HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 8,1996
I
I
I
01/(1 _ ,0
o ?t/f''76
38:0217 ~
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 19%
I,
ROLL CALL
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an Adjourned Regular
Meeting on Monday, July 8, 19%, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for the
primary purpose of conducting a public hearing in consideration of the Draft General Plan
Update and the related Draft Environmental Impact Report.
I
PRESENT: CounciVAgency Members Chang, Harbichl, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn
ABSENT: None
2.
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE
COUNCllJ AGENCY MEMBERS
Marl!Uerite Soencer. South Mayflower Avenue, expressed her opinion of Council's response
to four citizens who addressed the City Council at the July 2nd meeting regarding the General
Plan. Mrs. Spencer felt these two Councilmembers had impugned the honesty and integrity
of the four citizens. The persons who testified are good people with the best interests of the
City at heart. Mrs. Spencer suggested that Council, in order to avoid personal attacks, avail
themselves of Section 2123.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and require all persons, prior to
addressing the Council on any subject or on any specific agenda item, be sworn to tell the
truth.
Harold Kid\!, Magellan Road, Slated in part, that he takes exception to Mayor Pro tern
Harbicht's remark at the July 2nd Council meeting regarding Neighbors For Arcadia's
retention of an outside consultant to advise them on the General Plan Update and
Environmental Impact Report. Why is appropriate for the City to engage outside consultants
and inappropriate for private Arcadia citizens to do the same. It is grass roots democracy and
the right of citizens to do so in the initiative process.
Frank Goddard. 620 West Huntington Drive, complimented Council for eliminating the $1,02
million deficit from the 19%-97 budget and creating an $800,000. contingency surplus and a
balanced budget. Mr. Goddard reviewed his figures of possible revenue to the City if the
Santa Anita Entertainment Center project were to be built at one and one-half the size of the
orig,inal $300 million plan. Santa Anita would receive profit from its entertainment center;
Los Angeles County and the State of California would receive $8.5 million per year; and the
City would only get increased crime and environmental degradation which would reduce the
quality of life for Arcadia citizens. Mr. Goddard urged Arcadia voters to defeat the Santa
Anita proposal for a commerciaVentertainment center at the upcoming November election.
Further, he would like to see Arcadia citizens and Santa Anita get together to help each other
and to offer ideas to Santa Anita which they might find useful in deciding what to do with
their property.
7/8/96
I
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
AND THE RELATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
JULY 8, 1996
I
.'
ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 8, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAIT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
AND THE RELATED DRAIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
MAYOR KUHN: We'll move to the Public Hearing item. The agenda item is Consideration of the Draft General Plan
Update and the Related Draft Environmental Impact Report. I'd like to refer to the Community Development Administrator,
Donna Butler, for some introductory remarks.
DONNA BUlLER: Thank you Mayor. Honorable Mayor and members of City Council, tonight is the first, of course, of the
fonna1 Public Hearing process before you to discuss the General Plan Update and Draft EIR. The Planning Commission, as
you are very well aware, held hearings on both the Draft EIR and the General Plan Update on April 29th, the 30th, May 14th
and 16th and May 30th and June 25th. Which on June 25th, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1535 which
recommended to the City Council approval of the General Plan Update with very specific changes which have been outlined
in the resolution which you have attached as well as in the staff report. Notification of tonight's meeting was mailed on
June 11th to approximately 1500 interested persons and agencies and notification of the hearing was published on June 13th
in the Hometown section of the Star News newspaper as well as noted in the City's June water billing and posted on the City
Community bulletin board.
A General Plan is a statement by the City and its citizenry, relative to the long-range plan for Arcadia, and provides a
comprehensive strategy for managing the City's future. The role of the General Plan is to act as a constitution for
development, the foundation of upon which all land use decisions are to be based. The purpose is to express community
development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private, within
the City. The General Plan Update adopted by the City will serve as a comprehensive management plan for the future,
enabling land use and policy determinations to be made by City decision makers within a formal framework. This General
Plan Update, when adopted, would replace the City's current General Plan, which was adopted in December of 1990. The
General Plan Update uses the year 2015 as the basis for its planning vision, however because attitudes, social values and
physical opportunities and constraints change over time, the General Plan should be reviewed annually to ensure that the
policies and programs contained in the Plan are consistent with what residents envision as the future for their community.
State law does require seven mandatory elements to be addressed in the EIR and our General Plan Update is organized into
six chapters: Community Development, Municipal Facilities & Services, Environmental Management, Environmental
Hazards, and Implementation and Monitoring Programs. The seven mandated elements are included within these chapters.
The primary focus of the Municipal Facilities & Services Chapter is to identi1Y the services and facilities that will be needed
to support existing and future residential, commercial and industrial development within the study area. Topics addressed
1
I
I
I
I
include transportation, infra-structure, educational facilities, parks and recreational facilities, police, fire and emergency
response services and general City services.
The Environmental Management Chapter focuses on the management of natural resources and open space lands.
The Environmental Hazards Chapter includes an evaluation of natural and man-made hazards faced by Arcadia residents and
businesses, determines appropriate levels of protection from various hazards and provides programs for achieving these levels
of protection.
And the Implementation and Monitoring Program is the City's blueprint for action, presenting a specific set of actions to
implement the City's goals and strategies.
I
The most important Chapter that we often refer to, even though I shouldn't say it's the most important, but the one that's
often referred to the most is the Community Development Chapter. This Chapter contains policies relating to three
mandatory General Plan elements: hmd use, housing and open space. This portion of the General Plan Update focuses on
the organization of the City's physical environment. With the exception of four transition areas, the General Plan Update
does not examine any significant changes in the City. The four areas which are currently undergoing transition, or possess
opportunities for transition, in which we did study are: Transition Area #1 which is the Santa Anita Racetrack, referred to as
. either the Santa Anita Racetrack, racetrack or throughout the document which means the entire property. The mixed use area
along Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive is Transition Area #2. Transition Area #3 is the downtown residential district
between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road and Santa Anita and Fifth Avenue. And the industry area along the north and
south side of Lower Azusa Road is Transition Area #4.
I
In Transition Area #1, the City recognized that the horse racing industry is undergoing a significant change and with the
advent of off-track betting and other forms of wagering, 'there has been a significant decline in on-site attendance at the
racetrack. Because of the reduced attendance, the racetrack does not need the same area and number of parking spaces for
normal operations as it did in the past, and both the racetrack and the mall represent the most significant and economic and
land use resources for the City. Apparently both of these land uses, along with the Los Angeles County Arboretum, are a
regional draw. They are centrally located, adjacent to civic and commercial uses, and highly visible from the adjacent
roadway. We felt the opportunity existed in this area to create a development which recognizes the unique attributes of the
racetrack and mall and to cultivate a unique mixture of commercial uses into a cohesive center. The recommendation
described in the Draft General Plan was for a new designation for the entire racetrack property and the mall from horse
racing and commercial to commercial entertainment, or some other land use designation reflective of a new economic land
use activity. The Planning Commission, at its June 25th meeting, recommended that the current General Plan designation of
horse racing be maintained on the entire racetrack property and that the Santa Anita Fashion Park property maintain the
designation of commercial with an appropriate maximum floor area ratio compatible with the existing development of the
Fashion Park Mall. The Commission, in its consideration, recognized that the Santa Anita Racetrack property is under-
2
utilized and the owners have the right to increase utilization of their land. However, the Commission felt that because of the
property's significant size, strategic location and its very potential uses beyond horse racing, a change in the General Plan I
land use designation, without a comprehensive project specific EIR to support such a change, would be inappropriate. The
Commission did, however, adopt a vision statement which is set forth in the resolution.
Transition Area #2 included a number of under-utilized vacant parcels along Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive which
are currently designated in the existing General Plan as planned development and industrial. Many of the parcels are odd in
configuration and lot sizes. The General Plan recommended that the parcels located north of Santa Clara Street and east of
Second, which are currently designated as planned development, propose to be changed to mixed use commerciallmultiple-
family residential. The remainder of the area would be designated as commercial. The Planning Commission recommended
that the properties on the north side of Huntington Drive and the Metro Railroad east to Fifth Avenue, including the
properties fronting on Huntington Drive, be mixed use commerciallresidential with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per
acre...30 dwelling units per acre be allowed for senior citizen housing developed on minimum 1/2 acre parcels, and the
remainder of transition area to be commercial.
Transition Area #3 is the downtown residential area south of Huntington Drive, between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road
and east of Santa Anita Avenue. Currently this area is designated in the General Plan as multiple family, 7+ dwelling units
per acre. The area is currently developed with a lot of single family and low intensity multiple-family buildings and is in a
transition to higher density residential. The recommended recommendation in the General Plan was for three new maximum
residential densities, up to 30 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission recommended that the existing R-3 zoned
properties be designated as multiple family residential, with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre, and that senior citizen
housing within this area be pennitted on minimum 1/2 acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units per
acre. They also recommended that the existing R-2 zoned properties, which is the area approximately between Second and
Fifth Avenues, be designated as multiple family residential with a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre and that senior
citizen housing be allowed in this area at a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre on minimum 1/2 acre parcels.
They also recommended that the properties fronting on the east and west side of First Avenue, between California Street and
Duarte Road, be designated as mixed use commerciallmultiple family at a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre on
minimum 1/2 acre lots and that senior citizen housing be allowed on minimum 1/2 acre lots at a maximum allowable density
of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Transition Area #4 is the last transition area that was studied. This is the area that is located on Lower Azusa Road,
commonly referred to as the Rodeffer property. The north side is an 85 acre parcel that is currently a vacant quarry and on
the south side is a 12 acre parcel, 4 acres of which are developed with a public storage facility...the remainder is vacant. The
recommendation of the current General Plan designation is industrial. The recommendation both of the City staff and of the
Planning Commission was maintain this area as industrial.
3
I
I
I
The Planning Commission further, at its June 25th meeting, recommended some specific recommendations which are
outlined in the report but just to run past a few:
. They recommended the adoption of policies and procedures that will promote the economic viability of the existing
commercial centers and encourage complimentary uses and development to attract new business, particularly on City
owned property and on key vacant properties such as the Foulger Ford site, Arcadia Lumber and Baker's Square sites.
. The Commission recognized that the Santa Anita Racetrack and live horse racing are culturally, historically and
commercially important to this City and the General Plan should include policies and procedures that promote and
encourage continued live horse racing and the economic viability of Santa Anita Racetrack and that will promote and
encourage the preservation of the significant architecture and viewscapes of Santa Anita Racetrack.
. The City will benefit greatly from the construction of an auditorium and Metro Rail Train Station and the City should
adopt policies and procedures that will encourage the construction of these two facilities.
.
The City should adopt policies and procedures that will promote the continued excellence of the school system. Its
policies and procedures should include land use designations and decisions that will discourage overcrowding of existing
or planned school facilities and compatible structures or uses in the immediate vicinity of existing planned school
facilities and unsafe traffic volumes and conditions at or near existing or planned school facilities.
I
. Council and City should further adopt policies and procedures that will maintain the City's reputation as a "Community
of Homes", including, but not limited to, land use designations and decisions that promote and encourage structures and
uses that are complimentary to, and compatible with, existing residential areas.
. And finally, that they should adopt policies and procedures that will promote a city-wide threshold of acceptability for
roadway levels of service, not to exceed Level of Service D, or a Level of Service C on local residential streets.
. The Planning Commission further recommended that the Anoakia property be included in addressing the housing goals
of the City and if each available property in the City is built to its maximum residential density, a total of 552 units would
be developed. This compares to the City's housing goal of approximately 500 units throughout the year 2003.
You also received a copy of a Fiscal Impact Report that was prepared by Agajanian & Associates, an independent consulting
firm, which Mr. Zola and I will be happy to discuss. And now I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Zola who will further discuss the
General Plan Update and the Draft EIR
I
4
LLOYD ZOLA: There are two documents which the Council has in front of them and which wiIl need to be considered
before you take your final action: I
. One is the General Plan document itself and we would suggest that foIlowing the Public Hearings, you consider first, the
land use map, and then the text of the Plan. There have been some...you do have letters from some parties requesting
revisions to the text of the General Plan that relate to the land use map and so we would suggest reviewing the General
Plan in that order.
. The second document that you have is the Draft EIR. Before you take any action on the General Plan, you will need to
consider the EIR and certify that it is adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Right now you
have the Draft EIR which was subject to public review for 45 days. Following your Public Hearings, we'll be looking to
you for direction on the Draft ErR, whether there is any discussion in it that you feel uncomfortable with, whether there
are any changes that you want to make to the General Plan, and then we will bring you back response to
comments...responses to all the written comments that have been received on the EIR and you be asked then to consider
the Draft EIR and the response to comments prior to taking action on the Gener31 Plan document.
The Planning Commission Hearings took the most time on two issues:
. Future land use and the vision for the racetrack area and, obviously, you'll be hearing a lot of testimony regarding that.
