all HVAC equipment. Preventative maintenance programs have been implemented on HVAC equipment at all park and building facilities. The contract provided for systematic scheduling of preventative maintenance tasks for multiple buildings and facilities. This preventative maintenance schedule is intended to minimize the occurrence of unscheduled maintenance repair services. Mayor and City Council August 16, 2005 Page 2 On August 19, 2003, the City Council awarded the HVAC Preventative Maintenance Service Contract for the various City Facilities with optional annual extensions to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation. On June 1, 2004 Council awarded a one (1) year contract extension to Sheldon Mechanical and is approaching the end of their first extension. Sheldon Mechanical has submitted a written offer to extend the contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the existing Agreement without an increase in prices. All other conditions of the Agreement are to remain the same. Staff is recommending that the City Council award a second annual contract extension in the amount of $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical, Corporation for the HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Service Contract for various City Facilities. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the 2005 -06 C.I.P. and Operating Budget for this contract. The total amount of the service contract is $105,490.00. RECOMMENDATIONS Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $105,490.00 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Service Contract for various City Facilities. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract extension in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved: A lk William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:GFL:DM:dw 4 Administrative Services Department DATE: August 16, 2005 e , TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director® Prepared by: Chris Ludlum, Senior Management Analyst; and' John Cuevas, Financial Services Manager / City Treasurer 0q SUBJECT: Resolution No. P% fixing the amount of revenue to be raised from Property taxes for fiscal year 2005 -2006 to pay the debt service on the general obligation bonds and the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the lighting districts Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 [Division 14 of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 18,000 et seq.] to establish lighting maintenance districts within the City. The current lighting districts consist of five (5) districts (Exhibit "A "). These districts were formed to provide a source of revenue for the cost of power, maintenance, and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs collected from a tax applied to land values. Additionally, in June of 2001, the City issued General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a Police facility. The debt service on the bonds is payable from a voter approved levy. DISCUSSION Each year a Resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds and the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's lighting districts. This information is the basis for establishing tax rates, which are forwarded to Los Angeles County and applied to properties in specific districts. A separate schedule (Exhibit "B ") is attached to provide expanded detail of assessed valuations, beginning balances, estimated expenditures, and the proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2005 -2006. Mayor and City Council August 16, 2005 Page 2 A special election was held on November 2, 1999, to consider a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $8,000,000 for the construction of a Police facility. More than two- thirds of the votes cast were in favor of the agreed indebtedness with the principal and interest payable from taxes levied upon taxable property within the City. This annual levy will provide for principal and interest payments totaling $546,866 in FY 05 -06. Due to the most recent increase in total assessed valuations of 7% within the City of Arcadia, the annual tax rate levied for the general obligation bonds has decreased from last year. A resident owning a home with an assessed valuation of $500,000 will realize an annual savings of approximately $4.01. The proposed annual levy is $37.51, while last year's levy was $41.52. FISCAL IMPACT The rates established for fiscal year 2005 -2006 will recover the debt service payment on the general obligation bonds and the costs eligible for reimbursement within the established districts. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 6479, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California fixing the amount of revenue to be raised from property taxes for fiscal year 2005 -2006 to pay the debt service on the general obligation bonds and the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the lighting districts Attachments Approved: U OM William R. Kelly, City Manager TLH:CL: CITY OF ARCADIA STREET LIGHTING MAP ZONE A EDISON ZONE B LS-1 ZONE C ZONED EDISON ZONE E T LS-2 EXHIBIT "A" I _Jc f Exhibit "B" LIGHTING DISTRICTS Balance 2005 -06 Estimated Estimated % Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates 7 -01 -05 Valuations Revenues (1) Expenditures (2) 2005 -06 (3) Zone A (796) 228,798,422 42,000 40,762 .0194224 Zone B 31,042 1,349,678,470 65,000 95,589 .0022988 Zone C (19,521) 299,124,700 104,000 84,050 .0427859 Zone D 27,978 318,056,390 150,000 177,929 :0457457 Zone E 3,963 329,820,492 57,000 60,648 .0165853 (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help ensure districts maintain a positive balance. (2) Where major capital costs are planned or have been completed, the proposed tax capitalizes such costs over a fixed period of years. (3) For comparison, last year's rate were as follows: Zone A - .017362 B-.004470 C - .025955 D-.031937 E - .015570 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Balance 2005 -06 Estimated % Available Assessed Tax Tax Rates 7 -01 -05 Valuations Revenues (4) Debt Service (5) 2005 -2006 (6) 56,701 7,622,972,055 491,000 546,866 .0075017 (4) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help ensure districts maintain a positive balance. (5) Per debt