HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 8,1964
I
I
ROLL CALL
-B--/oJ( €'
BUDGET
Equipment
Purchase
(co lla tor)
Adjustments
Salaries
16:6267
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 8, 1964
Pursuant to the order of adjournment of the regular meeting of
the City Council of June 3, 1964, the City Council met in adjourned
regular session at the City Hall Conference Room on June 8, 1964 at
7 P. M.
PRESENT: Councilmen Balser, Forman, Reibold, Turner
ABSENT: Councilman Considine (in attendance at 7:15 P.M.)
Consideration of the 1964-65 Budget continued in review. The
fJllowing adjustments to be made.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Reibold MOVED that
Account No. 409-50 in the 1964-65 Budget be reduced by $900 and that
a collator be purchased in like amount and charged to the 1963-64
Budget - Council Contingency Account. Motion seconded by Councilman
Balser and carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Forman, Reibold, Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:Councilman Considine
Fire Oepartment Account No. 422-54 - clerical error to be corrected.
An amount shown as $3178 to be changed to $3278.
Water Department. The following items were included in the 1963-64
Budget, but the projects are not completed and the funds are unexpended.
They will be included in the 1964-65 Budget.
Orange Grove No.5 Reservoir
Santa Anita No.2 Reservoir -
sheathing & paper
Santa Anita No.1 Reservoir -
roof, struct., sheathing & paper
Orange Grove No. 4A Reservoir -
Well replacement
Total .........
$350,000
8,500
25,000
8.100
$391,600
Council Contingency Account to be reduced by $25,000.
CounCilman Considine was in attendance at 7:15 P.M. and was briefed
by the City Manager on the foregoing.
The City Manager had previously submitted recommendations on salary
increases. The survey was discussed at length: Salaries paid by
the City, other Cities and Industries explored. Concern was expressed
on the spiral movement of salaries, The various surveys which have
been taken were discussed, The City Council expre,ssed the desire to
maintain the high level employee with comparable salary,
After considerable discussion it was MOVED by Councilman Balser
seconded by Councilman Reibold and carried on roll call vote as
follows that the recommendation of the City Manager be accepted
and that the salary increases reflected in the survey as presented
by the City Manager be approved for the 1964-65 fiscal year,
1,
6-8-64
Salaries
(continued)
Holidays
Mileage
Rate
Adjournment
16:6268
Prior to the roll call on the aforesaid Motion, Mayor Turner
stated in part that he was not in favor of the basis on which
the increases were determined, that in his opinion some method
should be established, other than the practice of making surveys
of other cities, on which to base annual salary adjustments.
This observation was concurred in by Councilman Considine.
Roll Call:
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Forman, Reibold
NOES: Councilmen Considine, Turner
ABSENT:None
I
The City Manager recommended that a study of holidays be made
and inasmuch as any change in the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
require perusal and recommendation of the Personnel Board (in
accordance with Section 708 of the City Charter), MOTION was made
by Councilman Forman, seconded by Councilman Considine and carried
unanimously that the holiday study be referred to the Personnel
Board for recommendation to the City Council.
During the discussion held on salaries of Department Heads and in
consideration of the communication from the Library Board regarding
the salary of the Librarian, MOTION was made by Councilman Forman
seconded by Councilman Balser and carried on roll call vote as
follows that the salary of the Librarian be increased by $50.00
per month.
AYES: Councilmen Balser, Forman, Turner
NOES: Councilmen Considine, Reibold
ABSENT:None
The current rate for mileage being 8 1/2~ per mile and it being the
consensus of the City Council and recommended by the City Manager,
MOTION was made by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Balser
and carried unani~ously that the mileage rate be increased to 10~ per
mile for the ensuing year.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P. M., at which time the City Council
entered into an executive sessiono
EM r ~Pr
Mayor Turner
~
I
ATTEST:
~~~ S/~
City Clerk .
2.
6-8-64
I
I
~
,~
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY ~NTERROGA nON BY AUGUST J. GOEBEL, ATTORNEY
AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1964
The Chairman announced that this was a public hearing and as such anyone desiring to speak may
do so.
City Attorney, James Nicklin, stated that Mr. August J. Goebel had submitted a written request
that was made orally at the last meeting of the Commission. Unless he wishes the letter read in
full, or wishes to ampl ify any of the statements therein contained, the letter wi II be received
and made a part of the file.
Mr. Nicklin:
Mr. Goebel:
I think you wanted to reiterate at least one of the statments.
