The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMAY 2,1989_2 31:0084 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1 INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Apr. 18, 1989) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY BOYS' SOCCOR TEAM (STRIKERS) 1 CLOSED SESSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MAY 2, 1989 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session, at 7:35 p. m., May 2, 1989 in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. Rev. Pamela Baird, The Santa Anita Church Councilmember Dennis A. Lojeski PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, You~g and Chandler None On MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember GiIb and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and Regular Meetings of April 18, 1989 were APPROVED. It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by titl.e only and that the reading in full be waived. PRESENTATION I At the Council meeting on April 4, 1989, Councilmember Harbicht (then Mayor Harbicht) noted that one of the major recreation programs in the City run entirely by volunteers is the AYSO soccor program. Three Arcadia teams played in the Southern California championships. At that meeting presentations were made to two of the teams. At this time, Councilmember Harbicht introduced Coach Brian Miles and Assist- ant Coach Pat Carroll and the members of the Strikers team and present- ed to each a Mayor's Certificate of Commendation in recognition and appreciation of outstanding achievement. CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney announced that "this evening the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and the City Council met in a CLOSED' SESSION. The City Council met in a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to give instructions to the City's designated representative regarding negotiations for salaries and fringe benefits with the City Employees' Association. Additionally, pursuant to the Brown Act, specificially Government Code Section 54956.9, discussion regarding potential and pending litigation occurred. At this time I will not identify the name of that litigation because to do so could jeopardize the Agency's ability to conclude potential settlement negotiations". 5/2/89 -1- 1. PUBLIC HEARING (Z-89-00l - Zene Chg.- 721 W. Htg.Dr.) (DENIED) T ~ R 0"> e. A \,'.v rJ& N &'(1" S C R I P T P R E P A R E D IN FAVOR 31:0085 The Planning Cemmissien at its March 28 meeting veted to' recemmend that this zene change -- rezening the preperty at 721 W. Huntingten Drive frem C-O & D to' C-l be denied. The Planning Cemmissien in its recemmendatien neted that the C-l zene is a mere intense zene than the c-o zene. There weuld be mere traffic generated by C-l uses; that it had net been shewn that there was a need fer additienal C-l zening and that there is an adequate ameunt of underutilized cemmercial C-l and C-2 preperties in the City. AlsO' that the C-O & D is an appre- priate zene fer this preperty and that there are several C-l uses which weuld net be apprepriate en this site and, lastly, that there were nO' cempelling reasens to' change the existing zening. Mr. Gary Fischer. en behalf ef Pier I Imperts, has requested this hearing befere the City 1 Ceuncil. The zene change applicatien was filed by Pier I. While nO' specific develepment prepesal is befere the Ceuncil, the applicant has indicated that they weuld like to' censtruct a 8,700 square feet retail building fer a Pier I stereo The present C-O zening allews primarily business and prefessienal effice uses. Certain ether uses may be permitted threugh the cenditienal use precess. The requested C-l zening allews the uses which are permitted in the C-O zene and certain ether cemmercial and retail uses which are eutlined in the staff repert dated May 2, 1989. Altheugh the C-l permits uses which may be mere intense than uses permitted in the C-O zene, the City zening regulatiens previde the means to' centre 1 the design arid to' seme extent the types of uses permitted en the preperty. Mest ef the City's C-l and C-2 commercial zenes are lecated immediately adjacent to' residentially zened preperty. A listing ef such areas is set ferth in thecstaff,cever letter. The situatien in this case is net unique. The preperties to' the east and west ef the site are presently zened c-o & DaIse. Hew- ever they are all develepedwith cemmercial and retail uses which are cemmenly feund in the C-l and C-2 zenes. The Planning Department has recemmended appreval ef the zene change. In erder to' reduce petential impact, additienal cenditiens ceuld be censidered: first, restrict heurs ef delivery frem 7 a. m. to' 7 p. m.; twO', restrict the heurs ef eperatien frem 9 a. m. to' 9 p. m.; prehibit any driveway epening ente Old Ranch 'Read; prehibit the selling ef feed and beverage preducts; prehibit the selling er rental ef audiO' er videO' preducts; prehibit the selling er care ef animals; prehibit self-service uses including vending machines and game machines; and prehibit uses which utilize cleaning selvents er flamable liquids as a principal part ef their businesses. A negative declaratien has been prepared fer this zene change and the actiens which the Ceuncil may take are eutlined in the cever letter. Mayer Chandler neted anether letter which had been received a few days earlier. Ceuncilmember Gilb inquired what the height ef the prepesed building weuld be. Staff replied plans have net been submitted. Mayer Chandler inquired abeut the pessible cen- ditiens listed by the Planning Directer whO' replied that these were types of cenditiens that ceuld be included with the zene change by Ceuncil. Ceuncilmember Harbicht neted that included in the Council's material are the staff repert, the Planning Cemmissien minutes and cerrespendence which had been received pertaining to' this request. I Mayer Chandler declared the hearing epen. Bernard Orsi, 74 St. Themas Way, Tiburen, CA, the Executive Vice Preside ef S & P Cempany, ewner ef the preperty in questien. He neted that the S & P Cempany ewns the El RanchO' property;; the preperty en sunset that surreunds the medical building in additien to' this piece ef preperty. At ene time the Cempany ewned twO' ether pieces ef preperty -- ene en Baldwin 'and ene at 811 Huntingten Drive. S & D Company was ewned by Paul Kalmanevitz and this preperty has been within his purview er that ef his estate fer 30 seme years. During those years it had been the pel icy to' ceeperate with the City and he preceeded to' receunt a number ef instances ef ceeperatien between the S & D Cempany and the City with respect to' varieus parcels ef land, including a strip ef preperty deeded to' the City witheut charge fer the purpese of widening Michillinda Avenue. With this backgreund they appreach this appeal ef the Planning Cemmissien decisien. He felt this prepesal befere Ceuncil is a fine prepesal and an excellent use fer the preperty; the preperty has remained vacant fer a censiderable peried ef time and the S & D Cempany 5/2/89 -2- ORSI (cont'd) 1 1 IN OPPOSITION 31:0086 has turned down a large number of proposals because they did not feel any of them were the right ones for that particular piece of property. When Pier I approached the Company, they were informedtihatthis was a sensitive piece of property; that they would have to consider that it bordered a residential area and also that they would have to construct a very attractive building; give consideration to ingress and egress, truck deliveries, noise, etc. Pier I agreed to all of these. S & D Company does not at this time have a signed lease with Pier I Imports; if conditions are imposed by Council, those conditions will be included in the lease and recorded. He agrees that the residents have valid objec~-' tions and they are here to help solve these legitimate neighborhood com- plaints. In reply to the suggestion that this would be an excellent location for an office building, he replied that their market research indicates that this is not a viable investment at the present time. However, there is a tremendous demand for retail space at the present ,time. He pointed out that Pier I Imports is a fine company. With regard to traffic, Pier I suggests that between 12 and 15 cars an hour will come in and out of their parking lot; all truck traffic will be restricted to Huntington; ingress and egress will be controlled so there will be no interruption of the neighborhood. With respect to the question of property values being diminished, he pointed to other buildings, i. e., May Company and the Engineering Science Building which have increased surrounding property values. He requested that Council look at the renderings to be presented and look at the property as it now stands and if they feel this would indeed be an improvement, to look favorably at the appeal,. Gary Fischer, Pier I Imports, 4154 Woodside Knoll, Grapevine, Texas, presented to the Council renderings of the proposed Pier I building, and stated, in part, thac he would give Council some details about the retail use and building and site design. Pier I Imports is one of America's premier specialty chains offering unique merchandise from around the world, including home furnishings. Pier I cannot be described as a low-priced discount store; this is a high quality store. Pier I has up- graded its real estate program, purchasing and leasing free-standing parcels in close proximity to shopping malls. The parcel under discussion is, in their opinion, the best retail parcel in Arcadia; annual sales potential will be in excess of one million dollars. The prototype building is an aesthetically pleasing building; proposed site plan would have a curb-cut on Huntington and possibly Old Ranch Road with customer entry doors on the south side facing Huntington and the loading area along the east side of the building adjacent to the existing service station. The City's parking requirement of 45 spaces will be met; their actual usage is less than 45 cars. Christmas time is the only time they will come close to filling the lot. Employees are required to park in the lighted lot for liability purposes. Loading area will be screened from Old Ranch 'Road; trucks will deliver once or twice a week; one or two hours at a time; during normal daily business hours. This will be an attractive, clean operation. All access will be from Huntington Drive. Average customer count is 10-14 cars per hours. There will be no reason for Pier I customers to drive into the residential neighborhood to the north unless they live there. Pier I requests approval of the zone change. John H. Saunders, 841 San Simeon Road, stated, in part, that ,the petitioner is requesting downgrade zoning and they have had -their opportunity to prove that a change from zone C-O & D to C-l is desirable and beneficial to the City and to the residents. This parcel was origi- nally zoned C-2 and was upgraded in 1965 to C-O & D. Evidence had to have been presented that the zone change was beneficial to the City and its residents. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to support the appeal to change the zone back to C-I. He feels it is doubtful that the petitioner has done this. He reviewed the history of previous possibilities of utilizing this property and noted that the owners seem to want consideration for past favors. He feels the nearby residents will have their property values lowered and standard of living lowered by this proposed zone change. The owner's arguments show no reason why the zoning should be changed at this time. The applicant states that it would increase sales tax revenues, create some jobs and give residents a place to shop. He noted that there 5/2/89 -3- 3l:00B7 SAUNDERS (cont'd) are already nUmerous places to shop and that the Pier I operation is similar to Cost Plus or Pic'N Sav. He feels that the real purpose of this request for zone change is to increase the property value to the benefit of the owner and Pier I. He suggested that Pier I possibly could obtain property on East Huntington Drive where there are a number of properties available with C-l zoning. He submits that the petitioner has not made a case strong enough to influence Council to make this zone change; the items they have mentioned are not adequate to prove their point. He reiterated that the biggest benficiary of this proposed zone change is the estate or trust which owns the property. They have agreed to put numerous conditions into the lease with Pier I; however leases are transitory. These petitioners hope to make a great deal of money 1 through a zone change which may depreciate the value of adjoining residential properties. He also noted that the businesses adjacent to this property are there although they do not conform to the c-o & D zoning because they are there under a grandfather clause; they were there when the zone was changed; the nearby residents are not happy about it, but they put up with it. Other adjoining residential and commercial properties listed by the Planning Department are not relevant. He reiterated the restrictions imposed when the 1965 Council changed the zoning. He noted also the conclusions set forth by the Planning Commission -- there has not been any compelling reason to change this zoning -- homeowners and investors rely on existing zoning. He also ' questioned the environmental impact report; this will create an impact upon the area. He is not impressed by the Pier I presentations and urges Council to deny this appeal. Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa, stated, in part, that he lives about 2i blocks from the subject property. He is proud of the neighborhood and wants to see it maintained; he does not consider this proposal to be an improvement. Land use changes must be based upon proper zoning considerations; a compelling reason must be shown to change the zoning. It must be based upon findings that present zoning ano Resolution 3770 are in error or no longer applicable. Arcadians have a right to expect Council to act as responsible stewards of the public trust. He quoted portions of Resolution 3770. There is no compelling reason to change the zoning of this property; there are numerous and compelling reasons to maintain the integrity of the present zoning and protect the adjacent residential neighborhood; this high intensity retailing usage is not compatible with the neighborhood; it will in- crease traffic and parking is inadequate; would fractionate the re- tailing area even more. He requests Council to uphold the zoning integrity by denying this appeal. Thomas Crosby, President, Santa Anita Village Association, 601 Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he was going to address the traffic situation here. He noted that the plans show a parking entrance on Old Ranch Road. There is a situation on Old Ranch Road where existing commercial applications fall within two areas: the Union Oil Station on the conrer of Baldwin and Huntington gives ample opportunity for 1 the driver to exit on Huntington or Baldwin. The activity at the two retail areas is not a problem because drivers can only get out on Huntington and go west. The Chevron station, unfortunately, has a driveway onto Old Ranch; there is a problem now with that station. The matter before Council tonight will compound the problem; even if there are driveways only on Huntington there is no reason a driver cannot make a turn onto Old Ranch Road; that makes more traffic on Old Ranch Road and there is already too much traffic there. There is no ,reason to compound that problem; Council should uphold the Planning Commission decision, Councilmember Gilb discussed with Mr. Crosby the traffic pattern to the freeway and the closing some time ago of Hugo Reid. This was done because of an accident on Hugo Reid. Mr. Crosby inferred that if the decision was made in favor of Pier I and another accident should occur in the area, there would be liability on the part of the City, The City Attorney interjected that this was not a valid state- ment; this is a land use decision; immunity is provided under the law and the facts. 