service schedule. (6) For comparison, last year's rate was as follows: .008305 RESOLUTION NO. 6482 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED FROM PROPERTY TAXES NESESSARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -2006 TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS OF THE CITY LIGHTING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following is the amount of revenue necessary during the fiscal year 2005 -2006 to pay the authorized maintenance, operating, and capital improvement costs of the specified Arcadia Consolidated Lighting Districts: District A $42,000 District B $65,000 District C $104,000 District D $150,000 District E $57,000 SECTION 2. That the above lighting maintenance districts. illuminate rights of way and therefore benefit streets. SECTION 3. That the following is the amount of revenue necessary during fiscal year 2005 -2006 to pay the authorized debt service on the Series A, 2001 Annual Obligation Bonds: $491,000. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this16th' day of August 2005. /S/ JOHN WUO Mayor of the City of Arcadia 00y03In /S/ JAMES H, BARRO City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 6A STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6482 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 16th day of August, 2005 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Chandler, Kovacic, Marshall, Segal and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Kl °.2 ' ;# Administrative Services Department DATE: August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE UTILZING PERSONNEL LEGAL SERVICES UNDER CURRENT LETTER AGREEMENTS Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreements and authorize new fiscal terms. BACKGROUND In January 2003, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Administrative Services Director interviewed several attorneys and firms primarily for the purpose of selecting a firm to represent the City during labor negotiations. William Floyd of Best, Best and Krieger was ultimately selected for that purpose and that action was approved by the City Council in March 2003. In addition, staff also felt it was critical to have access to more than one attorney or firm when addressing issues in the area of employee relations. Many times when an investigation into a matter is necessary, it is imperative that an independent attorney that will not ultimately be defending the City if litigation occurs, conduct the investigation, represent the City in a grievance hearing, etc. As a result, the City reached agreement with independent firms for services on an as needed basis. The City Council was informed of this action in a staff report in March 2003. DISCUSSION Due to continued activity with several issues that are just about completed, staff is projecting that personnel legal services costs will not exceed appropriation authority but will exceed previous City Council's authorized contract amount for continuing with . independent legal services under current letter agreements. As a result, staff is recommending the C ity Council authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreements that are in place and authorize a new contract fiscal amount with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore ($30,000) and Jackson Lewis, LLP ($70,000). Staff has been working with these firms on a number of personnel issues and is recommending these two firms continue their work with the City on several cases that are anticipated to be. complete within the next two months. FISCAL IMPACT Adequate funds are available in the General Fund for the 2005 /06 fiscal year RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current letter agreement and authorize new fiscal terms. Approved: ulna � ..,...... William R. Kelly, City Manager STAFF REPORl Office of the City Manager DATE: August 16, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council p� FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager D 1 By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: PEAFOWL Recommendation: Provide direction SUMMARY In response to comments made by residents at the July 19, 2005 City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a report discussing "peafowl in Arcadia" and offering alternative courses of action for the Council's consideration. It is recommended that the City Council establish a current policy on peafowl and /or provide direction as to further action staff should take. BACKGROUND Every so often, particularly during mating season (early spring to early autumn), the City receives calls from residents who are unhappy about sharing their neighborhood with peafowl. In general, the most common complaints are about the noise the birds make, the debris they leave and the damage they do to landscaping. To be fair, it should be noted that while there are people who do not appreciate living with peafowl, in terms of contact with the City there are just as many people (actually probably more) who have come to terms with the birds and appreciate the unique aspect they bring to life in Arcadia. The City's policy for many years has been to take a "hands -off' approach in dealing with peafowl. That is, we do not trap, relocate or otherwise handle the birds. For those who are interested in deterring the peafowl from visiting their homes, the City has made available to the public an informational brochure on the habits of peafowl and their likes _0 f and dislikes. Mayor and City Council - peafowl August 16, 2005 Page 2 In terms of the Municipal Code, there are two sections that may be used to address peafowl. Section 4137 states "No person shall feed or make any food or edible thing available to any animal or fowl in, on, or upon any public street, sidewalk or parkway." Section 4139.1 states: "The keeping of birds or animals including household pets, except as otherwise prohibited by any provision of this Code, is hereby declared to be only permissive and to be at all times subject to the continuing regulation and control by the City. In no event shall any bird or animal be kept or maintained by any person at any location or in any manner or quantities so as to unreasonably disrupt or disturb the peace and quiet of any person or to interfere with the reasonable