That is correct, Mr. Nicklin. My name is August J. Goebel, Attorney
at law, representing A. and A. Building Materials Co., 3935 E. Huntington
Drive, Pasadena. As Mr. Nicklin stated I did send a letter, and I have no
wish to have the letter read, as my request has been previously stated. In
order that there be no misunderstanding I would again reiterate and respect-
fully request the right for cross examination of the applicant on behalf of
my client, and ask Mr. Phelps certain questions in connection with his
presenta tion.
Mr. Nicklin:
The Commission has already, at the previous meeting, indicated that it does
not intend to swear in witnesses, and unless they take an affirmative action
to change that position that will be the procedure; namely, that witnesses
will not be sworn. It is my understanding of the law, and I believe Counsel
concurs, that the Courts have not yet required that witnesses be sworn before
a hearing of this kind. The relative weight of their testimony may be
weakened by not being sworn, but never-the-Iess, they have done it and it
is primarily a matter of judgment of a board of this kind whether the witnesses
be required to be sworn or not.
With respect to the supplying a space for a Certified Court Reporter, that
has been done and I am sure to the satisfaction of you.
With respect to cross examination, anyone is entitled to cross examine
a witness during a hearing of this kind. The only area of disagreement
is to the extent that reasonobleness in the procedure should be followed
in any such cross examination. The Commission has already determined
with my advice, that a reasonable cross examination will be permitted,
but that it will be conducted entirely through the Chair and not directly
from people in the audience with the persons on the Staff. The person who
is giving evidence will not be interrupted while he is giving pertinent
testimony by anyone wishing to cross examine, but he will have to wait
until he has finished his presentation then anyone wishing to ask questions
relative to this question will be permitted so to do. It is not my intention,
and 10m sure it is not that of the Chair, to repeat each question and repeat
each answer. No purpose wi II be solved, but the questions wi II be directed
to the Chair and echoed so to speak, back to the witness and vice versa
to both. The Chair and myself reserve the right to interrupt any cross
exam ination or make objection to any questions whether as to form or as to
- 1 -
t
I
relativity to the subject matter under discussion. I will state that I did go over very briefly with
Mr. Goebel in the general area as to his proposed cross examination and certainly hove no objection
to the major portion, at least, of the proposed questioning. Although technically, the WiI,ey, Ham
and Blair report, Central Area Plan, technically, is not the precise subject matter for consideration.
I don't think you can very well draw a sharp I ine between those plans and the zoning and regulations
that were intended to implement that plan, and it is for that reason that I have permitted cross
examination even on the plan itself to be both material and relavent during a hearing of this
kind.
Mr. Goebel: In order that the record be completely clear, Mr. Nicklin, and Mr. Chairman,
we would only urge that to authorize or permit 0 limited right of cross examination
without the necessity af a witness being sworn is in substance to deny such right
of cross examination. Strictly from a technical standpoint, we would likewise at this
time request neither Commissioner Parker nor Commissioner Turner participate in these
proceedings for the reason that they have not and will not be able to have presented
to them the full matters that should be before them.
Mr. Nicklin: If you are referring to the preliminary statement made by Mr. Phelps, I am sure that
you must be familiar with the case, Burgess, vs. Board of Supervisors, where the
court held that famil iarizing one with the record of the proceedings even though
you were not personally present at every step, they are, never-the-Iess, entitled
to vote on a given matter. I would concede that if there is evidence received
they did not review or famil iarize themselves with the proceedings, they would
not be so qualified.
Mr. Goebel: My only purpose in making these objections at this time is that I want the record
completely clear as we proceed in this particular matter.
Mr. Nicki in: Very good.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Chairman, may I then have an answer to my question os to whether or not I
may be able to ask certain questions of Mr. Phelps, Planning Director, at this
time, or shall this be done at a later time? I am only asking this by way of
information.
Mr. Ferguson: As stated on the procedure plan, this will be fine. You may ask questions to the
Chair basically, and answers will be made in the same manner.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Chairman, I would then ask Mr. Phelps if any of the economic information
submitted in his brief presentation was presented (strike this) or obtained or compiled
by him.
Mr. Phelps: No.
Mr. Goebel: So, in substance, am I correct, Mr. Phelps, you are merely quoting the Wilsey, Ham
and Blair report in that particular respect?
Mr. Nicklin: The statement made by Mr. Phelps, I consider to be merely a review of the background
leading up to the hearing this evening and not intended per se as the factual presen-
tation.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Phelps, is there any basis in fact for any of the visual concepts presented this
evening?
Mr. Phelps: It would seem to me, and I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a question that
can be answered "yes" or "no". I feel if there were any basis in fact for the City
of Arcadia hiring a consultant firm to prepare a plan there must have been some
basis in fact to illustrate how that plan would appear, if these things were to happen.