5/2/89 -4- 1 1 REBUTTAL 31:0088 Frank Liu, 710 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he was presen~o address the traffic problems; he noted that three cars were parked on the street each morning when the drivers walked to the bus stop. Also when the Santa Anita race track is in operation, cars are parked on his street. James Glass, 706 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he was reiterating his remarks given to the Planning Commission. He noted that the appellant had said there would be no increase in traffic; not true, they picked this area because it is ,one of the busiest intersections in the City; a good location to bring customers in. He had obtained a home work permit/license and had to get consent of all his neighbors in a 3600 radius; also to guarantee there would be no activity to cause any disruption to the traffic pattern. Also, the businesses that are there would not be allowed, except for the grandfather situation. He had looked at the drawings presented by Pier,I and noted entrance and exits on Old Ranch. They said they would not put one there but that leaves only one entrance/exit: on Huntington. What about trucks? There are people driving around on Old Ranch who are lost. This will lead to increased traffic and noise. Their business hours extend until 9 p. m. also Sunday operations. There is also no guarantee that Pier I will go in there; perhaps some other type business will be there once the zone is changed. He feels that the Planning Commission's negative report and unaminous vote were proper. Councilmember Gilb in- quired if cars were being parked in front of his house by people who walked to the bus. Mr. Glass replied there were; not necessarily drivers going to the bus; but strangers. Win Easton, 855 Kingsley Drive, stated, in part, that the residents or-the Village brought homes there because of the protection of the zoning they had. They are now coming to Council, as the people who elected them, to request that they keep it as it is. They do not want absentee ownership; absentee tenants telling them what to do with their property. Pier I did not make it in San Marino; and now they want to come into Arcadia. He reiterated the heavy traffic problems. Charles George, Member, Santa Anita Village Association Architectural Review Board, 331 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he thought the C-O & D was appropriate zoning for the area; he sees no compelling reason for a zone change. C-l is more intensive. It will generate more traffic on Old Ranch Road because of the situation with the median on Huntington. It will require more parking, especially on weekends and evenings. John Dixon, 426 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he approves of the remarks made by previous speakers. He is concerned about the poasible approval of this because of the hours and, primarily, the traffic problem on Old Ranch Road. Beverly Adams, 431 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that a number of families in the area have young children and they are all very con- cerned about the children. Traffic on Old Ranch Road is like a race " ,.' track; stop signs are a joke... most people do not stop. She does not ,f o. think Pier I Imports merchandise will appeal to Arcadia residents; jobs , created will be low paying. 0, Bernard Orsi, 74 St. Thomas Way, Tiburon, CA, stated, in part, in rebuttal that during consideration leading to this hearing, considera- tion had been given to an office building as well aS,a financial business. Judge Saunders favored using the current ,zoning. However, if the Bank of America, for insta1}ce, ',were" brought, int'? this property, it would have an automatic teller which would be open 24 hours a day; banks will not conslderLproperty that 'will ,not p~rmit an automatic teller machine ,. , '"'{ f ""I' r . ' I.J .' ", '- -' - or walk up window on the premises. Judge Saunders apparently would r -, ." - I ' " . . ~ . , support - tliis'. A financial institution is-, not the solution. He is . ." <. . . ') I J:J'"..1 ~ not here to ask for any favors; ,if a legitimate compromise can be . 'u ,., ".\~ \' " ' ., worked'out with'traffic problems and parking problems in the spirit , ... I ,I ~ ".' , i' L I' J , ..I' . , of 'cooperation and set aside past p!,rsona],ity, problems, they"will move 'ahead; 'I "Asshiidng coundi'woiild like' to s~e something on the property and Judge Saunders could possibly work out a compromise with the bank on the one property and the parking on his property, they would be 5/2/89 " , i " \~ -5- ~ 31:0089 ORSI (cont'd) delighted to see what the feasibility might be. He is only here tonight to work something out, if something is workable; if not, he thanks Council and apologizes for taking up so much time. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED. Councilmember Young noted that Planning Commission notes said the zoning should be consistent with the general plan which indicates it is commercial. Staff replied that covered all the commercial designations; any commercial zone would therefore be consistent. Councilmember Lojeski noted that what was before Council is whether 1 a zone change would be appropriate for the property. ,The Pier I concept could be taken out -- there is no lease signed; no agreement made. He has always believed Arcadia is a City of homes and he appre- ciates the viewpoints of the abutting residence owners, whether it be for this particular use or for another use in the hypothetical C-l zone, This site has been vacant for 25 years. He feels the wish of the community is to develop something there; but should be developed within the zoning regulations currently on the property. This is a horrible piece of property because of the poor access on Huntington and the abutment to the Old Ranch Road area. He does not see any compelling reason to change the zone. Regarding a financial institu- tion, he does not believe that a bank, for instance, with a drive up teller would have 10 - 15 cars at one time as a retail store would have. The intensity of the C-l zone is not something he would like to see on that piece of property. He is concerned about the traffic. He feels there are several uses in a C-l zone that are totally in- appropriate for that site. He will uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Harbicht noted that it had been suggested that some of the uses that had been rejected in the interests of the City, i. e., mini mall, etc. actually are not permitted uses for this zone. There is no reason to leave a zone unchanged just because it has always been a certain zone. Tonight Council is not discussing Pier I Imports; but a consideration of a zone change. The developer and the property owner and Pier I are sincerely interested in putting Pier I on the site but there is no guarantee that that will happen. None of the design layouts are guaranteed either. There is question of what will happen with this property as well as with the residential property adjoining if the zone is changed. Zoning is not only a restriction of what can not be done; it_is a guarantee of what can be done, He thinks that to change this to C-l would be opening the door to any number of uses which are not compatible with this specific site and,layout close to the residential area, For that reason, he is going to vote to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Young stated that she had had mixed emotions about this. 1 Pier I Imports would be a marvelous store to have in the City; this is not the right place for it. There is, a traffic problem; people from the south use the area as a direct route through to the freeway to avoid stop signs, lights, etc. She does not feel there is a compel~ ling reason to change the zoning; she will uphold the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation. Councilmember Gilb stated that perhaps the new Public Works Director might look at the traffic and parking situation on Old Ranch Road. Also he thought some of the statements alluded to Mr. Kalmanovitz to- night were totally unfair -- he should not be pictured as a money grubbing land baron. Also to call Pier I as nothing but an Akron or Pic'N Sav is certainly not true; he has been in a Pier I store this week and they have a lot of nice things; maybe people should go and see their stores. He recalled the cooperation of Mr. Kalmanovitz and Mr. Orsi when the City was trying to secure property for the Engineering Science Building and to replace the old Hughes Market near the May Company. Mr. Kalmanovitz owned property all over the world, 5/2/B9 -6- 1 MOTION 2. PUBLIC HEARING (T.A.89-002 - Home Furn.& Dec.Acces.in C-l Zone) (APPROVED) (\fA \) ,,1 ""V" p,,1 1 31:0090 but he was always a friend to Arcadia. Councilmember Gilb said he would hate to see that property remain vacant forever; that will not help the value of the neighborhood. At Christmas time when they sell trees on that lot, there are a lot of cars coming and going. A develop- ment was proposed a few years ago on Sunset & Huntington which was opposed by people who lived in apartments across the street; the lot is still vacant. He would like to see these two pieces of property properly developed. However, he does not feel there is a compelling reason to overturn t~e Planning Commission's decision; he will uphold their decision. Councilmember Harbicht commented Council has never had anyone come to say they did not have enough traffic on their street, Council hears this with respect to every proposal that comes along; this is not a unique problem. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be upheld and affirm their findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None The Planning Commission at its March 28, 1989 meeting recommended approval of this Text Amendment which would add home furnishings and decorating accessories stores as a permitted use in the C-l (limited commercial) zone. It was felt that that type of use is consistent with the other type of uses permitted in the C-l zone. While this text amendment was originally filed by Pier I Imports, if passed. this type of store could locate in any other C-l zoned property in the City. Mayor Chandler declared the hearing open. James Glass, 706 South Old Ranch Road, stated that he would oppose the 'text change because it would be achieving through C-l usage what they tried to change with the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Harbicht explained this would not make it a permitted use in the C-O zone which is current zoning, but would be permitted in the C-l zone -- which the 721 West Huntington property is not. Mr. Glass said he misunderstood. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED. Councilmember Lojeski said he had no problem with this Text Amendment. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski. seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Text Amendment No. 89-002 be APPROVED; MOVE to approve and, file the Negative Declara- tion and find that the Text Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None 5/2/B9 -7- 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Street Lights - Kingsley Dr. - Old Ranch to Magellan) (APPROVED) ....'d- 'I f'\~ 31:0091 Previously before Council on April 4, 1989 was a petition for street lights which Council approved and set this public hearing. Public Hearing Notices were posted on each affected property April 14, 1989 and published in the Arcadia Tribune April 16 and 19, 1989. The estimated cost of the project is $33,000 which consists of 11 street lights along Kingsley Drive from Old Ranch Road to Magellan Road. The City will pay 75% of the installation costs; the property owners will pay 25% installation costs plus 100% of future power and maintenance costs through annexation to the Lighting Maintenance District. The City will advance the property owners' 25% share of the installation cost from the Capital Outlay Fund which will be reimbursed to the City, with 7% interest over a 10-year period, 1 through the provisions of Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911. The property owners also have the option of a one-time cash payment of their share of the installation cost when project costs are confirmed. , Mayor Chandler declared the hearing open. Win Easton, 855 Kingsley Drive, stated, in part, that he had gone ~the neighbors and obtained signatures on the petition for the lighting improvement. Approximately 70% of the neighbors signed the petition. At that time, he had shown a map provided by the City which showed the proposed location of the lights; he felt it would be unfair to change the location of any of these lights because someone else might object. Arthur Powers, 900 Kingsley Drive, stated, in part, that he was present to obtain some information as to the height of the lights and the intensity and what the next step would be. The Director of Public Works replied the light standards would be approximately 16 feet in height. The density will be 4,000 units. Once this petition is approved, plans and specifications will be prepared and brought back to Council for approval for advertising for construction and will then come back for approval of award of contract. James Glass, 706 South Old Ranch Road, stated, in part, that he was concerned about how this would impact other streets in the Village. He opposed the nature of the lighting proposed ... sodium vapor lamps ... which he feels are ugly. He wondered if such high intensity lighting was really necessary. He is concerned about the spread of this type of lighting throughout the Village. Perhaps people could turn on their porch lights ... providing lighting and saving cost to the City. Henry ~. Nash, 921 Kingsley Drive, stated, in part, that he was speaking in defense of Mr. Easton and himself in circulating the petition. He had endeavored to talk with Mr. and Mrs. Powers who said they were upset with the way it was presented and would not sign. Ernest Hetherington, 845 Kingsley Drive, stated, in part, that he was 1 very much in favor of the lighting as proposed, He recounted a recent incident where he had been attacked and robbed one evening upon return- ing to his home, He feels improved lighting is important to the security of the neighborhood. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as, follows that the Director of Public Works be AUTHORIZED to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for this project. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None 5/2/89 -8- 4. I I, 6. 