use of property or enjoyment of life by any person, or unreasonably to cause damage, destruction, detriment or impairment to public or private property to the value thereof, or to cause unreasonable annoyance or disturbance to any other person or persons or to unreasonably cause offense to the senses of another person or persons, or to jeopardize or impair the mental or physical health of any other person or persons by reason of noise, odor, filth, vermin or other causes." Section 4139.1 of the Municipal Code is relevant because even though someone may not "own" the birds, they could, in fact, be "keeping" them by providing them with food on a regular basis. Thus, to the extent the peafowl "unreasonably disrupt or disturb the peace and quiet" or otherwise create conditions that violate Code provisions, feeding of the birds is prohibited. Under this interpretation, irritated neighbors and others aggrieved by the illegal keeping of birds in violation of the Code may file ,a complaint with the Chief of Police. Once the Chief of Police has received three such complaints, the Chief may investigate them, but is not required to do so. Although the Code arguably allows the City to take action against those who feed the birds, it does not require the City to act. The difficulty with prosecution has to do with "ownership" of the birds (does anyone actually own them; is it the same bird or birds that they are feeding, etc.). Because ownership is most likely going to be required for a successful prosecution, prosecution for a violation of the Municipal Code would be extremely difficult. This begs the question of why try to enforce if we can't actually win in a prosecution process. More importantly, in terms of priorities, does the City Council wish to allocate Police Department staff time away form other matters to monitor possible Code violations related to peafowl? Mayor and City Council - peafowl August 16, 2005 Page 3 In terms of animal control services, the Pasadena Humane Society will pick up injured or sick birds, house them until they are healed and then try to adopt them out to an appropriate home. Additionally, if a bird is in a confined area such as a garage or house (and it is determined that the bird was not intentionally "trapped" by the resident), the Humane Society will respond and either transport it back to the shelter for possible relocation, or they will release it in another area of the City. The Arboretum has many peafowl living on its property and they also maintain a hands - off policy. The Arboretum has advised that they are not willing to accept birds from other sections of the city. Although they request that the public not feed any animals on their grounds, people do it anyway. To try to minimize the damage the birds are doing to planted areas, the Arboretum is exploring the possibility of installing feeding stations as a means to save plants that are being destroyed. Specifically, feeding stations would be used to attract the birds to less damage -prone areas. As additional background, in response to public concerns at the time, in 2002 the City hired Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. (APMS) to conduct a peafowl census. The purpose of the census was to give the City Council an idea of how many peafowl there are in Arcadia so that there was some point of reference from which to begin the discussion. Various numbers are often bantered about with regard to the birds - everything from a few hundred to thousands, depending upon an individual's point of view and their location. The peafowl census showed that in 2002 there were approximately 228 -250 peafowl. It is understood that this was not an exact count because APMS did not go on private property and therefore was not able to observe the . peafowl in backyards. What they did do is on three separate days they counted birds within their line of sight, which included those on the street, sidewalk, in front or side yards, in trees or otherwise within their view. DISCUSSION Before getting into alternative courses of action, it should be mentioned that in the past, rather than managing or controlling the birds in any manner, the City has used education as the primary method of handling the peafowl situation. This education effort consisted of the distribution of a pamphlet that talks about the habits of the birds as well as their likes and dislikes with regard to landscaping and water. Staff believes that education is an important element of handling the peacock "problem." However, we need to recognize that it alone will not eradicate peafowl from Arcadia ( not that that is the goal The suggestions in the pamphlet may not work in all situations and they are considered inconvenient and /or impossible by many people who do not wish to modify their landscaping or place repellent on their property. In theory, if everyone followed the suggestions with regard to landscaping and not feeding the birds, the peacock population in residential neighborhoods would probably be minimal. In reality, this has not happened in the past and it is not likely to happen, at least voluntarily, in the future. Having said that, staff will continue to give a copy of the pamphlet to anyone who asks Mayor and City Council - peafowl August 16, 2005 Page 4 for it and we will also include information about the birds, as well as a request to not feed them, in upcoming issues of the City Newsletter and Hot Sheet. POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION A. Continue with the current policy of letting the peafowl exist as is and continuing public education efforts through the availability of a brochure and articles in regularly produced City publications. B. Increase the public education effort by using direct mail or a doorhanger to approximately 1500 -1700 homes in the vicinity of the Arboretum. The information sent would include a specific request asking residents to not feed the peafowl and advising them of things.they can do to deter the birds from hovering in their neighborhood. Specific mention of a Municipal Code violation or criminal prosecution would be avoided because as was discussed above, enforcement on this matter would be very difficult, if not impossible. Please note that there is an as yet undetermined