We would ask that as part of your deliberations, that you provide what you believe is in the best interest of the community
for the future of that property, considering the analysis that is in the Environmental Impact Report, the text that's in the
General Plan, and the Planning Commission's recommendation.
I
. The other piece of discussion that the Planning Commission focused on was related to housing and the housing element
and this is, without a doubt, the most difficult part of any General Plan in a relatively built-<lut, upper end commnnity
such as Arcadia. Your responsibility under State Housing Law and under General Plan Law is to provide for your
community'~ fair share of housing for all economic segments of the community. You do not have the ability under the
law to say "we will not accept... we do not want any lower, moderate income residents in our commuuity". When you
think about the housing, we will be looking at, as Donnnaid, a housing objective of approximately 500 dwelling nnits
from 1996 to the year 2003. Of these 500 dwelling nnits, approximately 85 need to be designed so.that they can
reasonably be built for very low income residents...those having household incomes of about $20,000 or less. About
14%, or 70 units, designed to be reasonably available for low income residents...those having incomes of $20,000 to
$32,500. Another 85 units for moderate income households, and when'l say "moderate income households", those are
really average...those are the average people in the County with incomes of $32,500 to about $48,800. And the majority
of new housing designed to reasonably be available for above moderate income residents...those having incomes over
I
5
I
I
I
$48,800. ..about 260 of those units. This does not mean that you as a City must build those units; this does mean that you
as a City must, in the General Plan, have sufficient land available for the construction of those units, having sufficient
programs in the housing element to facilitate their construction. And what you'll be asked to find, or to modify at the
end of your hearings is - can you, with the General Plan that is in front of you now, as recommended by the Planning
Commission, meet that objective of 500 units through the year 2003? As you just heard...if all land available for housing
were developed, the maximum allowable under the General Plan, that would yield about 552 units and that would take
about 150 different projects because within the area south of downtown, where the majority of this 550 unit potential
development is, it will primarily be "take down a house, bnild a duplex...take down a duplex, build a four-plex" adding
one or two units at a time. But what you will be asked to think about through is - can we, in fact, achieve that objective
of 500 units with a potential of552? If you do not feel comfortable in making that finding at the end of your hearings, or
in your discussions, we can help you look at additional sites that the Planning Commission had considered, we can take
you through the discussion that the Planning Commission had of why they did not believe those sites were reasonably
available for housing and you can make your judgment. That would conclude my presentation.
KUHN: Are there any questions of staff? Mr. Harbicht?
BOB HARBICHT: Yes. Donna, I'd like to get clarification on page 16 of your report. I think it might be somewhat
misleading here because we have a conflict in terms. We're talking about the area currently designated as multi-family as
meaning 7+ dwelllngs per acre, and then we talk about the proposals which state maximum numbers of dwelling units per
acre, and so what is current as 7+ could be 7 to 10, 7 to 50, 7 to whatever. I've had people ' say, "Gee'whiz, we allow 7
dwelllng units per acre now and they're talking about 30 dwelllng units per acre." But in fact, we don't allow 7, we allow 7
or more. Could you clarifY what's meant by these two different ways of-stating this?
BUTLER: Yes. What happened was back prior to a couple of years ago, the General Plans were set forth densities, they did
not require maximum densities and on a multiple family piece of properly, we allow one unit per 2,000 sq. ft. if it's, let's say,
zoned R-3, which would allow a maximum of 21 to 22 dwelllng units per acre and we have an R-2 zoning which allowed a
little over 7 dwelllng units per acre. What we did at that time was we placed a minimum number of units that would be
allowed. The State law has changed now and does require maximum densities on properties as well as maximum floor area
ratios and maximum square footages. And what we are doing in the recommendation that has been recommended by the
Planning Commission is they've related the recommendation back to the current zoning and, therefore, the area between
Santa Anita and Second Avenue would now have a maximum density of 24 dwelllng units per acre which would be currently
consistent with the City's current zoning.
HARBICHT: So currently it's 21 or 22 per acre and what they're recommending is 24 per acre?
6
BUTLER: Right, and the 24 would currently be allowed under our current regulations with density bonuses and so
this...what they've done is they've created densities which are consistent with the City's current underlying zoning. I
HARBICHT: Okay. I just wanted you to explain that because I know there's been some confusion on that particular point
because I've heard comment on it. That's the only question I have at the present time Madam Mayor.
KUHN: Okay. Any other questions? Mary?
MARY YOUNG: Yes, in the report where it lists the current area that are shopping areas in town, it's on page 18 but I'm
not really sure which section that was in, Baldwin Avenue was left out. Was there a reason for that?
BUTLER: This was a list that had come up by the Planning Commission and that's...actually what they did was they just
presented some areas, there's no reason that it was left out and it could be included in this. This was just a Planning
Commission recommendation that they felt the policy should be established and Baldwin Avenue should actually be in there.
YOUNG: That was what I felt.
HARBICHT: When I was reading this, I had the same though!...! thought why isn't Baldwin Avenue...and then I realized
they have the term "West Arcadia" there. I think they're referring to Baldwin Avenue when they say "West Arcadia."
I
YOUNG: That's primarily it.
HARBICHT: Because I had exactly the same thought.
YOUNG: That's all.
KUHN: Dennis, did you have anything? Dr. Chang?
DR. SHENG CHANG: None at this time.
KUHN: Okay. I have a question with regard to the effect of the schools on First Avenue there but I think that I prohably
should hold that thought until later, until we get to the Environmental section. Okay?
Okay, if no other questions of staff, we will move on to the Public Hearing portion. Before we officially open the Public I
Hearing session though, I would like to make a couple of remarks on behalf of the Council. This is a business meeting and
will be conducted accordingly. Because of the nature of the business to be conducted and the potential numbers of people
7
I
participating as such, demonstrations, applause, etc. really are inappropriate. They serve no real pwpose except to be
disruptive and we ask for your cooperation on that. The pwpose of the Public Hearing process this evening is to take
testimony from the public with regard to the Draft General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. These
are serious issues. We want to give everyone who wishes to a chance to speak. The Council intends to listen carefully and
courteously to each person who wishes to make a presentation. We expect everyone here to do the same, whether you happen
to agree or disagree with the particular speaker. This is truly democracy in action where everyone has the opportunity to
address their elected officials and have their feelings and opinions considered. However, please stick to the issues. Be
respectful to all concerned with the process, including the Council and the staff. All interested parties are encouraged to
participate, however remarks should be no more than 5 minutes in length. The Chair will give you a wrap-up warning and
you will be expected to respond accordingly. As a courtesy to everyone, speakers are to avoid repetition and this is not the
time for questions of the Council. Those representing a group or a common position should uy to appoint a spokesperson.
We have received written comment from the public. All letters have been supplied to all members of the Council. Each of us
has spent a great deal of time reading and studying for this hearing, including the written communications we have received.
Therefore, please don't repeat what you have already told us in writing. We are being broadcast live on television cable 20
this evening. Television sets also, as you noticed, have been set up outside for you in case we had an overflow this evening to
accommodate you. For the sake of our citizens as well as Council and staff, we would like to run these meetings as efficiently
as possible, get through the Public Hearing quickly, and come to a decision on the General Plan for the City of Arcadia. We
are all here because we want to do what is best for the City.
I
Are there any additional remarks? Bob, did you have something?
I
HARBICHT: Yes. As I mentioned to you today, I think that I'd like to just make a few comments, clarifying last week's
action by the Council with regard to the initiative measure that was brought to us by the City Clerk and was qnalified and this
kind of affects the General Plan since it addresses one of the Transition Areas. I don't want anybody to misinterpret the
action of the Council, I'd just like to explain in a little more detail what went on here. Basically, the Council is ultimately
going to have two choices with regard to this initiative:
. One is to immediately adopt the ordinance, which is in the initiative petition.
. Or the second is to put it before the voters for a vote of the citizens.
And it is the intention of the Council to put this before the voters and I want to be clear about that... that that is the intention
of the Council. One of the things that everyone should be aware of is the Council is required to set an election between 88
and 103 days from the time that they set that election. Now it's the Council's desire, and I think the people who passed the
position as well as the citizens of this community, to have the election as inexpensive as possible and the best way to do that is
to consolidate it with the General Election which is coming up in November. That's going to cost the City about $23,000 to
have that question on the ballot. If we were to hold a special election just for this question, the cost would be somewhere in
the $50,000 to $75,000 range and so, clearly, it makes sense to put it on the General Election ballot. But because of the 88 to
8
103 day window that we have to call the election, that means that we can take action if we want to put it on the November
ballot no earlier than the 25th of this month, or no later than the 9th of next month. And so this will be coming back before I
the Council at our rust meeting in August at which time it is intended to set that for election on the General Election. So I
just wanted to make it clear that we're not ignoring the wishes of the voters which is made clear by the fact that this is a
qualifYing petiticm...we're simply waiting for the proper time to do it in the most efficient way for the entire City. Thank you.
Just very briefIy...there was a petition passed that qualified and will put the question before the voters that if it's passed, it will
require that any change in the designation of the Santa Anita property to anything except horse racing will have to go before
the voters before that change can be made. Unlike any other area of the City, and currently that area of the City, the City
Council can take that action but this would require that any change to the zouing of that area would have to go to a vote of the
citizens. What's going on the ballot in November is a question to the citizens - "Do you want this to be an ordinance of the
City of Arcadia?" If it passes, then from then on we will be required to put any change before a vote of the citizens; if its
fails, then it will be treated like any other property in the City. That's kind of in a nutshell what it's about.
KUHN: Okay. Thank you Mr. Harbicht. Okay. We are now ready to proceed with the Public Hearing. I apologize to those
who I interrupted before. Please come forward. I think, okay...hold on one second. Chilli, do you wish to address the
Council?
SHERWOOD CHILLlNGWORTH: I would if it would be appropriate. I think it might be best for us to be first and then
we'll sit back and listen to the comments if you don't mind.
I
KUHN: Mrs. Sayre if that's okay with you?
MRS. SAYRE: No, it's not okay...the gentleman is rude.....
KUHN: Well, okay.
SAYRE: He is!
KUHN: Okay, the Chair recognizes Chilli.
CHILLINGWORTH: I'm sony, I didn't mean to be rude, I thought it would be better for us to get up here first.
I
9
I
CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, and staff, I am Sherwood Chillingworth. I am a resident of
Arcadia and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Santa Anita Realty. To my right is Tom Austin, who is Vice President of
Development of Santa Anita Realty. The reason we're both up here tonight is, I suspect, and maybe many of you do, too, this
might be a long process, and both of us will not be available every night that there may be a meeting. So we want to have two
representatives so you have two people to discuss the issues with. Mr. Austin wiIl be the primary point person for Santa
Anita with regard to development issues and zoning issues, matters of that kind. And that's why I wanted him to be here
,
with me tonight so we can get that issue straight. It,
I
Santa Anita is requesting that our south parking lot be designated with a commercial land use, and what designation that is
specifically, I'll leave it up to members of the Council, here. We would like to have the broadest commercial use that there is.
We think that this is the only appropriate use for this property...already discussed this before in the Planning Commission. I
don't think anybody wants to see residential over there. No one wants industrial over there. I don't think that office
bnildings make sense anymore in this economic climate. And the only logical use for that property is commercial. It's
Surrounded by commercial--the Race Track on the north, and you have Fashion Park on the west We think that this is the
only large, major piece of land left in Arcadia which, if zoned commercial, can produce the sales tax revenues sufficient
to...and I want to be clear about this...we don't...we hope we could...but we don't anticipate that we can solve all of the fiscal
problems and the budget problems in Arcadia. But we think we can go a long way towards aIleviating them. And if Mr.
Goddard would like to call me tomorrow morniIig, I'd be happy to meet with him, talk with him about his concerns Oil
our...what the benefits to the City of Arcadia are. Perhaps he would feel more comfortable talking to someone in the City
who have hired outside consultants to give views on this subject.
When and if we are fortunate enough to have our property plan designation commercial, we wiIl then come forward with a
specific plan. We've already spent over five million doIlars getting to where we are. We feel that unless we get some signal
from the City that it makes sense for us to spend another $500,000 coming up with a specific plan, that it would not be
advisable, and our shareholders would probably throw us out if we did it. So therefore the citizens of this community will
have a chance and opportunity to review the specific plan when it is proposed and put forward here. Tonight, all we're
talking about is what the land use should be, not what the specific uses would be, and that can come at... will have to come at
a later date. We can't get anything done over there unless we come back to you with a specific plan which the citizens can
them comment upon. Thank you. Tom, did you....
TOM AUSTIN: I wanted to add that in requesting commercial...broadest range of commercial zoning on the south parking
lot, that we would also request a density of at least 975,000 square feet. Thank you.
I
10
MAYOR KUHN: Thank you. I believe there is a roster there to the right of the podium somewhere. Would you please fill in
your name and address for the record. Thank you.