6a. ROLL CALL 6b. MINUTE APPROVAL (Apr. 18, 1989) (APPROVED) 31:0092 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Elsie Matus, 1401 South Fourth Avenue, stated, in part, that she has lived on Fourth Avenue for 47'years. She was present to ask the Council's help because of a parking ticket which was placed on the automobile belonging to a visitor. The automobile had been parked in Mrs. Matus' gsrden area which is unpaved. Her friends and family have parked there for 47 years. The parking ticket fine has been paid. Mayor Chandler replied that if it had gone to court, it probably would have been dismissed. Mrs. Matus answered that her visitor was a stroke and heart victim and felt she was unable to go to court about the matter. An appeal was made to a previous Council who, according to Mrs. Matus, agreed that it would be a hardship for Mrs. Matus to pave the drive- way... it is not any easier now; she cannot afford to pave it. Council- member Harbicht noted that there was a law against parking on an un- paved surface and there could not be exceptions for certain pieces of property. Margaret Thornton, 1402 South Fourth Avenue, stated, in part, that she lives across the street from Mrs. Mstus who is a well respected resident in the neighborhood. She walks three miles every day and sees many cars parked on unpaved surfaces which do not have tickets on them. Mayor Chandler replied that he was sympathetic with Mrs. Matus' situation, but in fact the law is for everyone. The City Manager stated that Arcadia does not have enough police officers to be continually patrol- ling the streets in search of cars parked illegally; but when they do see such a situation, they ticket it. Mayor Chandler said the law cannot be repealed. Imogene Williams, 642 Alta Vista Drive, Sierra Madre, stated, in part, that Elsie Matus is her mother and that on the day in question three cars were parked on the lawn across the street. The ticket was given by a person in a Traffic Control car, not by a policeman. They were told by someone in authority that if they came to the City Council, perhaps exceptions could be made. Mayor Chandler said they were not in a position to make such an exception; he hoped that she and her friends would not encounter this problem again. Herb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, stated, in part, that during the dISCussion of the property on Huntington Drive, it was mentioned that one of the gas stations had clo~ed. He had also read that there was a possibility of another station on Duarte Road and Golden West closing. The station at Second Avenue and Duarte Road is losing its lease. Arcadia is rapidly losing its gas stations. They are a good source of sales tax revenue. Also, in the event of another gas shortage, this lack of gas stations will be a problem for Arcadia residents. Also, in the event of a major catastrophe such as an earthquake, the storage tanks in the ground in Arcadia might be all the gas the area will have a for a long time. He hopes the City has taken this into consideration and has reserves for City employees and hospital employees. It may be necessary for the City to put in larger reserve tanks for emergencies in the interest of Civil Defense. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: ABSENT: Agency Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None vi On MOTION by Mamber Gilb, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of April 18, 1989 were APPROVED. 5/2/89 -9- 6c. GOODWILL APPRAISAL SERVo CONTRACT (Desmond & Marcello) (APPROVED) 1-t.\(g (j/ q ~ \~ 6d. HAZARDOUS WASTE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERV.CONTRACT (McLaren Environmental) (APPROVED) -z...l..\-lP qll' f \d-- 6e'. ADJOURNMENT (May 16, 1989) 7. 8. 8a. HEARING SCHEDULED (T.A.89-003 Modifications AMC- May 16, 1989) 8b. HEARING SCHEDULED (Capital Improv. Program - May 16, 1989) 31:0093 On March 17, 1989 the Agency released a Request for Proposal for goodwill appraisal services. These services will be required on an as-needed basis ta value businesses that the Agency relocates or is forced to acquire. The Request for Proposal asked the proposers to submit their fee estimates based on the preparation of three basic reports. Six firms responded to the RFP; staff narrowed the list to three: Business Enterprise Company; American Valuation Group and Desmond & Marcello. The May 2, 1989 staff report sets forth staff's analysis of each of the three firms and recommendation. It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Lojeski and I CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency'AUTHORIZE a contract, in form approved by the Agency General Counsel, with Desmond and Marcello for goodwill appraisal services; and AUTHORIZE the Executive Director to execute the contract. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None On March 9, 1989 the Agency released a Request for Proposal for hazardous waste project management services to nine companies. The Agency is seeking the services of a firm to serve in a project manage- ment capacity to evaluate, prior to acquisition, the possibility of soil contamination existing on the individual properties that make up the northwest and southwest corner sites of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue, excluding the Falzone property. This will assist the Agency in negotiations with owners. Four firms responded to the RFP; staff narrowed the list to two: BCL and McLaren Environmental. The staff report of May 2, 1989 sets forth staff's analysis of each firm who responded to the RFP and staff's recommendation. It was then MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency AUTHORIZE a contract, approved as to form by Agency General Counsel, with McLaren Environmental Engineering for hazardous waste project management services; and AUTHORIZE the Executive Director to execute the contract. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None The meeting adjourned to.7:30 p. m., May 16,1989. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED I CONSENT ITEMS ./ PUBLIC HEARING 89-003, adding tion, Variance SCHEDULED for May 16, 1989 to consider Text Amendment definitions for Administrative Modification, Modifica- and Conditional Use Pemit to the Arcadia Municipal Code. vi PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED for. May 16, 1989 for consideration of the Capital Improvement Program, 1989-90 through 1993-94. -10- 5/2/89 8c. ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (Water Line Replacement - Sunset Blvd. W.O. 687) 31:0094 '1 G< \b3 APPROVED plans and specifications for the 12" waterline replacement ( on Sunset Blvd. from Huntington Drive to Duarte Road, W. O. #687. The City Clerk is AUTHORIZED to advertise for bids. I 8d. WORK 1.5;}..3 ACCEPTEDr- (Live Oak Well - Phase I W. O. 677) ACCEPTED work and AUTHORIZED final payment pursuant to the terms of the contract with Beylik Drilling, Inc. for drilling, development and testing of Live Oak Well. The final contract cost for Phase I was $188,271.00 which will be funded from Water Facilities Replacement Fund under the previously approved Capital Improvement Program that budgeted $1,060,000 for Phase I and Phase 2 of Live Oak Water Facilities. 8e. -r( CITY MGR. ~\ ~\&~ APPROVED appointment of Bill Woolard as City Manager Pro Tem in PRO TEM "" ...accordance with See tion 603 of the City Charter. J\NJ.>t (Bill Or<-G~ Woolard) Sf. ow3 SHORT RANGE f' APPROVED FY 1990-92 Short Range Transit Plan for Arcadis Dial-A-Ride TRANSIT PLAN submitted to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the (FY 1990-1992) Southern California Association of Governments for approval April 24, (Arcadia Dial- 1989. A-Ride) 9. 9a. ARCADIA !IIST.SOC. (Art Faire) S10R.\c/'(... (\' \1 \;ov\61"V I ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCIL- MEMBER HARBICHT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None CITY MANAGER Consideration of request from the Arcadia Historical Society for a permit to hold an Art Faire on museum grounds at 355 Camous Drtv~ Saturday, June 17, 1989 from 10:00 a. m. to 4:00 p. m. The Society to provide the City with a certificate of insurance for coverage of this event. The Arcadia Municipal Code allows for events and exhibitions given exclusively for the benefit of churches or schools and charitable organizations of the City to be excluded from the Business License fees. Councilmember Gi1b said the Historical Society should be restricted to holding an art fair once a year only. Councilmember Young noted that a 25% commission was the usual percentage taken by galleries for art work sold. Carol Libby, 438 W. Norman, Chairman of the Art Fair, replied that the Society was charging a $15.00 fee for the space only. It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmembet Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Historical Society be permitted to hold an Art Faire on the museum grounds limited to once a year and that the business license fee be waived. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler Councilmember Gilb None 5/2/89 -11- 10. lOa. CLAIM OF y' PLINIO TUTA (DENIED) lOb. 'f~ CLAIM OF LEON BORDEN, DIOLINDA BORDEN & FAMILY & HAZEL BORDEN (DENIED) 11. 12. GILB (Rec.Comsn. Membership) HARBICHT LOJESKI (Nickman) 31:0095 CITY ATTORNEY On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of Plinio Tuta was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Council- member Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of Leon Borden, Diolinda Borden and family and Hazel Borden was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler None None MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Suggested that perhaps the Recreation Commission membership could be reduced from 7 to 5 members. Councilmember Harbicht agreed it was a good idea. Councilmember Lojeski said he liked as much citizen input as possible. Councilmember Young said she had no strong feelings about it, but also liked a lot of community input. Mayor Chand1el' noted that a smaller Commission might make each member more important and lessen absenteeism. Staff was directed to prepare necessary documentation to bring before Council at its next meeting. Inquired if legal costs andlor attorney fees were ever obtained for cases which were unfounded. The City Attorney replied that this occasionally did happen. Couneilmember Harbicht noted'that he was in support of this. "I'd like to adjourn tonight's meeting in honor of a gentleman who probably a lot of people in the City of Arcadia did not know as I got to know Mr. Art Nickman. He's a very interesting person; a very, I very involved -- long-time involvement with the Senior Citizens' programs in the City, particularly the Senior bowlers. Art probably was one of the originators of that group. When he passed away, he was the grand old age of 91. He lived at 400 Harvard Drive. He was born October 12, 1898 in Lauria, Michigan and he passed away on April 26, 1989 at the age of 91. Art only achieved a high school education but upon finishing high school, he took extension courses in engineering. He was at that time hired by a very large New York engineering and architectural firm and just prior to the war was made, because of his expertise in the engineering field, chief designer and architect of a very important piece of American history. He was put in charge of designing and architecting the plutonium atomic plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -7 better known as the Manhattan Project. After the war, Art was sent to Los Angeles and he became the chief architect for the Statler Hotel, which at that time was the highest, tallest building in downtown Los Angeles. While he was in Los Angeles at the time, Art loved to come to the San Gabriel Valley and it was his wish to event- ually live and retire in the City of Arcadia. And he enjoyed the ruralness of, particularly, the San Gabriel Valley and he decided to stay and eventually opened his own architectural firm in the San Gabriel Valley. His first major project upon opening his own business was 5/2/89 -12- LOJESKI (cont'd) I GILB (Manzi) GILB (Post) 13. ADJOURNMENT (May :!-6, 1989) I ATTEST: 31:0096 "the architecture and the engineering of the renovation and the re-doing of the Ambassador Hotel at that time. Art was a resident of Arcadia for 37 years. He is survived by his wife, Sue; a daughter, Marian and 3 grandchildren. And, as I stated, he was very active in the Senior Citizens, particularly his many friends at Arcadia Park in the Lawn Bowlers' Association. He leaves a legacy of friends and a great leadership of the Seniors in this community and the City of Arcadia will surely miss an individual like Art Nickman." "Horse Trainer, Joseph A Manzi passed away last Thursday of a heart attack. He was 53 years old and he was a resident of Arcadia. He was most known for his training of such notable horses as" Franz Valentine and Roving Boy. He was born in Brooklyn, started working for Charlie Whittingham at the age of 15, and went on to become a successful jockey in the '50's, winning 6 races in 1 day. After spending a short time in the army, Joe returned too heavy to resume riding and soon became an assistant trainer. In 1961 he took out his training license and launched a career involving numerous stakes winners, such as Masterful Advocate, Tanks per Grade and Isis Cerus. Joe is survived by his wife, Sandra; sons, Joe Jr., Larry and Dominic and daughter, Mary Valentine; his stepson and daughter, Diane Tiffany. Services were held this morning at 11:00." "Also, I would like to mention the passing this week of automotive historian, Dan R. Post of Arcadia, who passed away Wednesday of a heart attack. He was 66 years old. He lived in Arcadia for more than 50 years and was active in local civic groups. He was recognized internationally for his knowledge of cars. He was both a writer and a collector of automobiles and in over 40 years published more than 100 books relating to that field. He also had an extensive knowledge of antique and contemporary typewriters, and headed a firm engaged in the commercial office machine rentals while assembling one of the world's most complete portfolios of early writing machines. Dan is survived by his wife, Gertrude of Arcadia; his son and daughter-in- law, Dan and Lisa Post; and his sister, Nancy Scott." At 10:10 p. m. Council ADJOURNED to 6:30 p. m., May 16, 1989 in the Council Chamber to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation of properties. g~ Ro~handler, Mayor 9'd~~ J D. Alford, y Cler'\ 5/2/89 -13- I I T RAN S C RIP T (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO I PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL IN CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF Z-89-001, A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-O & D (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) TO C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL) AT 721 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND OLD RANCH ROAD (PIER 1 IMPORTS. INC., APPLICANT) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 2, 1989 I CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 2, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING #1 MAYOR CHANDLER PLANNING DIRECTOR WOOLARD Next on the agenda is a public hearing - public hearing to consider the consideration of an appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Z-89-001, a zone change. In opening the public hearing, all those in favor of the appeal - we got a little ahead of ourselves. Prior to opening the public hearing we would like a staff report. Mr. Woolard? I Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, the Planning Commission at its March 28 meeting voted to recommend that this zone change, rezoning the I property at 721 W. Huntington Drive from c-o & D to C-,1 zone be denied. The Planning Commission in its recommendation noted that the C-l zone is a more intense zone than the c-o zone, that there would be more traffic generated by C-l uses, that' it'hadn't been shown that there was a need for additional C-l zoning and that,there was an adequate amount of underutilized commercial C-l and C-2 property within the City. Also, that the C-O & D is an appropriate zone for this' property and that there are several C-l uses which would not be appropriate on this site, and lastly, that there were no compelling reasons ,to change the existing zoning. Mr. Gary Fischer, on behalf of Pier 1 Imports, has requested this 'hearing before the City Council. The zone change application was filed by Pier 1. While no specific II