- 2 -
I
I
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Choirman, I would then ask if there--or if Mr. Phelps would state to me the
fact on which these visual concepts, 10m talking only particularly with reference
to the slides of the buildings in the Towne Centre areo, are predicated?
Mr. Phelps:
If you are referring to the report itself, or the model here, the model here was based
on materiol that was--which is in the report itself.
Mr. Goebel: There are presently, other than a possible exception of the Heiss building, there
are no plans under way at the present time for the erection of any or all of those
buildings? As shown on the visuol concepts?
Mr. Phelps: Well, some of the buildings that are shown on the plan are presently in existence,
i. e., those structures on both sides of Huntington Drive are those that are
presently in existence. The buildings that are shown south of Bonita Street between
Bonita and California Streets, Santa Anita and Second, there are no actual plans
for the development of those buildings.
Mr. Goebel: I am referring particularly to the area north of Santa Clara Street. Are there any plans
for building in that particular area, presently in existence?
Mr. Phelps: None to my knowledge, but if I recall correctly, there is a building in existence
in approximately the same condition as the building that is shown on this particular
model.
Mr. Goebel: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Phelps subscribes to one of the objectives stated
under Objective No.5 that the area should be rezoned in stages.
Mr. Phelps: I don't think I can give a "yes" or "no" answer. Because I will have to refer it back
to the Wilsey, Ham and Blair report. They have recommended that perhaps it might
be desirable for the area between the proposed freeway and the railroad tracks
which was designated as a research and development area, and the other portion
was designated as technical office area; that it might be desirable to have this
amount of industrial land, which amounts to about 150 acres, if I recall, to come
on the market in stages. However, from my viewpoint, based on my own planning
experience, purely a judgment factor, I think from the final analysis, when you
have land situated between a proposed freeway and an existing railroad track,
which is presently developed for single family structures which are relatively old,
and which are presently in an, or most of it in an R-3 classification,that it would
be better if the City were to create as much compatibility in that area by changing
the zone as fastly as possible rather than by stages. Now, in the Wilsey, Ham and
Blair report, there was no mention as to the possibil ity, for example, of phasing the
zoning for the Towne Centre area. It calls for the area south of Huntington, also
the area east of Santa Anita.
Mr. Goebel: Could you tell me, sir, where in the Wilsey, Ham and Blair report you might find
where this statement is made? Where there is a provision for stages?
Mr. Phelps: I would have to review the entire report. But I am going by memory now,
don't recall....
Mr. Goebel: You don't recall?
Mr. Phelps: No, I don't.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Chairman, I would likewise ask if the present plan proposes a grade separation
at First, strike that, at Double Drive, at Santa Anita a,nd the railroad intersection?
- 3 -
I
I
Mr. Phelps:
Yes, the pi an does propose that.
Mr. Goebel: May I ask when this particular grade separation is proposed to be undertaken'?
Mr. Phelps: We don't have an exact time table, Mr. Chairman, when this will happen. However,
it would seem that it might be well to add to the answer that it would seem
that this would be a phase that should be undertaken by the City as soon as it
is financially possible to do so because of the volumes of traffic that is presently
using Santa Anita Avenue and increased volumes that are anticipated because
of the proposed Footh ill Freeway.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the present plan envisions the use of the property
presently occupied by A. and A. Building Materials Co:;;' for parking purposes?
Mr. Phelps: Not necessarily so.
Mr. Goebel: Am I correct then, Mr. Phelps, the plan as outlined on the board is not necessarily
the plan that is contemplated to be followed through?
Mr. Phelps: No. It is not the plan which is contemplated to be followed through. It is one
way in which this area could develop. It could develop a hundred different
ways.
Mr. Goebel: And, therefore, the visual concepts that you have shown previously are likewise
not necessarily the way the plan will develop.
Mr. Phelps: No, the chances are from a planning viewpoint that the area could even develop
better.. than we have shown it.
Mr. Goebel: And the chances are it would likewise develop worse?
Mr. Phelps: Not necessarily so, depending upon the action taken by the Planning Commission
and the City Council in determining the appropriate regulations for this area.
These regulations then would determine how the area would re-develop.
Mr. Goebel: Am I correct then, sir, that the zoning alone, and I emphasize zoning alone,
will determine how and when this property will develop in your opinion?
Mr. Phelps: It will be one of the determining factors. Zoning itself is only a legislative matter.
It does not say that development will or will not occur. What it does, it sets
the framework or standards that the development must comply with if and when
it does happen.