I
JAMES A HARVEY: My name is James A. Harvey, and I live in Arcadia, 2708 Caroline Way. I've been a resident of
Arcadia for over 50 years. And if you throw my wife into the combination, we have 124 years of residency. We've seen
many changes over the years that have made Arcadia what it is today, a City in which we can all be proud. I remember
coming home from work on the red electric cars...I guess most of you remember those, or some of you do at any rate...walking
up Baldwin Avenue. 'And the big thing you used to watch for was the Erickson's Drug Store...that was the big thing in West
Arcadia. Look at it today. (Inaudible) amongst a community of homes. I sincerely believe that a proposed commercial zone
change is a good plan for Santa Anita, and it's an extension of the change that comes through time, and it is in an area that
can and should be commercially developed. It is my observation over the years that Santa Anita has been exceptionally good
for Arcadia, and I believe they will come up with a good plan of development. However, I am not advocating or supporting
any specific type of plan at present. I believe that when a zone change is granted, that it is then up to Santa Anita to present a
plan of development, and that development should be approved, amended, or turned down based on its merit. Thank you very
much.
KUHN: Thank you very much. Mrs. Sayre, would you please come forward. The Chair recognizes you. And be sure and I
sign the roster. Thank you.
JACKIE SAYRE: Thank you for your courtesy, Madam Mayor. As Secretary for Neighbors for Arcadia, I would like to say
before I give my little talk that Neighbors for Arcadia has never at any time ever been against the racing at Santa Anita, and
we are not now. We have never asked for any change of a business that's been in business for 61 years. We are quite
respectful of that. It is ouly the additional decision that they have made that we are out offavor with, not the racing. I'd just
like to make that clear. And I shall begin again if you'll please bear with me.
During the early part of 1996, a small group of Arcadia residents, frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of local officials
and by government waste, decided to write an initiative, checked out by the City Attorney. We began a campaign to get votes
from the citizens as to what they wanted to do about Santa Anita Realty bnilding an entertainment center on the south
parking lot. We requested the Council allow us a vote on April 9, '96. We were refused. We requested from the City
Manager to use the Senior Center. We were refused because we dicln't have the $400. Rebuked by the Council, the volunteer
group took up a grass-roots initiative, which included 200 citizens, all walking the Arcadia streets. On May 15 the six of us
walked into the City Clerk's office and handed June Alford 5,095 signatures. We had accomplished that in three and a half
months. Twelve hundred more signatures than required.
I
11
I
Arcadia's City Councilmembers claim that they, only, are entitled to make this decision. They declare that they need
many...much more money to run our City. Arcadia's City budget for '96-97 is 47 million dollars. That's almost a thousand
dollars a year for each man, woman, and child that lives in Arcadia. And that doesn't count our regular real estate taxes.
Santa Anita, on the other hand, had the largest income in North America for an American race track. The citizens of
Arcadia realize' that at the present survey, Santa Anita Realty will pay only $2,300,000, a 4.9% of the budget. Citizens will
pay the rest. Meanwhile, the City Council went into a million-dollar debt and tried to correct their error, which resulted from
a two-block boondoggle on Huntington Drive and First Avenue of a three-million-dollar, eight hundred thousand overrun
called Downtown 2000. r spoke to three or four people that own small shops. The young woman who owns the beauty supply
shop told me she lost $100,000 when this happened. Because it started in November, she lost November, December, and
through the Christmas holidays, her nonnally largest business of the year was lost because of that project. Now, when you
build a project, you have to think about the timing of it, it's majorly [sic] important. And there was a six-month delay, and as
a result of that the man who ran the pawn shop lost $40,000, and the man in the camera shop was so embarrassed he didn't
want to tell me how much he lost. So let us not consider this project so successful.
I
The horrible mistake by raising our utility bills 5% was one of the projects, starting July 1. Also, the City Council raised our
water bills by 1 %. This Council, I believe, is totally out of touch of we the people. Their ambition and ruthless decisions to
consort with Santa Anita Realty at every moment for the last two years is a mindless attempt to destroy our town. The
Councilmembers receive perks, parties, free tickets, privileges, and power from Santa Anita Realty. Therefore, the citizens of
Arcadia for our town are asking, let's return to sanity in Arcadia. We want representation that keeps our streets clean. We
don't want a rubbish pickup every other week, we want a regular week-up...pickup...and no increase in cost. I pay $36 a
month. I don't want to be picked up twice for that, I want to be picked up every week. I have a lot of shrubs, flowers, trees in
my yard, and I'd like to have it picked up every week. We want our streets clean. Some streets in Arcadia haven't been
paved for ten years. It's a disgrace.
We want the police to patrol the parks, where our children play, so that perverts that might be there in the restrooms wonld be
found by the police and picked up before they get our children. We want the pools to be clean, to be protected by qualified
lifeguards. We want the trees trimmed on Sixth Avenue, Eighth Avenue, Tenth; now I have a new one, Mayflower. It's been
a decade since the trees have been trimmed there. In some areas Arcadia is a forest. Why can't these maintenance people
that you pay sixty to eighty thousand dollars a year work more often? The signals around town need to be re-synchronized.
The traffic builds up on Santa Anita waiting for signals on Duarte and Huntington to change. All the going-through traffic is
moving away from the town. All the people who live in the town have to wait. Lastly, we want Arcadia to be a peaceful city
of homes. We all moved here to live in a beautiful town with friendly people who want a quiet life to enjoy. We want to raise
our children, pay our taxes, and kuow that we have fiscally responsible City government. If this is too much to expect, then
we the people must make changes. Lack of vigilance on the part of our citizenry is a recipe for tyranny. Get involved. Be at
I
12
the City Council meetings. Find out what's going on in your town. If you want to save thls town, we have to know the facts,
so together we'll keep Arcadia safe and free from crime and traffic. It's all up to the citizens. Thank you very much.
I
KUHN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Sayre. Mrs. Sayre, would you sign the roster, please. Thank you.
H. RANDALL STOKE: Good evening. My name is H. Randall Stoke, and the address is 1040 Hampton Road. After Jim
Harvey, we're just kids in town...we've been here for over 40 years. I'm now retired. But during that period of time, I was a
horseman for more than 24 years. I worked for a tenant of Santa Anita, the Oak Tree Racing Association, which has
absolutely no interest in thls proceeding. The ouly thing that you might really be interested in, in my background and effort
as it relates to this meeting, is I wrote Johnny Longden's extemporaneous speech to the City Council blasting the Fashion
Park. So I know a little bit about the history of the area. Since that time-and "that time" means the development of Fashion
Park-we've had some very substantial changes in circumstances and facts. And I want to go into those, but in order to tIy
and fit withln the five minutes plus a couple (inaudible) I'd like to say very quickly about downtown housing, I can't believe
what I've heard from the housing consultant that you have. Thirty units per acre on small lot subdivisions is an invitation to
slum culture. I know because I've represented that kind of stuff. And I would suggest to you that rather than to proceed step
by step by what you've heard thls evening, you ask your legal consultant to advise you of exactly what's necessary, what the
City must do in order to satisfy the State regulations. And with all due respect, I have to question as to what was said tonight
about housing in thls City.
I
Let me comment about the change of circumstances. And these change of circumstances relate to the General Plan, because
that's what you're here to discuss tonight and to make a decision on. Racing in the last ten-plus years has been devastated.
And so also has the City. In 1985, Lottery was approved by the electorate of California. In 1985 Santa Anita had 31,000
patrons a day. In 1991 they had 23,000 patrons a day. In 1995, they had 12,300. Every patron is worth what we used to
judge is a hundred and ten bucks before he made a bet. Santa Anita has lost in revenue during the period that I just quoted to
you some $200,000 a day. Now, I was at a public hearing and I really respect this guy, and I call him friend sometimes, but
he's the leader of the people who don't want anything done at Santa Anita. And he said in thls public hearing, "I want to be
buried on the finish line." And I'm telling him tonight, with these figures, if he wants to be buried on the finish line, he'd
better hurry. With those kind of figures and that kind of experience, Santa Anita used to have 60,000 patrons. Today it has
12,300. It has the same plant today that it had ten years ago. It takes the same employees to open. Those same employees
have always been--because Mr. Strub wanted it that way--the most highly paid unionized laborers. They are even higher paid
today. There has got to be some adjustment. If we want Santa Anita to continue, then we have to accommodate it. And
when we think of Santa Anita, Marilyn and I think not ouly of Santa Anita, we think about the heart of Arcadia--the
Arboretum, the Santa Anita Racing plant, the County park. They all need your help. And they should all be considered. But
tonight, it's ouly the General Plan.
I
13
I
One way to help Santa Anita suc&ed and to do so properly under the General Plan is to permit it to use its undeveloped
property. For the last 25 years, it's my recollection that the only new development in the City of Los...in the City...I'm so
used to Los Angeles...in the City of Arcadia has been Fashion Park. We've got a city to the east that's beating our brains out
If we're going to have any new development, it's got to be by the private enterprise initiative that's been shown by Santa
Anita in an area which can accommodate some new development. So that's where it should be done. How should it be done?
That's for you to make ajudgment. Your first judgment is "what should the designation be on the General Plan? The request
has been for general commercial. The second part of that issue is what density? Santa Anita suggested to the Planning
Commission that it ought to be maybe 0.35 FAR The typical commercial development is 1.0 FAR Fashion Park is 0.50
FAR So we're talking about ballpark figures. Just what those figures should be is a function for this City Council, because
the Planning Commission chose not to give you any guidance. So that's the first test. Once you've made those kinds of
decisions and you have those parameters, then you go to specific zoning. Specific zoning is where you consider specific uses,
density, location of improvements, and necessary infrastructure. All those are in another step left for you, the one which is
also essential. You're really at the initial point of decision. Although the Planning Commission didn't set forth specific
guidelines for you, the record has that information in it. The building that is going on in Santa Anita right now is a
touchstone to the kind of development you can look at. Somewhere between 0.35 suggested by Santa Anita to the
Commission and 0.50 which is there today is the kind of thinking that will generate the kind of General Plan that will be of
benefit and which is really needed by the City. Because the City has lost, just as Santa Anita has lost, and there is every good
incentive and reason to put it on the parking lot. Thank you.
I
KUHN: Thank you for wrapping up.
MAYOR PRO TEM HARBICHT: Mr. Stoke, could I ask you one question for clarification? The figures you gave on
attendance, that's on live racing days?
STOKE: Yes, sir.
HARBICHT: Thank you.
STOKE: I said it was an average.
MARJORIE MA TI'HEWS: May I begin?
KUHN: Yes, go ahead.
I
14
MATTHEWS: OK My name is MaJjorie Matthews. I live at 479 Harvard Drive. I have lived in Arcadia for 25 years.
And before I say anything else, no one has informed anyone why the revenue of Santa Anita is down. It's because of off-track
betting. People do not have to go to the Race Track. They go and watch a big TV in the Turf Club over there. I belong to
the Turf Club. And Santa Anita is never going to recover its revenue, and hence Arcadia will suffer because of off-track
betting. OK I am absolutely opposed to the Santa Anita entertainment complex. The endeavor is too politicized. Arcadia
doesn't need the end result of this complex. Some of the reasons for my objections are as follows. Now, I was unaware that
there had been an environmental impact study, so I said, have they had an environmental impact study? I see now they have.
The thousands and thousands of cars which would come to Arcadia each year would certainly increase our smog problem. If
this complex is constructed, the...oh...the competition against existing businesses would hurt the original businesses. We
don't need to have more business and put the existing ones out of business. We in Arcadia don't relish the idea of increased
congestion within our City. Noise pollution is also harmful. There are many more reasons to vote no. Yours sincerely,
MaIjorie Matthews. Thank you for listening.
KUHN: Thank you, MaJjorie. Be sure and sign on the roster.
MATTHEWS: I will.
KUHN: Eileen, would you like to come fOlward. Sorry,Collene. I feel like I need to recognize Eileen.
EILEEN HUBBARD: Thank you. I am Eileen Hubbard and live at 2224 Sewanee Lane, and I'd like to address the zoning
change for Area 1. As I said before, I've lived in Arcadia more than 40 years and have seen it change from few curbings and
many horses and egg ranches to a modem city. It will continue to change. I feel it is unreasonable to expect the Race Track
to continue to maintain and pay taxes on property they cannot use. They already have commercial enterprises on the property
with the Track, the mall, and the medical building. I think it would greatly benefit our City to have additional income
generated. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you, Eileen.
COLLENE DOAN: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. I'm Collene Doan. My address is 422 North
Gerone Avenue in the City of San Gabriel. First, I'd like to say to the Mayor and the Council that I really appreciate the
comments that you've made at this meeting at the beginning, and several other of the Council meetings about being genuinely
interested and concerned about the citizens' input and concerns. I believe that all of you are, and I think the citizens, and I
myself, appreciate that and have heard you state that I am a planning consultant and I'm representing the Neighbors for
Arcadia and other concerned citizens. I've been a planning consultant...l've been a planner, a city planner, and working in
15
I
I
I
I
planning for over ten years. I've worked for the cities of Ontario, Torrance, Pasadena. I've worked in several counties
under...by private finn. I've worked for the Redevelopment Agency in the City of Torrance. I understand about fiscal
impacts and fiscal respol\Slbility. I understand about planning. I understand about EIR's, general plans, and specific plans.