cost associated with this option for printing and postageAabor. C. Add a small "Do Not Feed The Peafowl" sign to some of the existing street signs in neighborhoods affected by peafowl. The sign would ideally be mounted just below the street sign and would be in a contrasting color so as to call attention to its message. Other signage options that are possible include the installation of a new pole and "Do Not Feed The Peafowl" sign at various locations. Because the number of signs would be much smaller than attaching something to some of the existing street signs, this effort would probably be less effective, but it does make a statement about the City's position on the birds. Staff also considered painting a "Do Not Feed The Peafowl" graphic on the curb at random intervals, but decided against recommending this option in order to remain consistent with City policy to keep the curbs free from writing or images, except for house numbers. Please note that there is an as yet undetermined cost associated with this option. D. Hire a company to trap a certain number of birds and try to relocate them. For, the sake of discussion, staff asked Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. (the company that did the census three years ago and is currently handling the City's coyote management program) to give us a proposal on the cost and procedure for trapping. For a 30 -day period, APMS will trap as many peafowl as they can for a fee of approximately $8,500.00. Prior to beginning any trapping APMS will Mayor and City Council - peafowl August 16, 2005 Page 5 try to locate a suitable home for the animals. If homes cannot be found the birds will be euthanized. When making their proposal, APMS made it clear that trapping peafowl is very difficult, as is relocation. In addition to finding people who want the birds, there are other restrictions on relocation relative to possible diseases that may be prevalent at the time. Further review will be required as to whether or not the State would impose any restrictions on the relocation of peafowl, particularly if they were to be transported out of California. E. Initiate a long -term peafowl management program, which would include such things as deciding a population level (citywide or by neighborhood — inclusive of an approximate number of males and females), conducting a census every two years and if, after the census, it is determined that the flock exceeds the desired number, the excess birds would be trapped and an attempt made to relocate them outside the City. An educational component would also be included to encourage the use of deterrents and discourage the feeding of peafowl. This option would have an ongoing cost and will also bring the subject of peafowl to the forefront of community discussion every few years. There is no formula or standard for determining the appropriate number of peafowl for the City; it is strictly subjective and up to the City Council. Some would say that the appropriate number is 0 as the birds are a free species and not endangered. Others would say that given the peacock's history in Arcadia, we should endeavor to keep a certain number here forever. Option E is provided as a possible alternative; however, staff does not recommend that the City move in this direction. F. As a possible means to keep the numbers to a reasonable amount in the future, staff briefly looked into whether or not sterilization /spay /neutering the birds is an option. Although we were not able to find a significant amount of information on this subject prior to the agenda deadline, it appears that sterilization is possible, but would be practically and logistically extremely difficult and would require a significant allocation of resources in terms of staff and funding. Option F is discussed in this report just so the Council is aware that we looked into the matter; staff does not recommend pursuing this course of action. Please note that Implementing a management program that involves trapping and relocating (and probably sterilization as well) would subject the City to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is a discretionary action on the part of the City that will cause a direct physical change to the environment. The type of environmental document that would need to be prepared can only be Mayor and City Council - peafowl August 16, 2005 Page 6 determined after the details are developed and an initial study is prepared to analyze the program's potential environmental impacts. FISCAL IMPACT Other than making no changes to the current policy, all of the alternatives presented in this report have a monetary impact. The extent of that impact, and whether or not the expenditure will require City Council approval; can only be determined after a course of action is selected and the necessary research conducted. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council establish a current policy on peafowl and/or direct staff as to any further action that should betaken. N A ` *O0 POAAT19 "t STAFF REPORT Office of the City Clerk DATE: August 16, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk /Records Manage SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2005 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE Recommendation: Select a delegate and alternate from among the members of the City Council. SUMMARY: The League of California Cities (League) Annual Conference is scheduled for Thursday, October 6 through Saturday, October 8, 2005 in San Francisco. One important aspect of the conference is the Annual Business Meeting where the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in efforts to improve the quality,. responsiveness, and vitality of local government in California. To expedite the conduct of business the League is requesting that each City Council designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be registered at the conference and attend the Annual Business Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: It is staffs recommendation that the City Council select from among its members a voting delegate and alternate to attend the 2005 Annual League of California Cities Conference and Business Meeting. APPROVED: ua' ��""'T William R. Kelly, City Manager Page 1 of 1 V koa o. \�Cec�a�e