Mr. Goebel: And likewise a change of zoning, Mr. Phelps, on a planning standpoint can hurt
an area just as much as it can help an area?
Mr.. Phelps: Oh, certainly, absolutely.
Mr. Goebel: It is true, is it not, that this area, the Towne Centre area, could develop just
as rapidly and just as successfully if the area in the triangle north of'Santa Clara
Street were omitted from the Towne Centre area?
-4-
I
I
Mr. Phelps: In my opinion, I don't think so.
Mr. Goebel: You do not think so. Has the City taken into consideration, Mr. Phelps, the fact
that as a necessary requirement of the grade separation there is a certain amount
of property occupied by A. and A. Building Materials that will, of necessity,
have to be acquired?
Mr. Phelps: I don't think the City has really developed the plans to that extent that a precise
location of the separation would be, especially the structures that would be
necessary for the grade separation. It would seem to me that this would be one
of the considerations that would have to be determined at the time that they
have a I ittle bit more knowledge of where these structures would be placed and
what land wou Id be necessary.
Mr. Goebel: As a matter of fact, Mr. Phelps, you know that a certain amount of that land
would have to be acquired by the City, or conversely, a certain right of a person
occupying the land presently occupied by the A. and A. Building Materials
would be taken from them?
Mr. Phelps: I am not sure that I know, to be quite frank, it looks as though it would bg.that,way.
Mr. Goebel: Yes. And one of the purposes of the plan, Mr. Phelps, in the eyes of the
Planning Department, is to lay the ground work for the acquisition of the land
at 0 lower price thon estimated reasonable value at some later period in the
future.
Mr. Phelps: Absolutely not!
Mr. Goebel: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
* * * * * * * * *
My name is Ardeen D. Boller, I own the property at 40-50 North First Avenue.
I would like to ask, if I may, after looking at the pictures, in your recommendation
going to the City Council, does that encompass the closing of First Avenue?
Mr. Phelps:
Perhaps, I can answer that, Mr. Boller. What the Planning Commission has before
it tonight is to consider whether or not zoning in the area should be changed and
if it should be to select the appropriate zoning district for the area. This
contemplates no changes in the arrangement of the streets nor the closing, or
anything I ike that.
Mr. Boller:
That is what I wanted to inquire. There are a number here who are opposed to
the closing of First Avenue, but if that is not before you, then I will not comment
any further. Since the plats and pictures would indicate that it is - if it is not,
thank you.
(Don Betsinger presented himself - questions and answers pertaining to the
revelant matters (Tape No.2 near end).
Mr. Gaebel: Mr. Chairman: My name is August J. Goebel, again, for the record, I would
like at this time to address the Commission on behalf of my client, as I understand,
Mr. Chairman, you have opened the meeting for people to speak in opposition
of this plan. This is my purpose at this time. I likewise understand only from
hearsay that Mr. GutoH is to be available tonight and there are certain questions
that I would like to address to him at a later time and I would respectfully urge
that this right be granted to me at that time. However, I would say, you Gentlemen
are probably more aware that I have appeared before you many, many times in
- 5 -
I
I
connection with the position of my client, A. and A. Building Materials Co.
From the outset I have made my client's position clear and that position is that
we are nat attacking Downtown Area plan per se, we are attacking the plan
as it affects particularly my client's property located, or the property under
which he has a lease, to the northerly more portion of the triangle. We are
urging that it is not good and is not sound planning to include the area north
of Santa Clara in this co-called C-C zone. As I began to study this plan
and to make my various appearances before you, I became convinced that
somebody had been trying to sell both the Planning Commission and the City
Council a bill of goods. I would like to attempt to show you why. First,
however, I would ask that each and everyone of you members of this Commission
are not sitting here as advocates of a plan. You, I believe, are sitting here as
representatives of each and every citizen and property-owner of this City. I
think this should be: kept uppermost in mind. What you are asked to do is to find
out what is the fairest to all concerned and particularly those who may suffer any
financial loss as a result of any of your actions or inactions. Members of your
Staff can deal in theory, but you gentlemen have to deal in cold, hard facts; and
you have got to deal in common sense. As I see it, you have got to balance
these interests. No. I, the interest of the citizens of this City so as to provide
them with a wholesome city deriving the best use from its natural assets; 2ndly,
you have got to balance the interests of the property owners who oppose diminution
of their property rights, their vested property rights, to use the property as it
has been used and as it has been developed by them as well, and I emphasize
this as their right to the free use of their property in the future; and 3rdly, you
might keep in mind, the incidental benefit that you desire to give a group of
merchants who find themselves in a declining area. Now, I will get in to the
causes of that later. But, I would like to take up this Wilsey, Ham and Blair
report and the materials presented to you later and give you my impressions. I will
admit they are biased and prejudiced on behalf of my client. However, I feel
I have a certain amount of experience here that should permit me to give you the
benefit of these impressions. First, all of the plans and sl ides... .. .. ..