I've spent the last ten years reviewing them, analyzing them, writing them, and that is my education.
Tonight I'm representing the technical...my review of the technical aspects of the general plan and the EIR documents on
behalf of the Neighbors for Arcadia and the other concerned citizens. This is different from representing whether or not
Santa Anita should actually bnild on their property. I think that we have all understood that clarification, but I want to make
that very clear. What I discovered in my technical review of the EIR and the General Plan is that they conflict with each
other. They lack the detail necessary to legally and reasonably assess City-wide impacts. The EIR is inconsistent, it
manipulates the facts, and it misrepresents the impacts. On behalf of the people I represent, I request that the City Council
adopt the resolution forwarded from the Planning Commission which limits the residential densities to the minimum required
to meet the State housing requirements. I understand we may have to look at that issue in a little more detail, but I think the
intent, to keep it at the minimum to reasonably meet the requirements, was what they forwarded to you, and I think that's a
reasonable recommendation. Also, to exclude the Transition Area 1 but allow that a change in land use could be favorably
considered in this area if more accurate and detailed information is made available.
I
It's my opinion that the Planning Commission has forwarded a very insightful and diligent recommendation to you regarding
the General Plan and the EIR under review. The Planning Commission did not agree with what was typical or minimal, that
that was sufficient to allow an infonned decision for the creation of the commercial entertainment land use designation or for
a large change of any type here. It is also my opinion the Planning Commission did not act with fiscal irresponsibility or
disregard. They thoroughly considered the proposed commercial entertainment designation. They did not put their desire to
increase the City's economic base above their obligation to make an infonned decision. Instead, the Planning Commission
expressed their desire to review an application for commercial entertainment development on the Santa Anita property along
with a General Plan Amendment, a zone change, and a specific plan which is accompanied by a detailed and accurate EIR.
Now, I've noticed on some of the proposals from the consultants to prepare the EIR, both for the City and for Santa Anita,
that they recommended the very same thing... that Santa Anita's application be reviewed concurrently with the General Plan,
and the General Plan...change the General Plan under review tonight. I think that's the most reasonable avenue. I also
noticed that it was staff that recommended that the very night at Planning Commission...the first Planning Commission
meeting over in the Senior Center, that was the recommendation from staff at the same time, to hold off and review them all
concurrently, such that the information that would be available to you to make some of your concerned policy decisions would
be available. That was the same night that Santa Anita withdrew their application, however.
I
16
The City Council has just completed a very difficult budget process, and during this process the City Council unanimously
voiced their intent to encourage economic development City-wide. The Santa Anita commercial entertainment development
has been promoted as the best and only means for the City to become and remain economically viable. While I do not believe
this is the only answer, it may very well be a viable one. However, if a commercial entertainment development, or any
increased commercial development is to occur on that property, the relevant and necessary information must be made
available, along with a development proposal. This is the only method that will insure and allow an informed and balanced
policy decision. If the City Council does...adopts the recommendation and the resolution from the Planning Commission, the
General Plan document conld go forward with minor revisions, and I've outlined a few of those in the information packet I
included for you. If City Council decides on another option which includes a commercial entertainment land use designation,
the majority of changes identified in the page-by-page document analysis--that 17-page analysis I gave you-must be
addressed and revised. These changes are necessary if the EIR and General Plan documents are to be consistent and legally
adequate. Now, these changes are not my opinion. I thought about how to...uh, let me back up. I was asked also to provide a
summary to City Council, which I did, of the deficiencies of the EIR and the General Plan. And those, along with the 17-
page-by-page deficiencies document are changes which I sought additional reference for. In other words, I didn't want it to
be their consultant agaiust your consultant, and two opinions to try to weigh, because both consultants are very professional
and very qualified. I know that because we've worked together. So what I did is only include those revisions or changes
which could be backed up by documentation. I used the documentation from the State of California General Plan Gnidelines
put out by the Office of Planning and Research from the Governor's office. I used James Wallington's(?) California Land
Use Regulations, which are identified both from counsel that I have been advised by and also in the General Plan Guidelines
as a reliable source of tracking planning-related litigation and recommended general plan and planning options. These
opinions are not confused with or related to a specific plan or any other planning or development document, but only the
general plan...but only to general plans in the State of California. Now, what I've....
KUHN: Excuse me, your five minutes are up. Would you take a minute or two just to....
DOAN: I'll wrap up. What I wanted to do was outline just a few of the areas that I summarized to you that were the most
important, and I'll just pick three. I'd like to add, however, that the General Plan document itself does not provide the policy
statements and actions reqnired to give it the backbone necessary for this City to make sound policy decisions in its future. I
think it has too many intents and goals, and it doesn't back itself up. It's also inconsistent with the ErR, and the EIR is
inconsistent with itself. The main legal, I guess, inadequacy, besides the inconsistencies which I've outlined, is that of
leaving out the Race Track traffic analysis and that of boosting the roadway capacity 50%. You'll remember that I pointed
out, and the document states, that the traffic analysis was done based on a 50% boost above what's recommended and usually
used State-wide in the State of California, such that the roadways, then being on an LOSD as a maximum, which is 900/0, are
boosted their capacity just by the numbers 50% beyond that. I don't believe that's sound policy for the future 15 to 25 years
17
I
I
I
I
City-wide. The Race Track traffic is six months a year, five days a week, five hours a day...should be included, and we've
been advised by legal counsel, that that could...that alone could render the document inadequate, which would render the
General Plan inadequate and any development application connected to it.
In summary, I'd just like to say that, this does not have to be an all or nothing decision. The City Council has the developer
eager and ready to put something on the Santa Anita property. That could be accomplished with all the infonnation
available, not just what absolutely has to be available. Why would you choose to do anything other than look at all of the
infonnation when you're looking at a land-use change for the next 15 to 25 years of this City? 1 believe that compromises can
be made, analysis done...as a planner, I'm certaiuly in favor of that. I believe that it's possible that Santa Anita could have
some kind of development, and that the City could know and Compromise on all of the impacts that would be there. But I
don't believe that can be done or should be done with the General Plan designation being approved first and the application
coming later. I think they should be done together. Thank you for your time.
KUHN: Thank you. Would you sign the roster, please.
I
DREW KRYNICKI: Drew Krynicki, 321 Leroy Avenue. And we've certaiuly already heard some very interesting
comments, haven't we? I kind of had to throw most of my speech away after a lady told me that I might be sworn in to
tell...have to tell the truth. And after Mrs. Sayre's comments, I think I'm not going to use the restroom over here this evening.
And, on a slightly more serious note, I was a little bit concerned when Bob Harbicht said that the decision to put the
Neighbors for Arcadia petition had already been made by him and that it's going to be put on the ballot rather than being
instituted as an ordinance. Although I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it's going on the ballot, nonetheless I
don't feel, with all due respect, Bob, that it's your decision to make. And if the Council has made it already in private, I
don't think that's quite appropriate, either.
But that's not really why I'm here this evening. I'm here this evening on a little bit more serious topic. And the first reason
that I am here is because I really want to express my appreciation to our Mayor. I think our Mayor has done a really terrific
job here in the last collple of City Council sessions and in this meeting here this evening in embracing all of the people in the
community on all sides of this issue to express their feelings and to work together to make this City a much better place. I
like what I am hearing the Mayor saying the last couple of City Council meetings and I thank her for it.
One of the blessings of living here in Arcadia is that we have an awful lot of really distinguished professional people who
work here. Downtown L.A. there's a law firm, Sullivan, Workman and Dee. There's a partner in that law firm who happens
to live here in Arcadia. Now, with due respect to Bob Harbicht and myself, neither one of us are lawyers, but this gentleman
is a partner in a law firm. And furthermore, he is listed in the, I believe it's Martindale Hubbard legal directory as being a
I
18
specialist in land-use designation law. That's exactly what we're talking about here this evening, the land-use designation of
the Santa Anita Race Track. And furthermore, this individual is a person who is very active in both the Los Angeles and the
State Bar Association. In fact, he recently chaired an important committee of that Bar Association. Now, this gentleman was
asked to take an impartial look at the EIR and to comment on it, and he put his comments in writing and put his name on
that. And what he said was, that the decision to change the land-use designation from horse racing to another designation is
something that this City Council cannot make the decision to make that change without jeopardizing this City, Madam
Mayor, because the EIR is inadequate. And in order for that designation to be made, there has to be a specific,
comprehensive EIR related directly to a project, otherwise you've got an inappropriate situation.
Now, let me tell you the name of that attorney. His name is Gary Kovacic, and he's the Vice Chairman of the Planning
Commission, and that statement is on page 3, paragraph A, of Resolution 1535, which I'm recommending that you vote and
approve this evening. Now, you have a second individual here in town who works for, not a Fortune 500 company, but a
Fortune 100 company...that's the Union Oil Company of California. And by the nature of their business, where they need to
buy oil properties to drill for oil, they own a heck of a lot of real estate. And the person on the Planning Commission, whose
name is John Murphy, who has been working with the Union Oil Company for many years, is the president of real estate
development for Union Oil Company, and he happens to, by great good fortune, live here in the City of Arcadia. And he
concurred with Mr. Kovacic that this decision is something which means that the Planning Commission needs to keep the
designation to be horse racing rather than any other type of designation because there simply isn't a specific EIR that's
sufficient to jus\i1Y a change. And the reason why both of these gentlemen came up with this conclusion is very
straightforward. It's for the reason that, for example, the traffic consultant that's been working with Neighbors for Arcadia
came up with. The traffic component of the EIR doesn't even talk about Race Track traffic, so how can you possibly consider
that to be a valid EIR for change? The bottom line is, if you make the change to horse racing...from horse racing to
commercial entertainment, you're placing this City in jeopardy.
Now, there's another Councilperson here whom I want to really commend. We haven't really spoken about her or to her very
much. Her name is Mary Young, and she has represented our City for many years. I think that the reason why people have
such a high appreciation for her is because she gives straightfOlward, conservative, common sense approach to our City's
problems. And I don't think that Mary Young is the kind of person who would sign her name to something if she didn't
know what the details were. That's exactly what we're talking about this evening. We want to find out more specifics about
the Race Track's plans before we make any changes. Now, there is nothing inconsistent with being totally for the
entertainment center or being...having a warm feeling towards the entertainment center and at the same time approving the
Resolution 1535 that's before you tonight for your vote. Because there's nobody on the Planning Commission that's anti-
development. There's nobody on the Planning Commission that's anti-growth. In fact, all of these people...and I myself am
pro-business. As a matter of fact, my education is in business, and I consider myself to be a businessperson. And
19
\
I
I
I
I
furthermore, I feel that the future of Arcadia lies in growth. And I feel that the people who own the Race Track have a right
to develop their property to the best economic measure possible. But, at the same time, I feel that it's just simply a situation
where we need to have more facts before we make a decision.
Now, I can see that the Mayor is already, I think, anxious to give me a warning, so I'm going to cut off my comments here
and once again state, quite simply, that there is a very simple overriding consideration in all of this, and you can refer to it by
taking a look at the third page of the resolution, paragraph A, and it says in there that the reason why the Planning
Commission voted seven to nothing to keep it horse racing and that they did not recommend a change to commercial
entertainment at this time was because without the comprehensive, specific project EIR that any change would be
inappropriate. And that's signed by Mr. Kovacic, Mr. Murphy, and the other five remaining Commission members, and I ask
you to concur with them this evening and pass this resolution. And thank you very much, Mayor.
KUHN: Thank you, Drew. Don't forget to sign the roster.
I
POLLY SCHMUTZ: Good evening. My name is Polly Schmutz, and I've been a resident and property owner in Arcadia for
about 19 years. I guess that makes me pretty young. Now, I understand that this hearing is specifically to discuss zoning and
not the project, although I'm hearing a lot about the project, but I'm only here because of the zoning. I want to state my
strong support in favor of rezoning the Santa Anita Race Track property to commercial land use without a specific plan being
submitted in advance. In spite of everything I've heard here tonight, I personally do not understand the reasoning that guided
the Planning Department [sicJ in their recommendation. To me it's more of a non-decision than any good recommendation.
You're insisting that Santa Anita Race Track, up-front, spend countless hours and dollars formulating a plan that they have
no reason to believe they will ever be able to put into execution. Now, that is not good business, and I don't think any of us
would want to do that with our money. The way everybody talks about the entertainment...it seems like a foregone
conclusion that they may not get the zoning change, even after spending all the money.