development proposal is. before the Council, the applicant has indicated that they would like to construct an 8,700 square foot retail building for a Pier 1 store. The present C-O zoning allows primarily business and pro- fessional office uses. Certain other uses may be permitted through the conditional use permit process. The requested C-l zoning allows uses which are permitted in ,the C-O zone and certain other commercial and retail uses which are outlined in the staff report. Although the C-l zone permits uses which may be more intense than uses permitted in the c-o zone, the City's zoning regulations provide the means to control the design and, to some extent, the types of uses allowed on the property. Most of the City's C-l and C-2 commercial zones are iocated immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. A listing of such areas is set forth in I the staff cover letter. The situation in the subject case is not unique. The properties to the east and west of the site are presently zoned C-O & D also. However, they are all developed with commercial and retail uses which are commonly found in the C-l and C-2 zones. The Planning Department has recommended approval of the zone change. In order to reduce potential impact, certain additional conditions could be considered and I'll list these. -1- WOOLARD I I COUNCILMAN GILB WOOLARD GILB WOOLARD GILB I CHANDLER CHANDLER WOOLARD CHANDLER WOOLARD CHANDLER ,. COUNCILMAN HARBICHT I CHANDLER First, restrict the hours of delivery from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Two, restrict the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Prohibit any driveway opening on to Old Ranch Road. Prohibit the selling of food and beverage products. Prohibit the selling or rental of audio or video products. Prohibit the selling or care of animals. Prohibit self-service uses, including vending machines and game machines. Prohibit uses which utilize cleaning solvents or flammable liquids as a principal part of their businesses. Included in the Council's material are the staff report, the Planning Commission minutes and correspondence which has been received pertaining to this request. A negative declaration has been prepared for this zone change and the actions which the Council may take are outlined in the cover letter. This concludes my report unless you have any questions. Mr. Woolard, you said that the building they're proposing is 8,300 square feet? What is the height? We have no specific plans. Is it a one-story building or two-story or do you know? I do not know. We can ask them. Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Woolard? I have one question, Bill. Those items that you were listing off, were they conditional zone change conditions that will be opposed? They're types of conditions that the Council could consider including in the zone change as a form of conditional zoning provided that the appli- cant's agreeable to those. So there could be no end to those kinds of conditions? That's correct. OK. Bob? Mr. Mayor, I just might mention before you open the public hearing that the packet which the Council has before it contains the minutes of the Planning Commission which contains all the testimony that was given at that time as well as correspondence that we've received on this. That's correct, and I might add also that we have also a letter that we've all had for several days on the item. OK, at this time we'd like to ask all those in favor of the appeal to step up and address the Council. Please give your name and address. -2- BERNARD ORSI Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Bernard Orsi. I reside , at 74 St. Thomas Way in Tiburon, California. I am also the Executive Vice President of S & P Company, the owner of the property that is in question. I appreciate this opportunity to address you this evening. These issues are very, very difficult and in the spirit of the invocation I would invite a good exchange on this. I've been with S & P Company for 12 years. During that 12-year period I've become familiar with some of the folks that III I'm - that are sitting up there - certainly Councilman Gilb, the City Manager, Planning Director and the others - maybe one or two others. I As you know, S & P Company owns the El Rancho Shopping Center, the property on Sunset that surrounds the medical building, this particular property, and at one time owned another piece of property - actually two other pieces of property - one down the street on Baldwin and one about 811 Huntington. S & P Company was owned by Paul Kalmanovitz ,and 'this' property has been within his purview or the purview of his estate for 30-some odd years. During those years we have, as a company, had a p~licy to cooperate with the City regardless of their request. For those of you that are familiar I will recall the time the City asked our company to look into the possibilities of providing an easy access - not a fight, not an argument I with regard to redevelopment of a piece of property where, I believe, you have your office building that's a science center or some such thing. I remember one of the first things I did as a new employee was come down to that grand opening. That's where I met Councilman Gilb and others. And it was a very happy occasion. It was a real unique opportunity to see business and government work together for progress' sake. Subsequent to that we owned a piece on Huntington which probably was the last of the very old single bungalow-type court places along Huntington. It was not certain of the City Fathers, we sold that to a developer who proposed, and I very attractive. It did provide low rent housing, but in those days low rent housing wasn't as popular as it is today. And at the request of who has since built and has occupied, a very fine beautiful building which, I believe, is either a condominium complex or an apartment complex. I Subsequent to that the City Fathers, in attempting to align Michillinda, approached Mr. Kalmanovitz and asked for a few feet of our sidewalk area. And Mr. Kalmanovitz, as I recall the story, said, "You need a few feet? The whole length of Michillinda from Huntington to Sunset, you've got it." -3- ORSI Somebody said, "Well, how much are you going to want for that?" He said, "The City said they needed it; the City can have it." That was deeded to the City free and clear. It's with that background and with that relation- ship with the City Fathers that we approach you now on this appeal. You've read the record in this matter. I have read the record in this matter. Regretably due to another engagement I was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, I have a few responsibilities. That night came up, I had to be somewhere else in previous engagement. Had I been to that Planning Commission meeting, I would have told them what I told you this evening. And I also would have told them that what you have before you is, in my opinion as the manager of that property, the finest proposal that I have seen in 12 years. Now, let me tell you why. 7-11, Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, every single fast food restaurant known to man has approached us. And going back to a discussion with the City Fathers when we were told, "Don't even try to bring us a fast food restaurant." We have rejected every single one of those pro- posals out of hand. We have had developers approach us for a little mini-center - 3, 4, 5 shops. A little bit like what's across the street from us. Once again, there was the admonition, "Don't bring us that kind of chopped up thing." Pier 1 Imports has been looking in Arcadia to establish a location. They contacted us, I believe about six months ago. During that discussion I warned them. I said, "We are dealing with a very sensitive piece of property. A piece of property that for one reason or another has been left undeveloped for many, many years." Obviously, it's not in the best interest of the City to see it undeveloped. And clearly, it's not in our best interest to keep it undeveloped. However, we can certainly afford to keep it in its present state for so long as everyone would like to have it that way. We feel we have a very, very reasonable alternative. I told Pier 1 it would have to be a very, very attractive building. I told Pier 1 we bordered a neighborhood and we would have to design the ingress and egress, the truck delivery areas, in such a way that there would be no noise. That there would ie as much of a reduction of traffic as possible in the residential area. Now as 'you know, there's a gas station on one side. There's a gas station on the oth~r side. And then there's two or three small shops, a liquor store and something else. And in a little while Mr. Fischer will show you the first rendering that we have. This is a rendering that we haven't even consulted with staff on. I I I I I -4- ORSI This is just something that borders the type of store so that you get some idea of what they're - the type of a store that they talk about putting in; it's a very attractive upscale well-landscaped, an attractive location. They agree. They said, "We will. We have got stores in v~ry nice neighborhoods throughout their 500 and some odd stores that they operate in the United States." And, therefore, we proceeded. At this moment in time I want you to understand we do not have a signed lease. And the reason we don't have a signed lease is because in the spirit of our company policy, should this Council in its wisdom determine that this improvement would be good for the City; would help you a little bit, maybe, on your sales tax; would maybe give a few people in Arcadia a job that don't have one today; and would provide a service to the community of this type of retail activity, that maybe some folks would like to have more accessible to them than they have now when they have to travel to another city or go somewhere else to shop. If you should within your wisdom grant the appeal and do so with conditions, we will put those conditions in that lease and that lease will be recorded so that there'll be no future argument about what the conditions were and whether or not those conditions were agreed to. In addition to that, I have explored with Pier 1 the possibility of an absolute condition that the only use, the only use, would be the Pier 1 use without further action from the City. Now as I understand it, the objections that have been raised are very good objections. You know, I live in a home, too. I have neighbors and I have concerns about noise, pollution, confusion and congestion and all those like everybody else. And I have no qualms with these objections. They're legitimate neighborhood complaints. I would hope that we would enjoy and enjoin the spirit of trying to solve the problems as opposed to create them. Because the alternative, for the time being, is what's there now. There's been some discussion about an office. We have not had one inquiry regarding the construction of an office. Over the weekend we have done a little scientific survey and, including the 6,000 square feet of office spac~ that we have available in the El Rancho center, there is currently 53,000 square feet of office space vacant in the City of Arcadia. I submit to you that it would not be, at least at this time, in a developer's best interest, unless he had a single purpose tenant, to entertain the con- struction of an office on that corner. In addition to that, because of the land value, it is very difficult, and the height requirement, to get the -5- I I I I I ORSI multiple of square footage to make the investment create any return. So, therefore, the office concept, as far as we1re concerned, and that's based on what seems to be the demand, is non-existent. There is tremendous demand for retail space. I did not bring the letters that we received in the last couple years from people who want to build everything from a 7-11 I to nail salons, barber shops, combinations of small shops on that location. There is a demand. You may have vacancies. And I believe that the opponents of this project have pointed out that there are other retail I locations. There may be. But this particular piece has created considerable demand culminated by, I might add, this very fine company. This is an outstanding company. I would invite you to review their financial state- ments. They're a New York Stock Exchange company. They are a very fine company to have an interest in this. So, as far as demand is concerned, in our judgment, as the matter stands today. The demand is for retail, not for office. That could change. I don't say that's locked in cement. That certainly could change. The other item, of course, is traffic. Well, I'm not going to argue. According to Pier 1 they say between 12 and 15 cars an hour come in and out of their parking lot. I sat in front I of the gas station tonight for about a half hour before we came over here and I counted about IB cars going in and out of one gas station and, I forget, it was 15 or so in the other one. Well, there were people - then they were going to the liquor store there. I don't know what they were doing. But there were people going in and out of those driveways. And so, as far as egress and ingress is concerned, we don't feel, based on the plan that Pier 1 has at this time, that there would be any interruption of the neighborhood. We have designed, and Pier 1 has agreed, to restrict " all truck traffic to Huntington, both coming in and going out, so that their I trucks would have to back, come into their parking lot and back into the store. You will see in a short period of time, you'll see that in the rendering. The other item that has been of some concern, and I don't I know whether or not the Council at this point would want me to address the issue, but it's the notion of the property values being somehow diminished by this development. Again, in the May Co. there was considerable discussion, as you will recall, when the May Co. was built many years ago. I would ask you what those property values are there today compared to what they were then? There was considerable discussion surrounding the construction of the engineering building. Again, you can take a look at what's happened to the property values. I do not see, and I have been -6- ORSI CHANDLER involved in development in other properties - I have never seen a commercial development diminish the value of property. I haven't seen it; at least in the 12 years that I've been involved in doing this, particularly when the development is done with some thought and is done with the neighborhood involved. We would appreciate all the input that everyone cares to provide and we would urge the Council to give this application, this appeal, your thorough consideration. This is a difficult position to be in because traditionally I'm not a developer type. I'm more of a neighborhood type. But on the basis of what we're faced with in this particular location and in the overview of the relationship that we have had and that I propose to you this evening, that is if your conditions are so onerous that the build- ing can't even be built, so be it, so be it. There's no debt on that property so we don't have a bank down our throats or anything like that. I would urge, however, if you are inclined to go along with the appeal, that you give yourself an opportunity to look at exactly what I'm talking about. I'd like you to just go over there and see what's in that two blocks now and if you can, in your wisdom, tell me that the building that you're about to see - the rendering of the building - together with the restrictions that we have suggested, would reduce the property values in that area, then we would be willing to walk away. I would defy 'anybody to produce a genuine appraisal that would establish that the building of this store would reduce the property values in that particular area of Arcadia. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I don't want to take up any more. I see the admonition about 5 minutes here, but the trouble is when an Italian gets a microphone, it's pretty tough to stay within 5 minutes. I appreciate your attention. I will be available to answer any questions you may have and I would like to, inasmuch as I wasn't a long line in support of us here when you asked for supporters to come up, I would like the other lone voice, if possible, to address you at this time and we will both be available for questions from the neighbors andlor yourselves, whichever, and that's Mr. Gary Fischer from Pier 1 Imports. Thank you, Mr. Orsi. Are there any questions of Mr. Orsi at this time? OK, seeing none, anyone else in favor of the appeal please approach the podium, give your name and address. Pardon me? Can you give the clerk your name and address, please? -7- I I I I I , GARY FISCHER I I I I I Gary Fischer with Pier 1 Imports, 4154 Woodside Knoll, Grapevine, Texas. I would like to (pass them around up there). I would like to touch base on a few items that Mr. Orsi didn't get a chance to address, namely, items specifically towards Pier 1 as a retail use and building and site design as we are proposing it to be. Pier 1 Imports is one of America's premiere retail specialty chains offering unique merchandise from all around the world focusing on decorative home furnishings for the dis- criminating shopper. Pier 1 is typically - Pier l's typical customer is predominately college educated. Pier 1 has built a reputation on a wide selection' of unique merchandise, inviting store windows, imaginative displays and outstanding customer service. By no means can Pier 1 be described as a low price discount store. A steady evolution has taken place at Pier 1 from individual novelty items to a higher quality, higher ticket merchandise appealing to a more sophisticated customer base. Pier 1 has upgraded its real estate program dramatically recently, pur- chasing and leasing free-standing parcels in close proximity to shopping malls. Pier 1 feels that this parcel in question is potentially the best retail parcel available in the Arcadia area. This site allows us a potential opportunity for a first-class site with exposure to one of the most busiest intersections in Arcadia and with annual sales potential for the store of over $1 million. Pier 1 Imports' prototype building is an esthetically pleasing building with exposed natural cedar and a pitched roof design, which architecturally cannot be compared to any mini-mall, fast food, or other restaurant or retail use. The proposed site plan would have a curb cut on Huntington and possibly Old Ranch, with the customer entry doors on the south side facing Huntington and the loading area along the east side of the building adjacent to the existing service station. The City's parking requirement of 45 spaces would be met, which is only 9 more than for office use. Because of our increased focus on merchandising home furnishings, our actual parking usage is much less than 45 cars. In fact, in some cities that we have gone into recently, we've actually been classified as a furniture store, which requires half as many parking spaces. The only time we come close to filling our lots is at Christmas time. As far as employee parking is concerned, Pier 1 requires its employees to park on its own lighted lot, as do many other retailers for liability purposes. The loading area, being on the east side, is well screened from Old Ranch Road' and its isolated from customer -B- FISCHER and employee parking so that both can be used at the same time. Pier 1 trucks deliver once or twice a week for no more than one or two hours at a time. Deliveries occur during normal daily hours. The design overlay and architectural design review requirements of your zoning ordinance set a high standard for building design, landscaping, parking, setbacks, lot lighting and trash facilities, which we will conform to. This will insure that our facility will be an attractive, clean operation, as all III our other stores currently are. There is no chance of any additional traffic being brought into the residential neighborhood to the north. All access to our site will be by westbound Huntington Drive. Although a curb cut could be provided for access by Old Ranch southbound to benefit those coming from the adjoining neighborhood. Pier 1's average customer count is between 10 to 14 cars per hour. There would be no reason at all for Pier 1's customers to drive into the residential neighborhood to the north unless they lived there. Pier 1 Imports respectfully requests that the Council approves this zone change so that we can better serve your community. Thank you. CHANDLER Any questions of Mr. Fischer? Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the appeal? Seeing none, we'll open the floor to those who are opposing the appeal, ?lease state your name and address. JOHN H. SAUNDERS My name is John H. Saunders. I reside at 841 San Simeon Road in Arcadia. I have furnished the Council, through the kit that you have, a letter with some remarks that have to do with our views of the proposed zone change. I do not intend to go over that. There are some additional things that have been called to my attention, however, that I would like to discuss with you at this time; and the first thing, really, is to discuss the technical basis upon which a hearing like this is conducted. Now, the petitioner here is petitioning for downgrade zoning - apparently both Pier 1 and the owner, it would appear - supported by the owner, who is the ultimate beneficiary of this zone change. Since they are petitioners for a change in zoning, they then have - they've had their opportunity to speak. They have had their opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a change from Zone c-o & D to C-1 is' desirable and beneficial to the City and to its residents. At the very least they must prove their case for a change by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the petitioner's evidence must preponderate in this matter. Another useful test -9- I I I I SAUNDERS I I I I I is that where a previous Council has rezoned and upgraded a piece of property such as the one here in question - as you all know, it was C-2 - it was upgraded by a Council some years ago in 1965 to C-O & D. And this Council should not change a zone made such as that unless compelling evidence is presented to prove that a change in zone will be beneficial to the City and to its residents. Now, in a matter of this kind, for example-this is very much like a court case - after the petitioner has presented his case or a plaintiff in a court case has presented his case, the defendant - or we're the respondents here - have the right to request that perhaps a summary judgment be granted - the judgment - because the proponent must prove his case and it has to be done by clear and convincing evidence. Now in this case it would appear, at least, that it might well be doubtful that the petitioner has carried his burden of proving what kind of a benefit will be provided to the City in the event this is granted. Now, for example, both of the gentlemen have discussed how many times they've turned down McDonald's and all these various kinds of things. Well, they had to turn them down. It's not zoned for that kind of activity. He has never talked about one case that he's turned down where a proper zoning has been requested. This gentlemen 'has been associated with this business as a matter 'of fact, I had their, power of attorney to keep transients off that lot for some years. He has known what's happened to that property. He has received offers to build on that property. This property isn't an orphan piece of property at all. It's,a good piece of property. I know one deal in which I was personally involved where a financial institution that subsequently located in San,Marino wished to put a savings and loan on that spot. They wanted to buy my property in order to have extra parking and ingress and egress for the parking lot. They couldn't make a deal because he was asking a price for the lot that just wasn't a realistic market price. So now here we have a vacant piece of lot - a vacant piece of property - that he is complaining that he can't put an office building on and the reason is that he missed the tide. There have been office buildings. as you gentlemen and ladies know, built allover Arcadia successfully some years ago. I understand the market is now soft. But is there any reason for this Council to rectify the mistakes made by the deceased owner during the period of time that he owned this property? And that's in effect what it amounts to. I talked to him once on the telephone when I was talking about the power of attorney to police the -10- SAUNDERS lot, about putting a condo on it. Can't talk to them about it. They had plenty of opportunity to sell it. So I'm wondering, how valid is their case? Now, I don't really want to be mean about this and I'm not really trying to be funny, but when you sit - you're sitting as judges here and how do you decide what person should be believed? Which witness is the believable witness? Here's a gentleman that said he sat for 45 minutes watching cars go in and out of the Exxon station that's been closed for a II week. Today he said he did that. Can you believe anything he's told you here? He seems to be using as a main argument - he'd have to have been 1 here a week ago at least to have seen that and I have no evidence that he was. He said he did it yesterday. (comment from the audience) Tonight- OK, tonight. Also, it appears to me that he is asking now returns for past favors given. I don't say this is a bad person, that they've done a bad job. I'm aware of how the Santa Anita Theater property was handled. I'm aware of all that. We're very appreciative of all that. But does that mean that the people in our neighborhood there should have their property values changed, their standard of life changed by a commercial property going in in that area. I =~it that the argument that he has made, that he's been a real good guy to the City, is not an argument as to why a zone II should be changed at this time. Now there's another thing that - the only ones that he has said that might be considered as make weights for a reason to change the zone would be (1) that perhaps it would add to the sales tax revenue of ,the City. I suppose property tax, too. I would submit, ladies and gentlemen,' that that's not a valid reason to make a zone change where other property owners claim their property is being depreciated. Now he says he knows a lot about property. I've been dealing with property in this area for over 35 years. I think I know property values I'll bet in Arcadia, as well as he does. It's surely my opinion that commercial I zoning there is going to change the property value and your predecessor Council d~d, too, because in the resolution they passed they pointed that out and I will come to that in due course. He also said that it m~ght create jobs. Well, that's a possibility, I think. I've been in their stores. They have 10 or 12 employees. A place to shop. My goodness, we have plenty of places to shop in Arcadia. Right across Rosemead Boulevard is a Cost Plus. We have a Pic' n Save down on Las Tunas. And,I can swear II I can blindfold you and put you in anyone of these stores, including Pier 1, and you can't tell them apart. There is no difference. It looks -11- SAUNDERS I I I I I like Akron. I'm trying to review their notes. I think that the real reason and the only really cogent reason is unstated. The real reason is left unsaid, but it is to make the subject land more valuable. A zone change to C-1 will immediately increase the market value and rental value of the property to the ultimate benefit of the owner and of Pier 1. Now, Pier 1 seems to be very excited about coming into this area. I would submit that they must have had a market survey made before they made this decision to come here. I would be very surprised if there would be any difference in the market report on East Huntington Drive as compared with West Huntington Drive. If you look at the traffic patterns, there's a lot of traffic on East Huntington Drive and there are a lot of "For Rent" signs out there, too. You don't have to change zoning in order to attract this business into this city. They have plenty of Pier 1 stores in shopping malls. At the - you've probably read the report of the hearing before the Commission. They said they were trying to get out of shopping malls and into individual stores. Well, that's great, but that's no reason for this Council to make a change in zone. So, I would submit, ladies and gentlemen, that the petitioner here has not made a case that is strong enough," to cause you to make a zone change. Maybe you could make some kind of a variance or something like that. But we're talking about a zone change where you're going to a more strenuous use of the property. I submit that the three things that they've mentioned are not adequate to carry the burden of their proof. I don't think they've proved their right to have it. Ordinarily in a case like this, I'd make a motion to the judge to have the case dismissed and the directed verdict, because they haven't proved their case~ I know we're not in court, but r'm trying to point out that we could cut off all of the rest of my argument and the other things that are being heard if I had 3 votes here right now. I don't know who I have, so I don't know that. But I'm just suggesting that I don't think they've proved their case. However, I'm prepared to proceed on further things. The biggest beneficiary of the change, of course, would be the estate or the trust which now owns the property. We're talking about putting all kinds of conditions on this particular development. The owner has suggested he will put all of those conditions in his lease. Well, leases are a transitory thing. They're a big outfit on the New York Stock Exchange. You've been reading about the takeovers and the sell-offs they have. Knudsen Creamery, a very profitable business, had a takeover sell-off and they went bankrupt. They went into bankruptcy. We don't -12- SAUNDERS know how long Pier 1 is going to be there. I don't know anything about 'em. ,Where do they come from? Fort Worth, Texas. We've got an owner in Tiburon and they're trying to affect the quality of life of the City of Arcadia. So the real proposition here, I guess, and I'll have to say it another time, is we have some people from Marin County and Texas come into Arcadia to make a bundle of money through a vote, they hope, of the City Council which, in turn, may well depreciate the value of adjoining residential properties. Now there's something I would also like to answer. There's been a lot of talk about the commercial developments that are adjacent to this property and in this I am referring to your kit. If you will look at your kit, page 2 of the kit, at the top is says here, "Properties to the east and west of subject site are zoned c-o & D and developed with commercial retail uses." That is, service station, liquor store, Western Saddlery store. And that's true. And you know they're there. I really shouldn't have to point this out. They're there on a "grandfather" deal. They were there when the zone was changed from C-2 to c-o & D. So nobody puts them out of business. However, if the gas station is out of business too long, they'll lose it. So' here we're here in a situation where they're acting like this is a commercial zone