Mr. Nicklin:
You had specifically requested that a member of Wilsey, Ham and Blair be here.
He had volunteered to come and is here. I think we should show him the courtesy
of letting you ask whatever questions you wish at this time., if I might, rather
than to keep him heaven knows how long, when he is merely as a courtesy and
not under subpoena.
Mr. Goebel:
I would certainly have no objection at that point, and I would say that I had
a point in the remarks that I wish to address to the Commission where I could very
easily at this point break, because I am going into this other subject.
Mr. Ferguson: Thank you. We would appreciate it.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Nicklin: For the record you would state your name, your connection and capacity with Wilsey,
Ham and Blair, and briefly your participation in the preparation of the Wilsey, Ham
and Blair report, which will lay the foundation for the type of questions that you
want to ask him.
- 6 -
I
I
Mr. Gutoff:
My name is Don Gutoff, Planning Director and Vice President of Wilsey, Ham
and Blair.. '" . .. (balance not discernable on tapes)
Mr. Goebel: May I then proceed, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ferguson: You may.
Mr. Goebel: May I then direct my questions specifically to Mr. Gutoff, without prefacing
each one, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ferguson: You may.
Mr. Goebel: Mr. Gutoff, may I ask, did you contact any property OWner or occupant of any
property in the triangular area north of Santa Clara prior to the submission of
your report to the City of Arcadia,>
Mr. Gutoff:
If they were present at any of the Central Area property owners' meetings, then
the answer is II yes II .
Mr. Goebel: Other than that you made no contact to any such property owner, am I correct?
Mr. Gutoff: That is correct.
Mr. Goebel: Am I correct that no representative of your firm made any direct contact to
any property owner?
Mr. Gutoff: I can't say. We did deal with the property owners through the Central Area
Property Owners' Association cominittee.
Mr. Goebel: My question, sir, was any direct contact made?
Mr. Gutoff: I feel that this is a direct contact.
Mr. Nicklin: I think you mean whether any individual contact was made.
Mr. Goebel: Am I correct then, that to your knowledge no individual contact was made by,
for example, going to that particular property owner's place of business or
place of residence and asking him or them whether they desired that their
property be rezoned?
Mr. Gutoff: The subject of zoning and re-zoning was not the subject of our commitment,
Mr. Goebel. We did not go door-to-door and consult with the individual
property owners, wherein we made individual contact, except through the
association.
Mr. Goebel: roam correct, am I not, that your plan recommends a grade separation at Santa
Anita and the Santa Fe Railroad track? Now" according to your plan and
likewise it is recommended for some time after 1967?
Mr. Gutoff: It is to be coordinated with the freeway.
Mr. Goebel: And this grade separation - strike - as a planner and a property consultant, in
your opinion, sir, having made a study of this area, do you see an effect of this
grade se~aration upon the property located at the extreme northerly apex of this
triang Ie.
-7-
I
I
Mr. Gutoff: Yes, it undoubtedly would hove an effect on the property.
Mr. Goebel: And this effect would be to deprive that property of occess to Double Drive,
would it not, sir?
Mr. Gutoff: I cannot say that, it would depend on precise grade separation design studies
that would be made. '
Mr. Goebel: What effect would you state--you say it would have an eHect-
in your opinion this grade separation would have on this particular northerly
apex parcel?
Mr. GutoH: Well, it would not allow direct access whether it is verticle slope or natural
or whatever it is or happens to be.
Mr. Goebel: So that it would be a loss of access of some degree to Santa Anita Avenue from
that particular piece of property'?
Mr. Gutoff: Yes. The possibility is "yes".
Mr. Goebel: Now, your plans shows the area northerly from Santa Clara, principally
parking. Is this correct?
Mr. Gutoff: Yes.
Mr. Goebel: And I take it this is your thought or plan of how that area should develop,
namely, for parking?
Mr. Gutoff: This is more accurately a question of land relationship - land use relationship -
streets and buildings and parking, all of the other items that make up the commercial
design.
Mr. Goebel: Do you envision any other use for this particular property? than parking? and
I have reference to this particular property, than parking--and I have reference
to the area shown in green on the Arcadia Central Area plan.
Mr. Gutoff: As Mr. Phelps stated, there is a lot of flexibility in terms of actual design of
any commercia.l uses there. There could be success .in the-pOssibiLitieS.of parking
structures, should the area warrant the cost of land and there could be lesser
area on the plan devoted to parking to commercial buildings, but this is the rela-
tionship between parking and the commercial uses.