The other thing, we still have all of our checks and balances in place, I believe, and approvals that need to be made before
anything can be built Any plan formulated after a rezoning is still subject to all of these conditions, and they are all currently
in place to just take care of the fears that all these people are expressing. All Santa Anita wants is your go-ahead to change
their zone. That's all. And I strongly urge the Council to approve that zoning change.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Don't forget to sign the roster.
FLORETIA K. LAUBER: My name is Floretta K. Lauber, and I reside at 1225 Oaklawn Road. Madam Mayor and
I Councilmembers, I've spent a lifetime in the community, within a mile of where we stand or I stand. You'll pardon me if I
20
don't mention a figure. I have a unique position before you this evening, not only as an interested citizen but I happen to be
one of the authors of the General Plan that's before you this evening. And I want you to know that through the years, and at
the time that we worked on the General Plan, we knew there would be changes. And it's only a guideline and was thought to
be that at the time. Everyone has spoken today, or tonight, of not to change the zone, to wait for a project. And I have to
respectfully disagree with that, because the whole purpose, as you well know, and I'd like to go on record, is that it's a
map...it's a guideline. And Ifwe don't designate, or if you don't designate, a commercial zone in Area 1, I sincerely feel, and
I'm sure with your business backgrounds you know, that we are not going to attract any worthy projects. Money is still tight.
Investors are more prudent than ever. And if they come up against small-town politics and fear, fear, fear, they're going to
take their money to another community. And I think we will be the losers.
I want to remind you of a virus that spreads through this community every few years. It's called fear of change. And in the 14
years I spent where you are, I saw it from every level, to a split lot, to a new street, to a new development, whatever it was, it
was going to ruin the area. Now, I'm an old-timer and I go back to when Sears was going to be developed on the west side of
Michillinda. There were petitions, there was fear, it was going to ruin the Upper Rancho. Then I remember when the May
Company was coming in on South Michillinda. Again, the same fear, it was going to ruin the Lower Rancho. And, of
course, I was very involved in the development of Fashion Park, from the zoning on through. That was going to ruin the
whole darn town, including our health. They went all the way to the State Supreme Court because of additional smog. I
think we have proven that none of that has come true. And it may not be Fashion Island, and it may not suit everyone's
needs, but I think it's quite adequate, it's qnite acceptable, and I find it extremely handy. And to say nothing of what it puts
in the City budget. So I urge you to take your designation very seriously and to have the foresight to go forward, because all
the fears in the past have proven to be unfounded. Thank you very much.
KUHN: Thank you, F1orelta. Anyone else wishing to speak?
JIM BRYANT: Good evening. I'm Jim Bryant. I'm not going to tell you how long I've resided in this City, but I'd easily
win any contest from what I've heard so far. I just want to say that I strongly encourage you to consider changing the zoning
for Santa Anita so it can enable the next step to happen. If you don't, we may not ever see the next step; and enabling the
next step isn't putting it into effect, if you would. And also to consider, if you would, the alternatives if this doesn't happen.
Santa Anita will have to look at what they can use the property for, and we may soon be called, with a new license plate
bracket, City of Too Many Homes. Please allow the process to go forward.
KUHN: Thank you. Be sure and sigu the roster, Bryant. Please start moving forward if you'd like to speak.
21
I
I
I
I
HUGH MYERS: I'm Hugh Myers, 624 San Luis Rey Road, since 1952. The purpose of having a Planning Commission is to
follow its recommendations, and I think that we should do that. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you, Mr. Myers. Please sign the roster. Thank you.
I
STUART BOSS: My name is Stuart Boss. I grew up in Arcadia. I was hearing a lot of things. Finally this guy back here
~ finally touched on what I wanted to say is, I've spoken before about what I think the advantage of the center will be, but
touight I want to speak just about the zoning. And I'm worried about what will happen ifwe don't pass the zoning, what will
happen tCl Santa Anita. Last week in the Star-News I read a letter by-I don't know ifhe's here tonight and I don't know how
to pronounce his name-Anthony Perelli(?) or Perelle(?). But he outlined a very frightening future for Arcadia if we don't
give Santa Anita the zoning change. What happens if, in disgust, they finally decide to cut their losses and get out of
the...sell the Track property? What will come in its place? Most likely low-income, moderate...or moderate-income housing
tracts housing an estimated five-to-ten thousand people. Instead of receiving one million in tax revenues a year from Santa
Anita, the new development will be costing Arcadia taxpayers millions. Think of the cost this will have on our schools, on
crime, gangs, traffic, and what everybody else is worried about, property values. We had an election recently, and I thought
we elected the City Councilmembers that wanted to take Arcadia forward by changing the zoning of Santa Anita. I thought
we rejected those that would see Arcadia stagnate and die. But one way or another a decision has to be made, and I hope the
City Council will find the courage to make it. We will settle...this has become very derisive to the City of Arcadia. I want to
settle this issue and start the revival of Arcadia. Thank you.
KUHN: You're welcome. Be sure and sign the roster.
BARBARA ELLISON: My name is Barbara Ellison, and I don't know if this is appropriate...please tell me if it isn't. I
wanted tCl talk about the new Arcadia downtown. Inasmuch as that's part of the progress that we are trying to make in this
City, I wondered is it appropriate for me to say something about it?
KUHN: (Inaudible) Yes, it would be, because it is the General Plan.
ELLISON: Thank you. I have to say that I think the new trees and the new shrubs and the new flowers and the new curbs,
and the seats for people are very attractive. What worries me are the stores. I think we're leaving something half done, and
that bothers me. I don't want to go on...us to go on to something else in the City to be built up when this is only half done.
The stores look like something down in L. A. on Broadway for the most part, with few exceptions. There are very few that
are filled. We were down there on Friday...a Friday and Saturday a week or so ago. There wasn't a dog on the street. We
I were in West Covina on a Monday afternoon when a lot of the stores were closed...it was jammed. And that's what worrie"
22
me, that we're not standing behind those merchants who are in the stores, or empty stores, or stores that need refurbishing.
We have to do something--the City, the Chamber of Commerce, somebody-so that this is really the new downtown. Thank
you.
I
KUHN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
SCOTI SAYRE: Good evening. My name is Scott Sayre. I live at 444 West Huntington Drive directly across from the
Track's south parking lot. I was born and raised in Arcadia and attended local schools. I am also a licensed California
architect employed by a firm which specializes in large commercial projects. After reviewing the draft EIR and General Plan
amendment for Transition Area 1, the Race Track property, I have some comments. Some of these may not apply, because I
think some ofit...the people from Santa Anita responded to them already, but let me go ahead. Why is there a need to change
the zoning of the north portion of the property, meaning the area including the grandstands, track, stables, and north parking
lot? The existing use is already allowed under the current zoning. It's important to point out that a large portion of this area
has always been zoned R-l, single-family homes. This is not clearly indicated in any of the EIR documents produced by LSA
Associates. However, it is clearly on the City's zoning map which anybody can pick up at the public counter.
There is no reason whatsoever to touch the zoning of the north portion of the property except to provide a huge windfall to the I
Track. If the Track ever vacates, I want the whole north portion to revert to single-family homes, not commercial
entertainment. Well, pressing on with that line of reasOning, why is there a need to rezone the south parking lot except to
allow the entertainment center to go ahead? Is this the City's vision of the future? It's not mine. The draft EIR developed by
LSA Associates, the City's consultant, presents only the narrowest possible view of how this property might be developed,
becailse it was clearly intended to support the Tracks's proposal. But right now the property has the potential to be almost
anything. What do you want the City to be? The proposed zone change is not proactive, but merely a knee-jerk reaction to a
plan submitted by the Track. Any commercial development of over a million square feet will have umnitigatable impacts on
the City--and we've all heard them named here--and will entirely change the character of our Community of Homes. Arcadia
is not the Irvine Spectrum, it's not Old Town Pasadena, and it's certainly not Universal City Walk. The citizens of Arcadia
should have the opportunity to vote, and Mr. Harbicht mentioned that already, on the issue of this import.
As an architect, I believe that a sensitive, well conceived addition could be successfully tied to the mall-not to the grandstand
but to the mall--as an entertainment expansion, perhaps as much as 500,000 square feet, if it's done right. But land-to-
building ratios and parking ratios will not protect us from a bad project. A blanket zone change gives everything away to the
Track. I don't fear change, as someone in the audience mentioned already, but change isn't necessarily good. Let's wait for
a new master plan or specific proposal, even though it is a problem for Santa Anita, before we proceed with an amendment.
It's a unique piece of property, and you can't apply standard ratios to it in order to design it. It has to be done as a master I
23
I
plan. In summary, retain this land's potential. I urge you to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission, your
fellow citizens, and leave the current zoning unchanged. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you, Mr. Sayre. Could I ask for a show of hands as to how many people are left that would like to speak?
Should we call for a short break, seventh inning, or what? (Inaudible) You want to continue? O.K., all right, come forward.
ROBERT WALL: My name is Robert Wall and I live at 451 Harvard Drive. I'm a seventeen-year resident at the same
address. I'm here to discuss a few matters that have been troubling me. First, I hear that Santa Anita has been a good
neighbor to Arcadia for fifty-some years. This reminds me of my 85-year-old mother attempting to renew her driver's license
recently. Her request was denied. She ranted to me, "I haven't had a ticket or beim in an accident in thirty years." I said,
"Mom, the DMV isn't worried about the last thirty years, they're worried about right now. And you aren't hearing, seeing, or
driving very well." She recently drove her car through her garage, but that's another story. Santa Anita was a good neighbor
when the Strub family was in command. They brought celebrities, ladies and gentlemen, and others to Arcadia for racing and
gambling in the afternoon. The operative word here is "afternoon." In the evenings it was quiet.
I
Corporate, modem Santa Anita is moving onward into the night, ever so gently. First the simulcasts from night racing sites.
Then the so-called "Big Hoss" western dances on Friday and Saturday nights. And now the proposed entertainment complex
every night. While their next plan has not been submitted, it is, of course, an apparent certainty if the City Council changes
the land usage of the parking lot to commercial entertainment. Most of us do not see nighttime Santa Anita as a very good
neighbor at all. When the carjackings, burglaries, drive-by shootings, and gangs come, it will be too late to turn back the
clock.
Next, I hear Arcadia is going broke. If Arcadia is going broke, why aren't San Marino, Sierra Madre, Bradbury, Pacific
Palisades, and other quiet, peaceful communities totally ruined financially? Possibly the City Council could get a staff report
going on how they do it. Inglewood, with Hollywood Park, the Casino, the Great Western Forum. must be the premiere place
for relaxed living, if entertainment areas are what's necessary. Thirdly, I'm wondering why we residents were subjected to
April, May, and June Planning Commission meetings...thousands of man-holll's wasted. Since the Plauning Commission's
unanimous decision did not please the City Council, the Chairman was summarily dismissed, giving a stem warning to the
rest: Heads will roll if you don't do what we say. Are we in Nazi Germany?
Next, I hear the initiative or vote of the people is being questioned. I have an article here stating this. If you are running a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people, what is wrong with a vote on a matter of such impact. I may add
that the number of petition signers, which was in excess of 4,000, is a larger number than the number of votes secured by
I Mayor Pro tern Robert Harbicht in the last election. Also, I'd like to mention that as this meeting wears on through the usual
24
Council filibusters, we'll hear an occasional special-interest speaker who either is a Santa Anita stockholder or a personal
friend of a corporate officer, or possibly someone with entrepreneurial motives connected with the entertainment complex
who favors the plan. But these are not regular residents who fear the project and know it will forever change a quiet and
peaceful community. We seem to be living by a value system that does not see man as a human being who needs peace and
quiet, but merely as a consumer ofthings...one who generates revenue for the city or state. I will pray for my rights to vote on
this meaningful malter, and then accept whatever the people decide. Thafs America. I thank the Santa Anita [sic] City
Council for your time.
I
KUHN: Thank you for your COmments. Would the next person wishing to speak please come forward.
PETER NEUMANN: Thank you. My name is Peter Neumann. I'm a resident of 1022 Greenfield, and this has been very,
very interesting for me. I have the high honor of being here because my last.. .,our third child, who was born in the hospital, is
now going off to college, so we get to come to City Council meetings...a very high honor, indeed. I guess as a citizen of
Arcadia I'm uneasy because this issue is polarizing everybody, and I sense thaLI hope, really, that the City Council, our
representatives elected seated here, will do everything in Iheir power to work through the details of this issue. But not... that's
not really the important thing to me. It's for you, our elected representatives, to take a leadership position, for which we
elected you, to take this issue away from the demouizing that is occurring here, to take it out of the legal detail which seems I
10 be at so much of the issue here, and lead the City forward to a resolution of this issue, because it seems to me that the City
is sort oLwithout your leadership, the City is silting, waiting for something to happen and nothing, in fact, will happen. It's
going 10 be more demouizing, more name-<:a1ling, less working out the details and resolution of the issues in a rational way,
and we need you to sort this matter out. I guess the Santa Anita Company has said, we won't do any planning of
development until we get a zoning change, and the Planning Commission has said, we don't recommend a zouing change
without planning. Now, I think...now, I, you know...I grew up in Arizona, I've lived in Southern California my whole life.