that everybody's really happy about. Nobody's happy about it. We suffer it because it's already there and there's nothing we can do about it and we've never been here to ask that anything be done about it. We put up with it. But there's no reason to compound the problems we have. Also, the gas stations are for local use. The people around there use the gas stations for service and etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the greatest neighbor in'the world. Well, you can suffer through that. But you don't need too much of that. Now also referring to your kit on page 2 -,in the kit that you have here, the Planning Commission has added a series of about 16 areas in the City on page 2 at the bottom - where it's stated that there are areas where commercial p!operty is immediately adjacent to residential property, and that surely-is true. There's no argument about that. I think the best one has already been mentioned by the previous speaker. For example, the last one on that list - the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and San Rafael Road - and the north side of Huntington Drive, Colorado Place between San Rafael Road and San Juan Drive - well, that's where the Santa Anita Theater was that was owned by this outfit. And that's where now -13- I 1 I I I SAUNDERS I , , ~ I I I we have a marvelous building that's built. There's nothing wrong with that. We have - we used to have a drive-in restaurant there and we now have a - also we have the Westerner Motel. Those were all, again, "grandfather" deals. That property has been commercial for as long as I've lived here and this is my 39th,year in Arcadia. All of the areas that are mentioned in this list that the Planning Department has presented to you are not relevant to this hearing at all because, with one possible exception, and I'm doubtful about that', I couldn't find out about it for sure, all of these refer to old developments that have been there for 30 to 50 years. And at the time when this City was nothing but a bunch of rabbit ranches they didn't make any distinction along Huntington Drive or First Avenue or along Foothill Boulevard between commercial and residential. There still isn't. If you go down Foothill Boulevard now on the south side to the east near Fifth Avenue there are a number of residences down there. A number of residences. Also, on First Avenue - above Duarte Road on First Avenue - there are residences. But those are all old properties that have been there long before we had a City who was interested in upgrading itself and zoning things properly for the benefit of the citizens. So, I submit that there isn't one street there mentioned that has any relevance to changing property that is now zoned C-O & D to C-1. It was a "make wait". Now,at the time this property was rezoned in 1965, on the D overlay, which was a part of that ordinance, this is what the Council said about this particular piece of property: "That for the protection of properties in the vicinity, for the integration of subject property with the uses in effect or permissible in the area, and to promote the full and proper utilization of the aforesaid property, the following restrictions should be and the same are hereby imposed upon the above described property." That has to do with sign size and a lot of other things. But it shows they were concerned about the subject that we're addressing. And also in the ordinance that rezoned this property from C-2 to c-o & D (now I can't find it - well, I'll come to it). Now I'd like to address your attention to page 3 of the kit and I ,know you've read it and it's been read very - in part - by the Zoning Department. These are the recommendations of the Commission that heard this evidence. And they have come to a completely different conclusion, evidently, than the people who are here proposing it or the residents who are nearby. There has not been any compelling reason to change this zoning. And I'd -14- SAUNDERS like to personalize this for a minute. This is alluded to in my letter, but I think it is of utmost importance. Home owners and investors when investing in property rely on existing zoning. What else can you rely on? Before I purchased my property on South Old Ranch Road abutting the subject property at this hearing, I investigated the zoning and was aware of the resolution that was adopted by the Council at the time the zoning change was made. And I made a financial judgment and a commitment relying on the C-O & D zoning. And in view of my reliance and the reliance of my neighbors on that, there should be a very, very compelling reason to cause the Council to rezone this property and the reason should be something that benefits the City and the residents of the City of Arcadia. As I mentioned before; remember that when a zone is changed it's changed forever. So when Pier 1 is long gone, we will still be faced with some very undesirable prospects there. They operate what I consider to be a lot of'hours compared with an office building: They operate from 10:00 until 9:00 p.m. 6 days a week, and from 10:00 until 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. If they leave and some other thing like a grocery store or something else goes in there, without any permission from the City they can operate it 16 hours a day - from 8:00 in the morning to midnight,- without any request of the City. That would be a disaster to the neighborhood. And you can't count on Pier 1 being there. They haven't signed a lease yet. Also, the Planning Commission made an environmental checklist form and I'm not going to go through all the items there, but it has something to do with their credibility too, it seems, just like the gentleman who spoke preceding me. They say here that the traffic caused by the new business will not create any additional traffic in the area. No impact on the area. Well, the Commission found to the contrary. That there will be impact by additional traffic going through the Santa Anita Village area and up Old Ranch Road. They can go up Old Ranch Road to Hugo Reid, turn right, and then get back out on Baldwin Avenue. There's really all kinds of traffic being funneled through that area because of the additional traffic. The Planning Department stated that it would not - the traffic created by this business would not create traffic hazards for pedestrians, for bicycles, or ;or other autos. Well, if there's going to be a lot of traffic there going up and down, that's not going to create an additional hazard over what we have now? That can't possibly be true. And also, they feel that everything will be aesthetically compatible. Well, I don't know. I haven't - you see, we didn't have the -15- I , I I I SAUNDERS I , I ,I I benefit of seeing the plan, so I don't know what the plan looks like. I'm going to take a minute before I stop and look at it. But I've seen a lot of Pier l's now and I haven't been terribly impressed by the aesthetic values they give. If you think about the beautiful landscaping they have at the two financial institutions on the south side of Huntington Drive at Baldwin. Think about how beautiful Fashion Park has been land- scaped. Think about the apartments and condominiums on Huntington Drive. They're beautiful. I'm not sure that this will fit into that kind of an atmosphere. Now, the Council has no duty, again, to this former owner for past favors or because he failed to develop his property when the iron was hot. What, in effect, they're asking this Council to do is to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He's got a piece of property that's zoned for certain kinds of activity. He wants to put it into a more financially prosperous area. And why should he come here and have his property values increased when ours will very likely be decreased, based upon my experience, and I've bought properties before allover Arcadia. I respectfully urge this honorable City Council to deny the petitioner's application to zone subject property as C-1. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. I'm going to look at this plans, if I may, and I'm going to ask, if I find it necessary, to readdress you after I've had a chance to look at the plans as you have. Thank you. ~" " " -16- CHANDLER Are there any questions for Mr. Saunders? Thank you, Mr. Saunders. And is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to oppose the appeal? JACK SAELID My name is Jack Saelid. I live with my family at 821 Balboa Drive, about 2! blocks from the subject property. I've lived there since 1961 and have taken a very intense interest in the City and seeing it properly developed and I'm very proud of the neighborhood in which I live and I want to see II it maintained. I do not consider this to be an improvement in any sense, but a degradation of the area. We donlt live in a feudal society where land barons whimsically determine land usage, but rather we live under a , system which is designed to protect us from arbitrary decisions. Changes of land use will occur from time to time, but these changes must only be based on proper zoning considerations and not based on expediency in achieving the wishes of singular interests or in consideration of a prior good relationship. A compelling reason must be shown to change the zone based on the findings of the present zoning and Resolution 3770 are in error or no longer applicable. Any zone change based on less than that could only be classed as arbitrary and capricious. Arcadians have a right to expect that you will act as responsible stewards of the public trust. II Resolution 3770, part of that was read to you a moment ago and I'm going to read it again, because if I depart from this I'll be up here forever. Governing document states that "for the protection of properties in the vicinity, for the integration of subject property with the uses in effect or permissible in the area, and to promote the full and proper utilization of the aforesaid property, the following restrictions should be and the same are hereby imposed upon the above described property." And it goes on to stipulate what all of those are. There simply is no compelling reason to change the zoning on the subject property. There are numerous and ,) compelling reasons to maintain the integrity of the present zoning and to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood. A high intensity retailing usage is incompatible with the neighborhood. Not only would there be no II buffer between the development and adjacent residences, the unique traffic pattern of the area brought about by the divider on Huntington Drive and the neighborhood to the north would encourage patrons to seek egress through Old Ranch Road and several other streets in the Village. That is what the Planning Commission found. That's my interpretation also. Parking is inadequate. Because of the proximity of the residential neighborhood, the -17- SAELID I I I , I CHANDLER City Council which adopted the controlling D overlay resolution insisted upon even more stringent requirements than that called for in the basic C-O zone. Whereas with normal professional office usage the requirement is for one parking space for 250 square feet of gross floor area, they, to protect the area, saw the need to require one space for each 180 square feet. That was with office usage. With the request for a retailing usage, which would be far more intense, and if this particular application where ,hey're talking about Pier 1, which is anything but certain anyway, if ,hey're going to be turning something like a million dollars, they're going to be bringing a heck of a lot of traffic into that area. It would be reasonable, therefore, to insist on even more stringent parking require- IDents to make sure that they don't overflow into the neighborhood. Perhaps one for each 125 square feet. That would probably make a retail usage impractical for the subject property and only serve to illustrate the folly of the requested zone change. This proposal would further fractionate the retail area. From the City's point of view this would further complicate an already troublesome condition. The old downtown, Baldwin Avenue, the Highlands, Live Oak, First Avenue, Golden West, the'El Rancho, all are part of this scattered and fractionated retail business community. And you know that as well as I do. For eight years I dealt with that and you're having to do the same thing. And if there's one thing we would like to be able to do in this City, it would be to draw that business community together. But we just simply have not been built up that way. Mini-malls and strip zoning proliferate. This proposal would only further damage an already poor situation. Finally, the City has moved further in developing the East Huntington Drive area. There's plenty of good, properly zoned property which could be developed with this type of retailing establishment and which would not damage Arcadia's residential integrity. In closing I respectfully ask that you deny this appeal of the Planning Commission's unanimous decision and that you uphold our zoning integrity. For while the applicant has the right to seek your overturning of the Planning , Commission's decision, the citizens of Arcadia have the right to expect that you will be good stewards of the law and not make arbitrary and capricious changes to it. Thank you for your attention. Are there any questions of Mr. Saelid? Thank you, Mr. Saelid. -18- THOMAS CROSBY Good evening. I've got laryngitis so my voice is going to be very soft. My name is Thomas Crosby. I'm the president of the Santa Anita Village Association. I live at 601 South Old Ranch Road. The two people that have talked here before me in opposition to this have covered the major points. I only want ,to focus on one point, which unfortunately is very near and dear to me, and that is the traffic situation here. In the overlays that I see here we've heard them discuss about having egress and ingress only on I Huntington, yet the overlays show a parking entrance there on Old Ranch. We have a situation here on Old Ranch where the existing commercial corner of Baldwin and Huntington, has ample opportunity for the driver of .1 applications fall into two areas. The Union Oil Station, which is on the a vehicle to exit on to Huntington to go west, to exit on to Baldwin and get into the left-hand turn lane there to go east, to exit on to Baldwin and go north and south. That particular enterprise there does not provide quite as much problem from traffic standpoint in the Village. The activity to the west of Old Ranch, the Chevron Station and the two small retail areas there, the two retail areas don't have a real problem with us because they can only really get out onto Huntington and go west. The Chevron Station, unfortunately, has a driveway on to Old Ranch. If it did not, I it would be a perfect situation in that it would also not be able toget on Old Ranch. We do have a problem right now with that service station. We have not come to you; we have lived with the problem. This particular thing before you right now, though, is going to give us a compounding of the problem. Even with driveways only on Huntington, there's no reason in the world that a driver can not make a turn on to Old Ranch Road and go north, as the Judge suggested, to Hugo Reid to get to Baldwin, at which point he can either go north or south on Baldwin. If that's where he wants to go, if we wants to get to the freeway that is best and most logical I choice. Unfortunately for me, as a resident in the Village, that puts more traffic on Old Ranch Road and we already have a bad situation on Old Ranch Road. And I really do not see any reason to compound that I problem and I feel it is your decision here to uphold the Planning