Mr. Goebel: You could reduce the ground area for parking necessary for the 'development of
this plan by the use of multi-layer or double decked, or triple decked parking,
might you not?
Mr. Gutaff: Yes.
Mr. Goebel: Was any consideration given to this? and leaving this northerly area zoned
as it is presently?
Mr. Gutoff:
We did not consider this a zoning matter, and as such never recommended parking
zones for different areas in the :zones. It was not our purpose to include such
zones, but relationship to land use and circulation.
- 8 -
I
J
Mr. Goebel:
This then - the entire plan - is your conception of a possible use of the
property?
Mr. Gutoff:
A possible use is recommended.
Mr. Goebel:
I take it, Mr. Gutoff, that the lacation af the auditorium in the Downtown
Area, or Towne Centre, is of great importance as reflected in the report,
is that correct?
Mr. Gutoff:
Yes. It is significant and a desirable adjunct to the Towne Centre which
shou Id be created.
Mr. Goebel:
Were you aware, sir, that the - I would ask you only to answer this with
a "yes" or "no" there was a poll conducted by the Chomber. of Commerce and
the results of this disclosed that it was a consensus of the members there
that the auditorium should not be located at that location, but should be
located at the high school.
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer thi, with a "yes" or "no".
Mr. Goebel:
My only question, sir, were you aware of the fact thot there was such a poll?
I take it that you are aware or you were not aware?
Mr. Gutaff:
I can only say we ,were :aw'are of,the discussions and lacations, but not
specifically - not as a pall.
Mr. Gaebel:
Naw, if the auditarium were located in the Towne Centre, this wauld,
according to your report, have the effect of decreasing the potential of
the area,would it not, sir?
Mr. Gutoff:
(Answer not discern i ble)
Mr. Goebel:
Now, there are certain portions of this Towne Centre that are far more important
to its rapid development than others, this is a correct statement, is it not?
Mr. Gutoff:
Yes.
Mr. Goebel:
And would it be correct to say that the development of the northerly portion
of this triangle, in other words, north of Santa Clara, is of less importance
than, for example, the development of the property on First Avenue and
Huntington Drive?
Mr. Gutoff:
I can't say. It is based on an awful lot of circumstances. Anything could
happen.
Mr. Goebel:
let me ask it this way, Mr. Gutoff. Assuming for the moment, the conceptual
plan that you have there where the area is designated for parking area, there
would be no need for that parking area until the business needs be met, this
is correct, is it not?
Mr. Gutoff:
Yes. There is a relationship of parking to business needs.
Mr. Goebel:
And until such time as the business develops, there is no need for parking--
to put it in another way?
Mr. Gutoff: Well, I cannot necessarily say that.
Mr. Goebel: Now, the plan, I believe, on page five, recommends that the--that this plan be
developed in stages, this is correct, is it not?
- 9 -
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
,
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
I Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Yes.
And thot the purpose is to see if the pion W) rks os it unfolds?
The pion thot the recommended development policy relates to, goes to
approximately 350 acres and at the recommended development policy refers
to and it is not necessarily confined to the Towne Centre area which is a
portion of the Central Area plan.
I am correct that the plan does recommend it to be in development stages?
That is a correct statement, is it not?
The entire Central Area is in stages--yes..
Now, the plan likewise states.that the underlying, cause for the failure
of this particular Downtown Area to develop has been the lack of a
cohesive identity both in composition of its retail uses and the quality
of merchandise offered for sale. This was made in your report, was it
not?
Yes. As I recall.
Therefore, I take it that the underlying cause is not the lac~ of proper
zoning for that particular area.
No, that doesn't necessarily follow, Mr. Goebel.
Your report does not state, or the plan does not state, that one of the
underlying causes for the decl ine is the absence of proper zoning?
I think I might say I don't, I can't recall where it is in the report, if it
is, but the mixture of land uses between a central area is one of the
reasons for the declining activity.
Now, there are some stores in this Towne Centre area that are not in harmony
with the proposed Towne Centre, are there not?
In concept, yes.
Could you give me your idea of a percentage of those stores that are not
in harmony with this proposed plan?
No, I couldn't recall it off hand.
You are familiar with the fact that there a public team track of the Atchison
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad within this northerly triangle area, are you
not?
Yes.
And the use of this tear!' track would not be consistent with the development
of this property as commercial property. This is a correct statement, is
it not?
I can rephrase it that there would not be the need of a tearl) tract should the
area develop into a commercial use.