This, dear friends, is called a Mexican Standoff. And we're not in Mexico, we're in Arcadia.
Let's...I beg...I beg all of us here tonight, and our friends and neighbors, and the City Council, to press forward to a logical,
economically viable, exciting, fun resolution of this issue, which will be really the only chance any of us will have for
probably the next 15 to 20 years because, as it said here, this is a built-out community. But it really isn't. This is a very
, .
exciting time. And we have a very, very interesting opportunity for all of us. So please, City Council, lead us forward.
Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak?
I
25
I
VINCE FOLEY: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Members of the Arcadia City Council. My name is Vince Foley. I
reside at 320 Cambridge Drive, right behind the Race Track. I think this whole issue has become kind of a game in, maybe
we ought to caU it, "Who do you trust?" And.do we trust our elected representatives? Do we trust Santa Anita Race Track?
Or do we trust those individuals who have taken it upon themselves to say that they represent the voters of Arcadia and don't
want to see the Santa Anita issue. They want...they have told us that they have 5,000 or 4,000 legitimate signatures. We
have heard that those are people who don't necessarily want to see Santa Anita complex built...the entertalnment complex.
Of course, we all know that as those petitions were being gathered, it was merely for those individuals to have a vote on
whether they want to see the complex or not. So don't take it for granted that there are 4,000 people in the
community...which, by the way, is only 15% of the registered voters...that there are 4,000 people in the community who don't
want to see Ii Santa Anita complex. It's just that these individuals were told, since this gathering of signatures went about,
that you have the chance to vote on it. So it's not necessarily that these people are agaiust it. But again, who do you trust?
--
I
You as a City CounCil are bound by ethics codes, government code, Brown Act, to be honest, forthright, aboveboard. You're
covered by sunshine laws, you've got to say what is the truth, what is the case. Everything has to be aboveboard for you.
Santa Anita Realty and Santa Anita Enterprises are bound by the Department of Corporations of the State of California. They
are bound even by a high authority, the Securities and Exchange...the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to
make sure that they don't mislead their shareholders or the share-buying public. And yet, there are many, many citizens who
apparently choose, rather than believe you, their elected representatives, rather than believe Santa Anita, who in my opinion
has been a very, very good neighbor over the years, they would rather believe a group of citizens who teU them, "We want
what is best for you." Now, this is a group of citizens who left this at my door this weekend. This article which says, "Fight
for your right to a quiet, crime-free community." There's that "crime-free" stuff again...threats, scare tactics...but these are
the people that we want to believe, apparently. And it says, "Be there Jnly 8, Monday, at the Council Chambers. Remember
Bob Daggett. It is a public hearing. You can speak. Help stop the Santa Anita entertalnment complex."
Now, interestingly, this article...which, by the way, is from the Star-News, the Pasadena Star-News June 27 issue, which I
remember reading very clearly. In fact, Councilman Harbicht talked about this not long ago...it's about payback time and the
change of commissioners. The headline of the article, which is not removed, it's right up there in bold letters: "Residents
silenced at community meeting." Now, that would lead you to believe...and these people, I think, who put this out, want
everybody to believe, that residents are being silenced, aren't being aUowed to talk. Now, of course, nobody knows unless
they happen to read the original article, that this caricature of Bob Daggett over here was drawn in, and it's over an original
part of the article which was about Pasadena's City Council, and about an individual on the Pasadena City Council who was
ousted from the Council Chambers because that individual was making a nuisance of themselves. That's what the headline
refers to. "Residents silenced at community meeting." They're not talking about Arcadia at aU. This article, the side that has
Bob Daggett's caricature, was about a Pasadena City Council meeting.
I
26
But you as a City Council couldn't get away with this kind of stuff. Santa Anita couldn't get away with putting this kind of
stuff out But we choose not to trust you. We choose not to trust Santa Anita. We choose rather to trust the people who put
this kind of stuff out The people who talk about all the increased crime. The people we have heard tonight who have said,
"The City's in great shape...youjust balanced the budget We're in fabulous shape." Of course, they didn't choose to say, if
they knew, that you cut out fire service, you cut out some police service, we're going to have street cleaning only every other
week instead of once a week, you cut out somebody from June Alford's budget so you're going to have problems with the
counter...you cut out all kinds of services and you raised the utility users tax, or at least you're considering raising the utility
users tax. So you have done what we were hoping that wouldn't have to be done, and I'm sure all of you were hoping it
wouldn't have to be done...raising fees and cutting services. But you balanced the budget, which means the City's in great
shape, because the people we choose to believe have told us that The same people who put' this out that says, "Residents
silenced at community meeting." I've been to virtuaJly every City Council for the last three years, and I haven't heard
anybody silenced at this City Council yet. But these people who we choose to believe want us to be afraid that there is going
to be increased crime, want us to be afraid that there is going to be unbearable living conditions in the City of Arcadia, and I
say to you, I say to the citizens of Arcadia, that that just isn't true. I trust you. I trust City staff, and I trust Santa Anita,
because you're bound by an authority--the SEC, the Brown Act, the government code--you are all bound by authorities higher
than the people who can say anything they want.
So I can only say to the people of Arcadia, please be careful who you trust. Remember that these people can say anything
they want. I would suggest that you don't adopt what the Planning Commission said you should do, and that is no planning
at all. Not changing the designation at the south parking lot, not doing anything, I submit to you, is not planning at all.
Planning is for this Council to be proactive, to tell the community and Santa Anita we believe in the project, we believe
something needs to be done, we're going to change the designation to commercial. And, by the way, that doesn't mean
tomorrow springs up an entertainment center. It only means that you, the Council, are willing to say we need to go forward.
And I would certainly suggest you do that, not take the Planning Commission's recommendation, and please do change the
designation of the Santa Anita area to commercial. Thank you very much.
KUHN: Please sign the roster, there, Mr. Foley.
I
I
MARGUERITE SPENCER: Marguerite Spencer, Mayflower Avenue, Arcadia. And I think Mr. Foley has forgotten...he
trusts all of you, but just last week in the newspaper he was filing papers agaiust one of the City Councilmen for faking some
of their financial reports. So as you said, Mayor Kuhn, you can't trust us all. I was asked to read a little bit of part of the
original Genera) Plan. I think there was a State law that required cities to have one, and in November 1970 they hired a finn,
Simon Eisner, who was a very good finn, this was really a good job. But on this page they talk about a current problem: At
the time of the initiation of the General Plan program for the City, the policies toward the Turf Club property and the racing I
27
I
activities conducted thereon indicated that this area should be recognized iu the General Plan as an important and continulng
part of the City's desirable uses. While it was known that the owners had from time to time evaluated their aititude toward
the future of Santa Anita, no apparent steps were taken by them to indicate that they had a seriOllS proposal for the alternate
uses for all or any part of the property. During the course of the General Plan studies there was a change of policy by Santa
Anita Consolidated. Owners of the land had proposals submitted to the City for the development of a regional shopping
center on about 65 to 70 acres of land. It was considered, and again they came up with three alternates. And Alternate
Nwnber Three was chosen, which was track pins shopping plus residential. And it states here, "From a planning standpoint
the most logical alternative would be residential, such as was mentioned earlier. This would bulld up purchasing power in
the area closest to the shopping center and thns reinforce the economic structure of the uses located therein." There were
groups formed pro and con. I read some newspapers today and it went on for the llSUal six months of charges and
countercharges. And I have the vote on the proposition as to whether or not there would be a Santa Anita Park. And it was
veiy interesting in that 15,000 people voted that day, which is a lot more than have voted lately. Voting yes were 8,605.
Voting no were 7,471, which shows that the people were not that enthusiastic over the whole idea. Thank you.
I
PAT FLAHERTY: My name is Pat Flaherty. I live on Lemon Avenue, East Lemon Avenue, and have been a resident of
Arcadia over 30 years. And I simply want to urge you all to adopt the Planning Commission resolution as it's been forwarded
to you. I have legitimate concerns, I'm sure you do, too. I was so impressed with the Planning Commission, their level,
intelligent way of dealing with a very onerous task; and a lot went into that resolution and I ask you to consider it and
approve it. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you very much.
IRENE GODDARD: Maclam Mayor, City Council, my name is Irene Goddard. I live at 620 West Huntington Drive. Iouly
have two points that I would like to talk about. They have been discnssed, but perhaps it gives a little different perspective.
I've heard time and again the proponents of the Santa Anita project state that in the worst case scenario the traffic in the
surrounding area will not exceed that during the track meets in their heyday, and some even added suldely, "And no one
complained about that." From personal experience I can say that this last statement is not true. People did complain and
very heavy traffic was a nulsance. But what made it bearable in those days was the brevity of the track season. A few weeks
after Thanksgiving, a few weeks after Christmas, and then again things return to normal. As the racing season began to get
longer, separate meets running into each other, the attendance paradoxically began to go down with the introduction of off-
track betting and competition from multiplying race tracks and their extended seasons. The traffic still was a nulsance,
especially when combined with a busy holiday season and sales at the Santa Anita mall. The patient citizens of Arcadia
sometimes grumbled about it to each other but did not complain. Santa Anita, seeing how complacent the people were,
I decided to introduce further money-making changes-started racing on Sundays, began to stay open late on Friday nights-and
28
I happened to be present at the Council meeting when a representative of the Turf Club sweetly inquired, "Do you think
anyone would object if we had a room somewhere in the clubhouse where people could come and play cards?" The previous
Council, to its credit, vetoed down that proposition. Still there appears now to be entertainment on Friday nights and
Saturdays, I guess, too, at the Big Hoss dance hall at the Race Track. I imagine there is some kind of a loophole that permits
entertainment in the zones that are supposed to be for horses ouly.
I
Getting back to the traffic, if the proposed entertainment center or some version of it is built, the heavy traffic will not be
limited to several short seasons and hours, but will go on the whole year at all hours and late into the night, and added to the
increase in crime and deterioration of the environment, it will make life for those who live here truly miserable. To some it
will be unbearable; they will move away. The real estate prices will drop and with them the taxes for the City. I hope the
Council will take that into consideration.
My second point is a personal one, and I will be happy to swear that what I will tell you is true. And I think I want to tell this
because I keep hearing, by, again, the pro-Santa Anita forces, about how safe the Race Track and the mall areas are. I also
heard, the thing is, that not all crime gets reported, but I can't confinn that. The only case that I can speak about with
certainty is my Clwn. On November 29, 1991, the day after Thanksgiving, a Friday, my husband and I took my 17-year-old
niece, who was visiting us from Europe, shopping to Santa Anita mall. We shopped until almost closing time at 9 o'clock. I
When we came out into the parking lot we proceeded toward our car. A large, beat-up-looking car came, stopped; three burly
men got out and started walking toward us. We didn't pay any attention, since they were walking in the direction of the
store...stores. When they got to about 15 feet of us one of them said something that sounded like an order to the other two.
They separated and each approached one of us. The man -that came up to me just yanked my purse off my shoulder by
grabbing the strap. My niece had the strap on her purse across her chest. I heard her scream and saw her fall down. As I ran
toward her the man succeeded in getting her purse and turned to go back to the car. The third one had approached my
husband, but se<:ing his two cohorts returning to the car, also turned and ran to the car, where three more big bruisers were
, sitting waiting. They jumped into the car and took off.
We drove directly to the Arcadia Police Station and reported what happened. I only then realized in how much danger we
had been, when my niece was telling her story to the policewoman. I guess being 17 years old and her first time in America,
she was very naive. She said, "When he couldn't get the purse over my head, he pushed something into my chest. I think it
was a cigarette lighter. I saw a flash of metal and heard something click, but the light didn't go on." The policewoman said,
"Honey, that was no cigarette lighter. It was a gun, and you're a very lucky girl." The only thing they recovered was my red
address book. The police told us that typically, after stealing a purse, the robbers look through it while riding in the car and
throw things that they don't want out the car window. A nice couple found my address book that Sunday while they were
walking after church and called me. Their church is on Rosemead Boulevard very near the ramp to...onramp to San I
29
I
Bernardino Freeway. The robben; must have been going home after their day at the Race Track and the profitable stop at the
mall parking lot. I have not been shopping at the mall after dark since then, and do not enjoy going there even in the
daytime. !f Santa Anita succeeds in building their entertainment center, I will not be among those they hope to entertain.
Thank you for your time.
KUHN: Thank you, Mrs. Goddard. I think we're about ready to wrap this up.
GINO RONCELLI: My name is Gino Roncelli, you've seen me a few times, 1250 Ramona Road. Thank you for letting me
speak tonight. I think what we have here is a case of cart before the horse. I think, since right now where there is no
application and we don't know exactly what Santa Anita wants to build here...they said tonight 900,000 square feet of
building...but we don't know exactly what that will be. And to change a zone to a very broad zoning that would allow almost
anything, and then when the application comes, what would be the answer to something we didn't like? Well, it's already
zoned for this. So I think it would be too late. Our cards would already be played. I think we should wait for an application,
decide if we like what those things are, talk about them, decide what's best for the community and Santa Anita-hopefully, we
ean get together and have something that would please all of us. I think that's the correct way to do it. So I appreciate you
letting me come and speak tonight. Thank you.