Commission in their thought process and I'm sure they came to the same conclusion that I did that this is a bad situation. Thank you very much for your time. -19- COUNCILMAN GILB CHANDLER GILB CROSBY I GILB CROSBY GILB I~ GILB CROSBY GILB CROSBY I GILB CROSBY GILB CROSBY GILB CROSBY GILB CROSBY , I MILLER GILB CROSBY MILLER , . I have a question. Mr. Gilb? You were saying that when the traffic goes north to Hugo Reid, that's the only way they can get to the freeway? I don't undestand that. It is the most logical way to get to the freeway. You mean go out Hugo Reid to Baldwin? You can either go out Hugo Reid to Baldwin or you can go ... There's a divider. You can't go across. So how do you go .... You go south on Baldwin to the very first signal. You make a U turn. I do it. Why wouldn't you just go out on go around the other way and go down to one of the other streets? (Comments from audience) Oh, everybody knows how to drive. We closed that street off at one time. Well, unfortunately, you don't live in the area, Mr. Gilb. Otherwise you'd know. Those of us that live ... Listen~ I want to tell you something, my friend. I spent about four years working on closing that street up there, long before you were there. So I know about the area. Yeah, you know, really. And unfortunately one of the reasons why we closed that street was because of a couple of unfortunate incidents on that street. A couple? A couple. Oh, there was one. There were more than one. Well, anyway. And that is something we'd like to avoid happening in the future. OK. And frankly, from my perspective, if it were to happen as a result of your making a decision to find in favor of Pier 1, we would consider it the City's problem. And I think Mr. Miller would have a little bit of extra work on his hands. I don't think that's a valid statement. I think that you're threatening us, is that what you're doing? No, I'm not. But that's not a valid statement. This is a land use decision; it's a discretionary decision and there is complete immunity under the law both in law and facts. So, I don't think that kind of a statement or threat is going to get anywhere with this body. -20- CROSBY MILLER GILB CROSBY CHANDLER CROSBY CHANDLER FRANK LIU CHANDLER It's not a threat, Mr. Miller. It's not a reality, either. I think one night when Mr. Saelid was on the Council somebody came to the Council and said, "Would you be happy if another child was killed?" I don't think he likedcthat too damned well. And so, I think - I kind of take that as your discussions. Well, and the Council made a correct decision. Is there anything else, Mr. Crosby? No, I have nothing else. Any other questions of Mr. Crosby? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak against the appeal? Please state your name and address. My name is Frank Liu. I live in 710 S. Old Ranch Road, right next to Mr. Saunders' property. The reason is the same thing we talk about regarding the traffic problems. The reason I going to say is, even right now the property next the street to the property right now have ,some guys - three cars - every morning I see them,park there ~nd then go to the bus station to catch the bus. So right now they have three cars every morning on that. And one more thing is sometimes like the Santa Anita Race Track - they have a big race - my home and then house - every space is parking with those ,cars. And when they left we have to clean everything. ,',Mr" "Jim"j;lag's also knows that. So this is a problem. And then right now, my office - my house - they have apartment that they let some boys and girls and some the. kids - children - which live there. So I see some cars when they're turning from - turn around and then the kids sometimes will be hit by the cars. I saw that also. So this is the main thing I am concerned with. And one more things. My house is actually is the entrance to the (inaudible) But if this property have to be like you approve this - what I mean to say is you approve this property to be (inaudible) I'd say a lot of traffic would going on there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Liu. Are there any questions of Mr. Liu? Anybody else opposing the appeal? -21- II I I I I JAMES GLASS James Glass, 706 S. Old Ranch Road. I live right next to Mr. Liu, that's north of Huntington Drive. If you have copies of the testimony from the Planning Commission, you've probably already read my statements in it. I'd simply like to reiterate a few matters and especially respond to the statements of the appellant in this matter and that is that they say I there'll be no increase of traffic. That's baloney! They picked the area because, according to them, this is one of the busiest intersections in town. And the reason is to bring traffic and bring people into the area. I That's the whole reason for a retail outlet is to bring customers there. You don't increase the traffic, you don't bring customers, you don't have sales. That's the whole reason for being there. Now, I run a small publishing business, out of my home at 706. I had to obtain a home permit license. In order to do that I had to get consent of everyone of my neighbors in a 360. circle. In addition to that I had to promise, guarantee, that there would be no activity that would cause any disruption to the traffic pattern. No frequent deliveries, either by me or to me. That was a promise. That had to be done. That was a requirement to do business in the area. The business that would go there would not be allowed under the I present zoning. The businesses that are presently there would not be allowed except because of the "grandfathering". The Planning Commission made it perfectly clear that if they go out of business, they're gone. Nothing replaces them of that nature. Now, I've just had a chance to take a look at the diagram of the proposed unit. You notice the entrance and exits on Old Ranch. Now they say, "No, we won't put one there." Well, fine, that leaves one entrance on Huntington. That is one of the busiest intersections there. Can you imagine what happens when a truck starts to back in to unload? Or, what about the trash trucks? What about the I other people who come in and get lost? In that area, particularly where we live on Old Ranch, that place is a drag strip. And one of the reasons that people are coming through get lost - they travel around - you see I people who are definitely strangers. You live there long enough you certainly know it. And they don't know how to get out. They're looking for other ways to get to the freeway - to get out or to get in. And there's no question in my mind that this would lead to added traffic. I have a 7~ year old child. I don't wish any more traffic there. I don't allow her to play in the front, but it is a concern, especially, now that she's of an age to start riding a bicycle and we ride with them. Besides -22- GLASS GILB CHANDLER GILB GLASS GILB GLASS GILB GLASS GILB the traffic there's the matter of business hours. This is a residential neighborhood - to have a high intensity business there open six days a week until 9:00 at night brings traffic in that would not be compatible with residential usage. I mean, when I'm at home - I have another job - when I come home it's nice to be at home in a residence, not to have businesses right next to you that are in full swing and operation. There would also be Sunday operations. Now, this is all premised on the II fact that you change the zone and that Pier 1 goes in. Now, there's no guarantee - they don't have a lease. You change the zone and they say, I "Well, we don't want to sign 'a lease with you." The zone is changed, they can put anybody else in there they want under that. Once the zone is changed, you're not going to change it back. So, we are very much' opposed to that changes - those changes. The other thing, there's increased noise; there's increased trash. Now, I speak personally that I've, for some reason of where I'm located, perhaps a fact of fate - but all the large portion of the trash of that area ends up in my front yard. People driving through deposit allover the place. Stuff from the businesses where peOple have entered into the gas station or during Christmas. Somehow the winds just seem to blow it right in my front yard. I don't want any more business that's going to come in and bring in people and deposit trash I and noise and added activity. Now, the (end of tape) I've been there about 14 years now, but I don't wish to see an increased traffic pattern, noise pattern, trash pattern, that will come with that type of establishment. I feel that the Planning Commission's negative report and unanimous vote to deny the application is totally proper and that there is no reason to overrule that reading. And I would ask very much that you do not do so. Thank you very much. I have a question. I You have questions of Mr. Glass, Mr. Gilb? Mr. Glass, do you have a problem with - you said you live next to Mr. Liu? Yes. II Do you have a problem with cars being parked in your house in front of your house all day long while the people go in town on the bus? Yes, sir. It's not necessarily bus, I don't know where they all COme from. Well, wherever they go. I don't know, but ,yes. They are strangers. Usually done during the day? I mean, like now, is it going on? -23- GLASS I I GILB GLASS CHANDLER GLASS CHANDLER WIN EASTON I I I Yes. Now, when I say that - it varies. There have been people who have been there actually several days. I've called the police on it because it looked for a while that the cars had been abandoned there. But apparently not. They were someplace else. Where they were, I don't know. I do know they were strangers and I make it a very strong point to keep a good track of what goes in. As a matter of fact, what got me to move into that area was because the neighbors at the time I moved in called the police on me because I was cruising through looking at the neighborhood thinking, "Boy, this is pretty neat." And next thing I know I was pulled over. And I thought, "Hey, this is the town for me." And that's exactly what I do. And that's the problem. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Glass? Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. We are still enjoying comments opposing the appeal. Please try not to be redundant. My name is Win Easton. I live at 855 Kingsley Drive. I've lived there 22 years. I think the most compelling reason, sitting here and listening tonight, is that the residents of the Village, myself included, and I think most of them have bought there knowing what the zoning was, knowing the protection they had. And now they're coming to you as citizens and as the very people that have elected you to office and said, "Keep it as it is. Rather than have absentee ownership, absentee tenants, tell us what we're going to do with our property." If I'm not mistaken, Pier 1 was at one time in San Marino and didn't make it there and now they're coming into Arcadia. I think the other thing that bothers me is if anybody really takes the time to study the traffic pattern, when they closed Hugo Reid and made it one way out, that put all the pressure on Old Ranch Road and you could pay the salary of a policeman in there all day long because the traffic comes up Old Ranch, generally cuts up Victoria to Golden West, slides the stop sign at Golden West, goes up to Hugo Reid, slides the stop sign there, they'll either go right back to the freeway there, generally they'll go left up past the school, out on Michillinda and pick up the freeway up there. There's a heavy traffic problem. But basically I think that the citizens are asking you to uphold what we came to live in there. This looks to me like the residents faced with the Anoakia problem up above. -24- EASTON CHANDLER CHARLES GEORGE CHANDLER JOHN DIXON CHANDLER BEVERLY ADAMS And that was upheld. Thank you, sir. I'm Charles George. I live at 331 S. Old Ranch Road. I'm a member of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board. I don't want to repeat what was said before, as most of it was already said. But I just want to let you know that I think the City acted wisely in 1965 when they zoned the area c-o & D. I think that's still an appropriate zoning II for the area and I don't see any compelling reason for a zone change. I believe that a zone C-1 is much more intensive than a C-O & D and I I think that's obvious. Two things I want to highlight is I think it will generate a lot more traffic in the area, especially going north on Old Ranch Road because of the unique situation with the median on Huntington Drive there and also C-1 will also require a lot more parking with peaks in parking being in the evening and on the weekends. I mean, maybe the average parking is not much more than average parking of office buildings, but you realize that most of the parking's going to be in the evening after work hours and also on the weekends when we're going to be in the neighbor- hood. So I ask the City to deny the appeal. Thank you, Mr. George. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in I opposition to the appeal? My name is John Dixon, 426 S. Old Ranch Road. Everything that you have heard, r'd want to sayan "amen" to. I'm concerned with the possible approval of this for the reasons that have already been stated; namely, the hours that would be kept and primarily the traffic problem that we have on Old Ranch Road. I'd encourage you Council people to vote it 'down. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this appeal? If you wish to speak in opposition, could ".1 you please move down to the front row in interest of time. My name is Beverly Adams. I live at 431 S. Old Ranch Road. I can't let men do all the talking. I happen to have two teenage children. So my children, hopefully, know how to go in and out and act on streets. But we have a lot of families that have moved into the area in the last few I years that have young children and I am very concerned about the children in the neighborhood and the traffic - I want to say on Old Ranch Road it is like a race track. I think the police should be in there and watch. -25- ADAMS I CHANDLER I ORSI I , I The stop signs are a joke. They might as well take them out because most of the people don't stop a~yway. As far as shopping at a store like this, I personally would not go. I don't think most people in Arcadia care about Pier 1 Imports. Jobs for Arcadia - maybe for some of the teenagers, but if the parents are going to work I certainly wouldn't work there. I couldn't make enough. Personally, I have a very high concern for you to deny this request. I think it's most important that you do. Thank you,' Mrs. Adams. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to the appeal? Seeing none, the applicant does have a rebuttal period. Mr. Orsi, do you wish to rebut? Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to rebut. I'll be very brief. During the consideration that led up to our being here this evening, we have considered that office business as well as the financial institution business. Now, Judge Saunders has pointed out a number of things and he seems to be focusing on using the current zoning. If I'm to use his argument, if I brought the Bank of America in here and asked for a permit for a neighborhood bank and it met the parking and so on, apparently he would support that because it's within the zoning. The automatic teller machines in the banks are open 24 hours a day. Banks will not even talk to you if the local agencies refuse them to have an automatic teller machine or a walk-up window or a drive-through window. I don't see where a financial institution is going to be the solution to this problem as far as that's concerned. I'm not - that's on point 1. On the point about Judge Saunders at one time wishing to buy the property, I'm not familiar with those details. So, I don't know why his offer wasn't accepted. I C don't know what his proposal was at that time; whether he was involved with the bank that wanted to build, that he was going to sell his property to. I regret that he wasn't able to capitalize on his property. We are not here asking anybody to reward us and we're not here asking anybody to do us any favors. As I said ,in the beginning, if we can work out a legitimate compromise or we can work out some middle ground - I'm hearing traffic problems and street problems and a number of other issues - and these citizens have very legitimate concerns. We certainly don't want to add to them. If we can work this out in the spirit of cooperation with every- body that's involved and if we can set aside all of these past personality problems, that mayor may not have arisen, that most of us in this room r -26- ORSI CHANDLER COUNCILMAN HARBICHT COUNCILMAN LOJESKI CHANDLER don't even know anything about, I, for one, representing the owner, don't know anything about Judge Saunders trying to sell his property to a bank on the condition that we would sell our property to a bank. I don't know anything about that. That was a new revelation this evening. I don't know if he's still interested in that. I don't know whether the bank would be able to build on his property, because I don't know if his property is zoned for a bank parking lot. I don't know any of these things. If II that' the Council - if the Council says, "Well, we would like you to go back and assuming you want to see something done on the property, go back I and talk to Judge Saunders and see if you can work out that bank where he gets the parking lot and you get the bank on your corner, then everybody can get rich, as Mr. Saunders pointed out, we'd be delighted to sit down and see what the feasibility of that would be. But in the meanwhile, we are only here - and believe me - we are only here to try to work something out if something is workable. If it's not workable, we both thank you and apologize for taking up so much of your time. Any questions of Mr. Orsi? Mr. Mayor. I move to close the public hearing. Second. I We have a motion by Mr. H&rbicht and a second by Dr. Lojeski and so ordered. The public hearing is closed. Do we have any objections? No objections. So ordered. Do we have some discussion on this issue? COUNCILWOMAN Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have a question I'd like to ask Mr. Woolard. In reading YOUNG the Planning Commission's note, it says that the zone should be consistent WOOLARD YOUNG WOOLARD YOUNG WOOLARD YOUNG with the General Plan. Then on the first page of our thing here it says something about it's zoned commercial. Am I reading that right? OK. I'm not sure I understand the I OK. On what is our number 1 page, or page 4 of the packet, it says down about 2/3 of the way down the page it says, "The site contains approximately 34,000 plus square feet and has been vacant since 1963. I The General Plan designation is commercial." Yes. That's correct? Yes. And when that says commercial, what does that mean? -27- WOOLARD I YOUNG CHANDLER LOJESKI I I , I Well, that covers everything from - zoning that would be consistent with that designation includes everything from C-O, C-l, C-2 and C-M. Virtually any commercial zone would be consistent with that designation. OK. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the issue? Dr. Lojeski? Well, I think what's before us this evening is not whether I particularly like a Pier 1 store, whether I like a certain restaurant. The question, I think if we simply dissect it down to very simplistic terms, is whether a zone change should be appropriate for the property or not. Let's sincerely just take out, I think, the Pier 1 concept and what's been shown before us. There is no lease signed. There is no agreement made. It's kind of "if this happens, that happens". It becomes a difficult thing to, I think, separate those two issues. But you have to separate those two issues. I've always believed that we are a citizen - or a City, excuse, me - of homes, of residential units. And I, for one, appreciate the viewpoints, particularly of the abutting residences. Whether it be for the particular use that is pictured in front of us or for another use in the hypothetical C-l zone. And I think, you know, we're dealing with a site which has been vacant for 25 plus years. There has been nothing there. Yes, I think the wish of the community, Mr. Orsi, is develop something there or to see something developed. But I think it should be developed within the zoning regulations that are on the property. It's a horrible piece of property because of the poor access on Huntington Drive. It's a horrible piece of commercial property because of the abutment of Old Ranch Road, which is next to it. And, therefore, looking at what's before me, hearing what was before me on both sides, I have to reiterate I really don't personally see any compelling reason to change the zone. The comment was made regarding a financial institution and, Mr. Orsi, I beg to differ that if a financial institution had a drive-up teller, the drive-up teller will not have, I don't believe, 10 to 15 cars, potentially, at one time as a retail store would on that particular site. ,I think they're going to have the individual cars coming and going, possibly two or three at anyone moment; but you're not going to also have them congregate for that period of time. It's a little different situation. I, therefore, agree that I think the intensity of the C-l zone is not something that I would like to see changed in that parcel of property. I'm concerned about the traffic, particularly in that area, having lived through the accidents and the -28- LOJESKI situations that particularly led to the closure of the street to the 'north. I'm also - no, I was not on the Council, Mr. Gilb - but I was certainly a resident of the community and I followed it very closely and I was not part of the decision-making process. You probably were. And I did not say that - I did not allude to that. I also feel that there C!lANDLER are several useS in a C-1 zone which would be totally inappropriate for the site and, again, I just see no compelling reason to change it. So, II therefore, I would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Any further discussion? Mr. Harbicht. HARBICHT Yeah, I'd like to comment on this. I'd like to comment on some of the I points that have been made here and I'm not going to go through all of them, but first, there is a suggestion that such things as mini-malls and 7-11's, etc., have been rejected in the interests of the City. In fact, those are not permitted uses in the zone and would not have been permitted there. On the other side we heard ~ number of people testify that we should keep the zoning as it is because that's what it is. And I don't I reject that argument also. We do have zone changes within the City. There are many times when there are compelling reasons to change the zones. Although people who don't want a zone change always use that I argument. We have before us a petition this evening from your neighbors directly to the north that want to change the zoning in the entire Lower Rancho. I think to say we don't want to consider that because it's already zoned the way it is, it would be irresponsible on our part. I think it's important that we recognize that this is not a discussion of Pier 1. This is a consideration of a zone change. There's - I believe that the developer and the property owner and Pier 1 are sincerely interested in putting a Pier 1 on that site, but there's no guarantee that that's going to happen. And we've seen design layouts - I recognize they're only putting these either. I believe that what we have before us is a question of what is , before us to give us an idea. The fact is that none of that is a guarantee going to be 'the effects, not only on this property but on surrounding properties if we change the zone. And I've said in many other cases before I this body that the zoning is not only a restriction on what you can do, it's a guarantee of what you can do and the abutting zoning is a guarantee to people of what they can expect to happen on the properties that are abutting theirs. I think that this - to change this to C-1 opens the door for any number of uses, which really are not compatible with this -29- . HARBICHT YOUNG CHANDLER I~ I CHANDLER GILB I I I specific sitecand this specific layout that we have there with the close proximity of the residential zones. And for that reason and that reason only, I'm going to uphold the Building and Planning Commission - the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Mayor. Do we have further discussion, Mr. Gilb - Mrs. Young? Go ahead. Yes. I'm not going to repeat what these other two gentlemen have said. I have had mixed emotions about this. I think alluding to Pier 1, that would be a marvelous store to have in our town. But I think there's a right place for everything and, having lived in this area for many years, I'm well aware of the traffic problem. And that has been an area of people taking shortcuts for the 39 years that I've lived here. It still happens. The people from the south use that as a direct route through to avoid stop signs and stop lights. I have to uphold the Planning Commission's request because I, too, feel that there is not a co~pelling reason to change the zoning. Any further discussion? ' Mr. Gilb, do you have anything? This is a moot point. I have a couple of things I'd like to say. One, just for a moment I want to talk about the traffic on Old Ranch Road, which I think would be a good job for our new Public Works Director and everybody else around here, if it's that bad, and all the parking up there. I didn't realize people were leaving their cars up there. I'd like to just take you back for a minute for a minute to Mr. Kalmanovitz, who - everybody thinks he's a'money-grabbing land baron and that was really the furthest thing. And some of the things that were alluded to tonight in regard to, him, I thought were totally unfair. And to call Pier 1 nothing but an Akron and a Pic' n Save is certainly not true. And the lady that said she wouldn't shop there, I was down there yesterday and I have to tell you, they've got a lot of real nice things and I'm not in the habit of buying junk. So maybe people ought to go see their stores and see how they've upgraded them. I ran into Mr. Kalmanovitz a few years ago when Mr. Saelid was on the Council. We were trying to get the property together for the Engineering Science building. He was up on Santa Anita in the building up there where Dennis is, whatever the name of that is. And they had to move out of there. And we went to him and he hadn't sold a piece of property in 18 years and I went to San Francisco to see him. And he said he'd like to - we got pretty well acquainted - and he said he'd like to sell the' -30- GILB property. He sold us the property for less money. We were going to pay him 8% interest on the note and he said, "Just pay me H because, you know, we're all working in the City together." When the property became available down at the May Company and the grocery store moved out, E1 Rancho, it looked like nothing was going to get in there and he and Mr. Orsi worked long hours trying to get Lucky's or somebody in there to open that grocery store. It was just sitting there. And I have to tell you the amount of property that this gentlemen owned, this piece of property didn't mean doodley squat to him. I mean, he owned property all over the world and he was a very, I thought, eccentric man but he was certainly a very honest guy. And every time something comes down to the City of Arcadia he usually comes down ahead of time when he was alive and now Bernie does it, and he'd say, "I have a plan, you know, like Budget Car Rentals over on this property. How about Budget Car Rentals?" And I'd say we don't want no Budget Car Rentals over there. OK, that's the end of that. Or whatever development that they'd get, they'd always call up and say, "What do you think of this and what do you think of that?" I would hate to see that piece of property sit there, that vacant lot, forever. And I can't understand how nothing happening to that piece of property is going to help the value of the neighborhood. And as far as use of the thing is, when we put the Christmas trees in there in November or December, boy, there's plenty of cars around. It just - it's a piece of property - a few years ago we had a development proposed on Sunset across from the Hughes Markets and the people who live in the apartment ho~ses on - up there in that area - were against it. I think Mr. Saelid was here that night, too. I think he was on the Council then. But, anyway, till this day we've never got a development on there and that parking lot - that lot's still sitting there and all the used cars are for sale on it and all the junk's on it and we can't get it developed. So these two pieces of property, I think, should be developed some way. But obviously, they got to be developed to the advantage of the developer. For Judge Saunders to say, well, he didn't want to sell it to me when they had their chance to strike while the iron was hot, that's the way business is. If you don't want to take an offer, you don't have to take 'an offer. But I didn't really understand the parking of his apartment houses and this bank and so on and so forth. But all I know is that I would do anything -31- I I I , I GILB CHANDLER GILB I I I~ HARBICHT I LOJESKI & YOUNG !lARBICHT I ROLL CALL CHANDLER to try to get this Pier 1 Imports or something like that on that piece of property. Anything on the property there rather than just let it sit there as a vacant piece of property. Please. Ladies and gentlemen, please. It's his podium. Well, anyway, I'd have to go back then also to the same problem. When you change these zones, it's a very funny thing. Another thing is, somebody was talking about - Mr. Saelid made a statement. He said, "Well, then, the zoning change is no longer applicable." Well, it was changed in 1965. So maybe it is no longer applicable. I don't know. I don't know what's going to happen to those service stations over there. I would hate to see that they close that service station. It's just going to sit there and junk out and fall apart. I mean, I don't know what's going to happen to those places there. It is a problem, you know. It's a serious problem with what's going to happen to those small businesses over there. But a long time ago I decided that I have to have a compelling reason to overturn the Planning Commission on - when they vote unanimously on a matter. And on this matter, in all due respect, I would have to uphold the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Gilb. Do we have a motion, Mr. Harbicht. Yeah. I would comment before I make a motion. You know, we've never had anybody come here and tell us they didn't have enough traffic on their street. We don't have a unique situation here. We hear this every proposal that comes along. The question of increased traffic comes up. And so I think we can put Old Ranch Road in with about 35 other locations, I've heard about in the last 3 years that are the busiest streets in Arcadia. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and affirm their findings. Second. We have a motion by Mr. Harbicht and a second by Lojeski. Madame Clerk, may we have a roll call. AYES: Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young, Chandler NOES: None The ruling of the Planning Commission stands. The appeal is denied. -32-