- 10 -
,
I
"
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:,
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Putting it another way, assuming that the Santa Fe would not take out the
tlX1[Jl track, am I correct that the use of that public tearl) tract would not be
consistent with the development of this property as 0 commercial, pedestrian
oriented area?
I am a I ittle lost. The use of the trock--the use of putting box cars on
the track? No, it would not necessarily be consistent with the type of
commercial use we visualize in the plan.
And if the Santa Fe refused to remove this track,as a planning consultant
would you see an absence of development in this area for a pedestrian oriented
commercial use?
If the tracks physically remain, ' would that reduce the...... "
If the tracks were used?
Used for what purpose?
The purpose for which the track was intended, sir.
To unload box cors there, ond then put them on a truck and take them elsewhere?
Yes, sir.
It could be used.
As a planner, do you think 0 prospective purchaser or a developer of commercial
property would be interested in that particular commerce, knowing that the
railroad trock would be there and would be used?
I don't see that it is necessarily a terrible detriment to commercial uses; there
are enough examples of commercial uses adjoining railroad tracks with proper
screening and orientation to minimize any detriment.
Now, are you aware of the proposed increase in the Hub area in West Arcadia--
increase in size and development?
Am I aware now?
Of the proposed increase, yes.
Generally, yes. I am not aware of precise......
Now, if this area were expanded, the commercial development is expanded,
would th is have an adverse eHect on the probable development of the Arcadia
Towne Centre project?
It would be 0 ,matter: 'of degrees.
Well, first, sir, it would, would it not, have an adverse eHect upon the area,
regardless - - -
Not necessarily so.
Is it possible that it would?
Sure, it is possible.
- 1 J -
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
I Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
I
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
It is likewise probable that it would.
Not necessari Iy so.
Now, if another department store were to be developed in the West Arcadia
area, would this have an adverse effect on the proposed development of the
Towne Centre plan?
Where in Arcadia.
In the West Arcadia area.
Yes, I would soy it would hove 0 lessening of the potential that this area
represents .
Now, the Lake Avenue of Pasadena, does th is hove any effect upon the
Downtown Arcadia area.
I think that was stated in the report. It does.
And if 0 $30,000,000 finance center develops at Lake and Cordova which
would consist of on eight-story bank and office building, 300 room hotel,
medical building, and accessory shops, this would likewise hove on adverse
effect upon the development of this plan, would it not?
I om not necessari I y su re, no.
Would the construction of 0 six-story medical building in the West Arcadia
Area hove on effect upon the plan. Adverse effect?
Not necessarily so.
Now, the Downtown area is only planned os 0 community center, is it not?
Using the language of the report, community center versus regional center.
Yes, os the report was written, yes.
I toke it that you ore familiar with Mr. Wenzlick's economic analysis which
was submitted os port of the report.
Yes.
His report shows that, does it not, that 0 minimum requirements for 0 community
center is ten acres?
You would hove to refer to the report. 10m not absolutely sure. I don't recall
exactly.
Could you tell me, sir, how many acres ore encompassed in the proposed Towne
Centre area now?
I can't give you an exact figure--it is in the report.
Would it refresh your recollection if I told you the report sets out 25 acres?
It seems about right.
- 12 -
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
,
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Nicklin:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
I Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Now, could you tell me what percentage of that is parking?
The report states the ratio between parking and bui Idings and the desirable
ratio. It is in there.
Am I correct, Mr. Gutoff, that it may have been sometime since you read
th is report?
Yes.
Now, if just for example, the plan as it develops were to develop double-
decked parking south of Santa Clara and north of Huntington Drive, this would
el iminate the need for parking north of Santa Clara would it not, sir?
Not necessarily.
Would it probably eliminate the necessity for it?
No, it is 0 question of distances and relationships to the uses that will use the
parking.
Do you envision then that the people who would park their vehicles in the
northerly portion of the triangle, north of Santa Clara, would park there
and use the shops on Huntington Drive.
It is conceivably possible, but it is not the usual relationship of shopping to
parking.
The plan, likewise, recommends that public utility center should be placed in the
Towne Centre area. What did you mean by "public utility"? The precise
language is, I believe, I don't have the report before me, that the public
utility center should be included as part of the uses in the Towne Centre area.
I doubt if I used the word "publ ic util ity center".
I am going to caution you now, if you are going to question him on details of
the report you are going to have to state accurately or skip it.
May I then ask this? Did the plan envision any change of location of any
public utilities offices from their present location to the Towne Centre.
Publ ic uti I ities centers-----
S.ay the telephone company?