I KUHN: Thank you. Be sure and sign the roster.
.
WILLIAM WEISS: Hello. My name is Bill Weiss. I live on Harvard Drive. I've been listening to what's been going on
here. The question, I think, is who do we trust? We just had an election of the City Council. All this was in evidence during
the election. So we have people that have just been elected. Who do you trust? Do you trust that, or do you trust the
referendum that is currently being circulated, or has been circulated and has been qualified? What does the referendum say?
It says that every time Santa Anita wants to do something they have to have a vote of the people. Well, Santa Anita did, when
they built the Fire Department, donate some land for the Fire Department. Under this rule, they would have to get a vote of
the people before they did that. Yes, that's what it says.
KUHN: Speak to the Council.
WEISS: !fthey build the...ifthey were to build that medical building today, they would have to go hack and get a vote of the
people. That's what the law says. Before Santa Anita does anything, they have to go before a vote of the people. Now,
frankly, I call that a bad law and that's not representative government as we have it in this City. So, do you trust them or do
you trust the City Council? I personally go with the City Council.
I
30
KUHN: Thank you. Be sure and sign the roster, please.
GAIL MARSHALL: Good evening. Gail Marshall, 2300 block Lee Avenue. What I'm going to say is just strictly my
personal opinion. I do think that a lot of people in the community feel the same way, but it is strictly my personal opinion. I
think that a coIllt1tercial development at the Race Track is terrific. I have no objection whatsoever for expanding the
commercial at the Race Track. It would even enhance the mall, and so on and so forth. I am scared to death of the
entertainment part. The thoughts of a...something similar to a Disneyland in the middle of Arcadia does not settle well with
me. Or ifanybody saw the Chevy Chase movie "Summer Vacation"...Wally World...in fact, it was filmed at Santa Anita. So
I call it Wally World. Now, something starts on a small scale...it...you know, you could put in the entertainment commercial.
The entertainment part of it could start on a small scale and grow. Disneyland has grown. And I just want to remind you
that Knott's Berry Farm started out with a stand in front, and look at it today. And that's the part that scares me. I have no
objection to the commercial, but I think it's the entertainment that people are afraid of. And I'm short and sweet tonight.
Thank you for YOut time.
KUHN: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak?
JACK TEEL: Mayor and City Council, I'm the fourth person from Harvard Drive to speak here this evening. I live at 373.
My name is Jack Tee!. I am sure by now you understand that at least Harvard Drive is not apathetic about an issue. They are
here in force. Some for, some agaiust. I can attest to three things with regard to my remarks tonight: One, it won't be a
stem-winder; two, they're sincere; and three, they're true because they're my opinion. Not only are our citizens watching this
process closely, but our businesses are looking, as well. They want to know what's going to happen. They have a vested
interest in it because they will...what they will conclude is the current and future environment for their very existence.
Another element that is evaluating carefully constitutes those corporations and entrepreneurs who any day now will be
looking for a new location for their enterprise. We must show them and industry, by our actions regarding the current general
plan, that this is a city that welcomes commerce and is willing to reach out and do what is needed to help it come, stay, and
be prosperous. But Arcadia is not simply a great city of the past, but of the present and also the future. There are many
examples of cities and towns that have seen their cor...commerce, or perhaps a once large industry, leave or fail for any
number of reasons. That city is left alone, with a major part of its revenue lost, many times forever. Yet the needs of the city
for its citizens continue unabated. And the citizens expect them to continue. But who will now pay for them? That payment
will be by the remaining businesses and the citizens by assuming a greater and greater tax and fee burden. When that
becomes non-competitive with that available in nearby communities, its people and its commerce will migrate to greener
pastures, and then the ominous plan I've just outlined gets worse. I don't need to tell this Council, that has just undergone
the agony of cutting their budget, that a further drop in revenue or a loss in future revenue will keep us on the razor's edge
between a positive or a negative picture. A lost opportunity can be lost forever or take years of revitalization, sweat, and
31
I
I
I
I
dollars to recapture. We need to extend our hands to all the business people who wish to stay here and be profitable, and we
must maintain an attitude that shows them and others like them that we are partners in this enterprise and will uphold our
end of the responsibility. I therefore urge you to vote for a change in Transition Area Number One to commercial and give
one business, Santa Anita, a good start in their plans for the future of all of our cities. Give them and others the signal that
they are waiting for.
KUHN: Thank you, Mr. Teel. Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
I
LONELL SPENCER: My name is Lonell Spencer. I live at 1008 South Mayflower. Madam Mayor, Council, all of the talk
about businesses coming in, we just spent over $8,000,000 dollars to upgrade the downtown area. I'd like to give you a few
comments. This was July 1993: "Concept development, Downtown 2000. To help establish the Huntington core as the
City's commercial center, Arcadia should limit commercial development in other parts of the City and direct appropriate new
retail uses to the Huntington core. Identify the types of retail businesses that capture strong support elsewhere in the City and.
work with them to examine the potential for a downtown location." And then there is another item: "Build additional ,
support for downtown by increasing the population within walking distance of the downtown core." I believe this wall
addressed in Transition Area Three of the General Plan. There are some other comments about the parking diminishing at
Santa Anita. According to the Agajanian report, the City of Arcadia receives their revenue, which goes into the Capital
Outlay Fund specifically from the betting pool, parimutuel, from Santa Anita. They do not receive a penny of parking, and I
know they used to have some sort of a charge on the admission tax, but I'm not sure what that is. Anyway, that's my
comments. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
JOHN CAFARELLA: Madam Mayor, City Council, I'd like to offer you some infonnation on economic growth and how it
relates to traffic.
KUHN: Please state your name.
CAFARELLA: My name is John Cafarella. I live at 146 East Altern in Arcadia.
KUHN: Thank you.
I
CAFARELLA: With the recent events and budget shortfalls, sources of present and future City income are topics of keen
interest to both the City and the City Council. A good plan for economic growth requires a foundation based on common
32
sense and solid, realistic facts, protecting and enhancing existing businesses for sales tax revenues, making the community
both an attractive place to live and shop, maintainiug the economic worth of the community, and carefully planning future
developments with complete and thorough facts on the front end to allow for successful economic revenue-bearing results and
minimal community impact. The documents before you being considered do not provide this information. Let me explain.
Traffic bas a major impact on economic growth. Let's see how it relates to documents before you. These documents would
have you believe traffic increases from the alternatives (inaudible) proposed will result in no traffic problems for the City on
its main streets eXcqlt Holly. This is not the case. There will be problems on other main City streets. In one instance,
acceptable traffic capacity of a roadway of 35,000 vehicles per day is stated it can be iucreased to 56,000 vehicles per day by
an enhanced mathematical process on paper. The street segment of Santa Anita between Huntington and Colorado, two lanes
in each direction. Their analysis does not consider the many interruptions in the CUJb'lanes caused by many driveways to
businesses such as In-N-Out Burger, Goldstein's, and other...and businesses in the other direction where the CUJb lane
capacity in each direction is actually greatly reduced. In fact, you might end up questioning the 35,000 vehicles per day
without ever considering how it even...how it could ever be 56,000. I was under the impression the only way to increase
traffic capacity on a street was by increasing the number of lanes, or widening the street, or some other physical means, not by
a numerical process on paper.
This same numerical process is used to enhance traffic capacity on a number of other main streets in the City, without
considering reductions caused by existing surroundings. These documents would also have you believe traffic can be
increased in the City by over 89,000 trips per day, over 32,000,500 trips per year, with no impact on peak-hour traffic
volume. How is that possible? I think this approach defies common sense. In the areas of protecting, enhancing businesses
and making them (inaudible) traffic and maintain the economic worth, I offer the following. \fyou overstate the capacity of a
street system as what's been done in these documents, and your street system is not customer convenient, the customers will
take their business elsewhere and your existing businesses will fail. This community is currently an attractive place to live
and shop. But if your street system doesn't work, then simply put, your City doesn't work, economics decline, your property
values decline, and your sales tax and property tax revenue received declines.
In addition, these reports do not include analysis of traffic during Christmas shopping time. And when mentioned to the
consultant, the response was this was not significant. But from a City revenue standpoint this is very significant, as many
businesses' primary livelihood is made during holiday shopping, meaning that the sales tax increment derived by the City is
also then made on the basis of the success of that business. Therefore, if all the reasonable traffic capacity is used during
regnlar times and it is inconvenient for shoppers to use your roadway system during holiday shopping, they will take their
business elsewhere and the City will lose significant revenue that it currently receives. I think this is significant to the City.
As for plauning...careful planning for future development, the traffic analysis bas been done and these documents makes it
sound like everything is fine, but on the basis of what's been done I'm not sure what it tells you. A system is only good as its
33
I
I
I
I
weakest link. In traffic analysis the point of constriction is control...is at your controlled or signalized intersection, not in the
middle of the block as link analysis as has been done in these documents. These reports have no intersection analysis in
them. In fact, from the method of analysis done on a 24-hour basis, I'm not sure you can tell exactly what the impacts are
going to be. Therefore, how can you make decisions on this basis since you have no facts on the front end from which to draw
from. In fact, let me relate from some documents developed by experts in the field The 1990 General Plan Guidelines
developed by the State of California indicates that traffic analysis is done on a peak-hour basis or hourly basis, and that traffic
analysis needs to include intersection analysis. A second document, entitled, "Traffic Engineering," by Mr. William R
McShane and Roger P. Rogus(?), a universally recognized reference in the field of traffic engineering, I would like to read
you just one short section in here.
.
KUHN: Mr. Cafarella, your five minutes are up. Could I ask you to wrap up quickly? Another minute, please.
I
CAFARELLA: O.K. Well, if I wrap up quickly, I would have to tell you the reference document refers strictly to hourly
analysis. The reference document also has a section in it that, when you have an oversimplified analysis, it has an adverst:
impact on future development. Your roadway system in the City is a built-out roadway system. If you have to do wideuing"
or gain more capacity, you will not do it easily without, probably, taking property. And that's something that needs to lx,
considered if you do need extra capacity. If you do a complete traffic analysis, then you need to really have an intersection
analysis. That's more important to you because that's the main constriction on your roadway rather than a link analysis.
This way you get your information on the front end.
I guess it's really hard to sum up the rest of this because it's...maybe I'll just read this whole part. The General Plan
document will become the blueprint for the City. This means that the future developments that refer to this document, future
development in your City, and methods of analysis that it provides will be utilized. One-year analysis has to be provided for
each of these developments. I realize a lot of money has been spent on the documents before you, but you need to realize the
same method of analysis is provided for future developments as provided in these documents, and what appears to be a
savings today will end up to be a monumental cost tomorrow, especially when you encounter problems you may not consider
to be fixable. The suggestions I make here is that you have the proper type of traffic analysis so that will yield you the facts on
the front end. This then will allow you, then, to make your decisions on future development based upon that information. [t
does not prevent future development What it really does is it gives you the information on the front end rather than build
your development, have the traffic then come here, and then not know how to deal with it. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you very much for sharing that with us.
I HARBICHf:
Mr. Cafarella, could I ask you one question for clarification, please?
34
. , .
CAFARELLA: Sure.
HARBICHT: I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying. You're saying that the traffic analysis
taIks about daily volumes but ignores peak-period volumes? Or it should be based on.peak-period....
CAFARELLA: When you do traffic analysis, you are concerned with peak-period volumes. If I had had a chance, I'd have
read you what was in the reference manual; it would explain that. Whether you deal with peak volumes because you're
interested in handling your traffic at the worst times.
HARBICHT: So what I'm taking away from your presentation is correct?
CAFARELLA: That's correct.
HARBICHT: We should be looking at peak-period volume.
CAFARELLA: Yes.
HARBICHT: Yeah. I just wantlo make that I understood what you're....
CAFARELLA: And intersections are what... they're major constrictors in traffic. That's why you have your traffic hackups.
HARBICHT: OK Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you very much for sharing that with us. Be sure and sign the roster. Anyone else wishing to speak?
CLIFF GOODRICH: My name is Cliff Goodrich, President of Santa Anita Race Track. I'm sorry I could not have been here
for the entire meeting. I had a previous business commitment and I've kind of been talking to my wife, on the car phone,
who's been keeping me up to date; and I will be brief, Madam Councilperson and members. I also live in this City, in
Arcadia, just on the other side of the Arboretum, not far from the Race Track. It's been a tough ordeal for a lot of people.
We are asking for a land-use change; and while I obviously have a self interest in this, working for the Race track, I'm also a
citizen of Arcadia. And what I see is this City slowly getting surrounded by other cities who are promoting their businesses,
and more and more every year this City is becoming an island. And I think that's very dangerous, and I'm very concerned
about the fiscal future of this City because of that.