I would rather you point out just what you refer to. I know the concept that
was recommended is that as much public use as possible be concentrated in
the Towne Centre as a pedestrian oriented area. (This portion unintelligible)
Then the paragraph you are referring to states and I quote: "An office space
near the post office will include public and semi-public uses, such as public
utilities, chamber of commerce, and travel bureaus.
Yes, sir. What did you mean by public utilities?
Public utilities such as offices.
Did you make any survey, or did any member of your staff, make any survey,
to ascertain where the public utilities offices are located at the present time?
- 13 -
,
I
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. GutoH:
~ Mr. Goebel.
Yes, I am sure there were.
Then as part of that survey, did you make any inquiry whether they intend to mOVE
their offices into the Downtown Center area?
I will--restated that it is, desirable that an office cluster exists near the
post office to include public and semi-public offices. Exactly what it says.
I believe Mr. Wenzlick recites San Marino as an excellent community center.
From his report I would call it to your attention.
I don't recall it.
But, as a planning consultant, would you, yourself, consider San Marino as an
excellent community center:?
I can't make a decisive judgment on that right now.
Referring to the plaza that is referred to in the report, I take it that this plaza
area--the auditorium, the or'l center, or cultural center, is necessary to the
successful development of this Towne Centre concept?
It is desirable for the success of the Towne Centre. I would not say that it is
necessari I y necessary.
'D id you ascertain ,whether:'or,'not .th'is wo"ld he,a p~rt.,of, a publ ic dev.elopment
in formulating your plan?
We did not determine precisely that it was either private or public.
Now, do you concur with Mr. Wenzlick's statement on page Forty of your report
that there is a 10% to 15% vacancy in offices in Arcadia?
I can't answer.
Would you look at his report, sir, on page forty.
There aren't forty pages in the report.
Mr. Gutoff, may I direct your attention to a forty-nine page report submitted by
Wenzlick & Co. Specifically to page forty. Reading as follows: "Of the
100,000 square feet, we find a great deal of vacancy (estimated 10% -,15%)
low rentals, functional misuse, etc." I take it that you read that statement
before.
Yes.
I take it you concur in that statement?
I don't know, you would have to talk to Mr. Wenzlick. I did not go out and
check it myself.
Maybe I am in error then,. Am I correct that this consultation report was a part
of the Wilsey, Ham and Blair report.
- 1 4-
<" . . .
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
, Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gu toff:
Mr. Nicklin:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
I
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Yes.
And as you said, I bel ieve, you are the Vice President and Planning Director
of Wilsey, Ham and Blair, you submitted this consultation report as part of
your plan.
Yes.
Now, was this read by you prior to its submission?
Yes.
And I take it that you would not have submitted anything to this City as a
Vice President of Wilsey, Ham and Blair that you did not concur in.?
(Not rdiscern ible)
I am going to object to the form of questioning. I think it is getting a
little out in far field. A person had confidence in an organization they
have do certain jobs, the same as you do, and concurrence in the specific
ioo' ,is:not necessarily a pre-proposed individual knowledge of a private
person submitting a report.
Letme go at it this way. Did you make any tentative investigation, Mr.
Gutoff, as to the vacancy factor of commercial office space in our city?
No, I did not.
Then was your organization, under your direction, make any?
Yes, I believe our people worked with Mr. Woolfe, of the Wenzlick organ-
ization.
Let me ask this, Mr. Gutoff. I take it you are familiar with the proposed
Heiss building.
Yes.
Would the development of th is bui Iding a requisite to the successful develop-
ment of this area.
Mr. Goebel, I can only asnwer that - - I cannot answer "yes" or "no".
Requisite - it is a desirable adjunct to a Towne Center as conceived in
the plans.
And if it were not developed, I take it, it would have an adverse effect
on the successful development of the project.
Well, it depends on how you read this. The Heiss building or other buildings
or other building - -
And other office building--
- 15 -
.-' ~ ~
,
I
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
Mr. Gutoff:
Mr. Goebel:
It is an integral part of - an importont part of the plan. I will say that.
So that your,plan would then envisage an increose in the commercial
office space in the Downtown area, as opposed to a reduction thereof.
J think the plan does envision this.
And this is in spite of the fact that there is a 10% to 15% vacancy factor
in commercial office space at the present time?
Yes. There are many physical features that make the difference between
success and lack of success.
I have no further questions of Mr. Gutoff, Mr. Chairman, and I would-
I don't know that others present have questions of Mr. Gutoff - I take my seat
at this time, subject to being able to finish my presentation at a later time.
&~~
WtlLlAM PHELPS, Secretory to the
Arcadia City Planning Commission
- 16-