35
I
I
I
I
I think all we're saying is, I think this Council is charged with, what makes sense? What is the most appropriate land use for
that south parking lot of our Race Track long-term? I don't think a haIf-empty parking lot makes any sense for the Race
Track, and I don't think it makes any sense for the City. And I think all we're doing here through this process is saying,
show us a sign that you're interested in looking at a project that might make some sense. And with a land-use change to give
us a broad range of possibilities of commercial development...sure, when we come up with a project, Councilmembers and
citizens are going to closely scrutinize it, and in the end if it doesn't make sense for the City I'm sure it's going to be rejected,
and if it does it's going to be accepted. But we need to take that first step; and we need a sign from this Council that this City
wants to promote business and does feel that the best land use for that south parking lot, long-term, is some sort of
commercial development, and leave the specifics to another day. And I think that's all we're here for through this process, is
to say it makes no sense to leave that parking lot half empty with the fiscal problems this City is starting to face. We've been
a good citizen for years...I don't think we're going to do anything to embarrass this City or ourselves, but we need a sign of
support that this City wants to encourage business or else I'm afraid we are going to become an island. And I say that not
only as President of the Race Track, but as a citizen who lives in Arcadia. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Be sure and sign the roster there for us. Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
I
ROBERT ELLISON: Good evening. I am Robert Ellison. I live at 620 West Huntington Drive in Arcadia. The only thing
that we have heard here is about commercial entertainment. I have not heard anything about imagination, and certainly our
citizens do not lack in imagination. And since we are dealing with the environmental impact report, we need to consider
other things that wonld be commensurate with the environmental impact report. And I wonld like to recommend to the City
~uncil that it appoint a commission of knowledgeable people to consider other uses of this very fine and very attractive and
expensive piece of property. I certainly acknowledge that the Race Track should derive some economic benefit from this
land. I deny that it should use this land in a way that might not be in the best interests of the citizens.
KUHN: Anyone else wishing to speak? Before we move on, we have received a letter this evening from...! believe everyone
got a copy...from Charles Gilb, former Mayor and Councilman, and I thought perhaps at least a summary of the letter should
be read into the record. "A General Plan is how our City lays out for its citizens, property owners, and potential developers
how we envision this City in the future in its general land uses. I believe it is critical that the City Council, through the
General Plan, indicate how this largest, undeveloped parcel in our community is to be developed. This is done through a
zoning designation in the General Plan. Given the various zoning options--industrial, residential, commercial, etcetera, I feel
the development which is in the best interest of this City is commercial. The exact nature of that commercial development is
not a proper determination of the General Plan. That will be determined if and when a specific plan for development is
submitted. To avoid specifying a general expected use of that portion of the community is to ignore the key reason cities have
a General Plan in the first place. My recommendation is that this area be designated commercial in the General Plan. A
I
36
specific development can be controlled through the specific plan process when the development comes to pass." I just felt
that should be entered into the record.
HARBICHf: Madam Mayor.
KUHN: Yes.
HARBICHT: I move to continue the public hearing to 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 10.
YOUNG: Second.
KUHN: Roll call, please.
ROLL CALL: AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young, and Kuhn
None
ABSENT: None
37
I
I
I
, "
I
I
I
CHANG
(Distinguished
Schools)
HARBICHT
(Plannig
Consultant)
4.
PUBLIC HEARING
(Draft General
Plan Update &
related Draft
EIR)
O>S,;".IO
38:0218
and to offer ideas to Santa Anita which they might find useful in deciding what to do with
their property.
MATTERS FROM ELECfED OFFICIALS
Council member Chang announced that Arcadia's three middle schools, Dana, Foothills and
First Avenue, were selected as distinguished schools by the State of California. Hi>
congratulated School Superintendent Towner, the principals of the three middle schools and
the School Board.
In response to Mr. Kidd, Mayor Pro tern Harbicht stated his objections to the planning
consultant hired by Mr. Roncelli were that her comments were far afield from planning
matters, specifically the legal advice she had given at a prior Council meeting. That advice,
he believes, was not legally valid. However the person who hired her as a planning
consultant had every right to do so.
( A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PREPARED)
Consideration of the Draft General Plan Update and related Draft Environmental Impact
Report. In March, 1995 the City Council authorized the Development Services Department
to proceed with a General Plan Update. The City contracted with LSA Associates, Inc., an
independent consulting finn, to prepare both the General Plan Update and the related
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with Agajanian & Associates to prepare a fiscal impact
analysis, and with Freilich, Kaufman Fox & Sohagi for supplemental legal services regarding
environmental issues.
This date, July 8, 1996, was the beginning of the fomtal public hearing process before the
City Council. In order to proceed through the hearing process, the July 8, 19% staff report
was organized into five sections as follows:
- The Draft General Plan Update (GPU)
- Transition Areas
- Planning Commission Recommendations
- The Draft General Plan Update EIR (DEIR)
- The Fiscal Impact Report
- City Council Action
Ms. Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator provided introductory remarks to
the subject under consideration, followed by Mr. Lloyd Zola of LSA & Associates.
Following the staff report and Mr. lola's report, Ms. Butler answered several questions posed
by the City Council in clarification of the staff report. Mayor Kuhn explained how the public
hearing would be conducted. Mayor Pro tern Harbicht announced Council's intention to
place the initiative ordinance regarding land use of the south parking lot at Santa Antia
Raq:track on the November 5, 19% ballot. (Transition Area No. 1 in the GPU)
Mayor Kuhn opened the public hearing.
Sherwood Chillineworth. Vice-Chairman of the Board, Santa Anita Realty, requested that the
south parking lot at Santa Anita Racetrack be designated to have the broadest commercial
land use possible. When and if the property is designated commercial, Santa Anita Realty
will then come forward with a specific plan.
2
7/8/96
38:0219
I
Tom Austin. Vice-President of Development, Santa Anita Realty, requested the broadest
range of commercial zoning on the racetrack south parking lot and a density of at least
975,000 square feet.
James A. Harvev. 2708 Caroline Way, spoke in favor of a commercial zone designation for
the Santa Anita parking lot.
Jackie Savre, Londgen Avenue, Secretary for Neighbors for Arcadia, spoke in opposition to a
zone change from racing to commercial entertainment on race track property, also other
matters of concern such as the City budget, an increase in the utility tax and water rates; the
initiative process; clean streets, crime and safety issues.
H. Randall Stoke. spoke in opposition to the proposed 30 units per acre for small
subdivisions; lost racing revenue to Santa Anita; and in favor of a commercial use for
racetrack undeveloped property.
Mariorie Matthews. 479 Harvard Drive, opposes the proposed Santa Anita Entertainment
complex because of the environmental impact on the City.
Eileen Hubbard 2224 Sewanee Lane, spoke in favor of commercial development at the
racetrack.
I
Colleen Doon. 422 North Gerona Avenue, San Gabriel, planning consultant representing
Neighbors For Arcadia, spoke to the technical aspects of the proposed General Plan Update
and Environmental Impact Report documents, which she believes conflict with each other.
Ms. Doon agreed with the findings of the Planning Commission that the Santa Anita
application for a commercial entertainment development on race track property be reviewed
concurrently with a General Plan Amendment, zone change and a specific plan for race track
property.
Drew Krvnicki. 321 Leroy Avenue, is opposed to changing the land use designation for horse
racing to another designation. The EIR is inadequate, according to Mr. Krynicki.
Pollv Schmutz, Fairview Avenue, expressed support of rezoning Santa Anita Racetrack
property to commercial land use without a specific plan having to be submitted in advance.
Fiorella Lauber. 1225 Oaklawn Road, former Arcadia mayor, spoke in favor of a zone change
for race track property before a specific plan is submitted. Mrs. Lauber noted also that the
general plan is only a guideline for the City.
Jim Brvant. Fifth Avenue, encouraged Council to change the zoning on race track property.
Hugh Mvers. 624 San Luis Rey Road, urged Council to follow the recommendations of the
Planning Commission regarding the General Plan Update and the EIR.
I
Stuart Boss, 934 Paloma Drive, spoke of his concern that Santa Anita might sell the race
trac~ property if Council does not change the zoning.
Barbara Ellison. 620 West Huntington Drive, expressed her appreciation for the Downtown
2000 Streetscape; the attractive trees, shrubs, flowers, curbs and benches, however, she is
concerned about the empty stores and stores that need refurbishing along Huntington Drive in
the downtown area.
3
7/8/96
38:0220
I
Scott Savre. Architect, 444 West Huntington Drive, spoke to the existing zoning on the north
portion of the race track parking lot. There is no reason to change the zoning in that area.
Also, why is there a need to rezone the south parking lot except to allow the entertainment
center to go ahead. This is not his vision for Arcadia's future.
Robert Wall, 451 Harvard Drive, commented that Santa Anita Racetrack is gradually moving
from daytime events to evening functions. The proposed entertainment complex will be an
every night usage. When the catjackings, burglaries, drlve-by shootings and gangs come, it
will be too late to turn back the clock. Mr. Wall, would like the right to vote on this
meaningful matter.
Peter Newmann. 1022 Greenfield, implored the Council to work through the details of this
issue which is polarizing the City. The Santa Anita Company has said they cannot plan a
development until the City changes the zoning, and the Planning Commission did not
recommend a zone change without a plan. Council should press forward to a logical,
economically viable resolution to this issue.
Vincent Folev. 320 Cambridge Drive, expressed his trust in the judgment of the City Council.
The people who collected signatures on the initiative petition to retain the zoning on Santa
Antia property were using scare tactics in the material they distributed. He urged Council to
be proactive and tell the community and Santa Antia that they believe in the project, and
rezone the south parking lot commercial.
I
Marguerite Soencer. Mayflower Avenue, reminded Mr. Folly that he had recently filed papers
against one of the Council members for the way that Councilmember filed his financial
papers. Mrs. Spencer related the history of development at Santa Anita Park and the pro and
con groups formed over development of the mall.
Pat Flahertv. Lemon Avenue, urged Council to adopt the recommendation of the Plauning
Commission concerning Santa Anita property.
Irene Goddard 620 West Huntington Drive, expressed concern of the heavy traffic an
entertainment center would produce non-stop every day late into the night. There will be
added crime and deterioration to the environment. Real estate prices will drop and with that
taxes to the City. Mrs. Goddard reported a personal incident in the mall parking lot in which
her 17 year old niece was threatened with a gun that misfired.
Gino Roncelli. 1250 Ramona Road, urged Council to wait until Santa Anita files an
application and a plan before changing the zoning on Santa Anita's parking lot.
William Weiss. Harvard Drive, personally feels that a yes vote on the initiative measure
regarding land use for the parking lot at Santa Anita would mean Santa" Anita could DOt
develop anything on their land without a vote. He believes the initiative, if"passed, would be
a bad law.
Gail Marshall. 2300 block of Lee Avenue, said a commercial development at Santa Anita
would be terrific, but she is afraid of the entertainment idea which could produce something
similar to a Disneyland in the middle of Arcadia.
I
Jack Teet 373 Harvard Drive, urged Council to encourage businesses to stay in the City and
prosper. Also, new businesses should be encouraged to locate in Arcadia. Mr. Teel
encouraged Council to vote for a zone change to commercial in Transition Area No. I and
give Santa Anita a good start on their plans for the future.
4
7/8/96
I
I
I
ADJOURNMENT
38:0221
Lonell Soencer, 1008 South Mayflower, reminded Council that in 1993 the City Council
considered "Concept development - Downtown 2000. To help establish the Huntington DriVl:
core as the City's commercial center, Arcadia should limit commercial development in other
parts of the City and direct appropriate new uses to the Huntington core. IdentifY the types 0 f
retail businesses that capture strong support elsewhere in the City and work with them to
examine the potential for a downtown location."
John Cafarella. 146 East Altern, offered information on economic growth and how it relates
to traffic. He commented that the documents now before the Council do not provide th<:
information that Council needs to make an informed decision.
Cliff Goodrich. President of Santa Anita Racetrack, stated that Council is charged with...
what makes sense? What is the most appropriate land use for the south parking lot of the
race track, long-term. He requested that Council show Santa Anita a sign that Council is
interested in looking at a project that might make some sense.
Dr. Robert Ellison. 620 West Huntington Drive, recommended that Council appoint a
commission of knowledgeable people to consider uses other than commercial entertainment
for the south parking lot of the race track.
Charles Gilb. 940 Singingwood Drive. For the record, Mayor Kuhn read a letter from former
Mayor Charles Gilb indicating his support of a commercial land use designation for the south
parking lot at the race track. Mr. Gilb believes that such a designation is in the best interests
of the City.
Seeing no other persons wishing to address the Council/ Agency this evening, it was MOVED
by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call
vote as follows to CONTINUE the public hearing regarding the Draft General Plan Update
and related Environmental Impact Report to Wednesday, July 10, 1996 at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council/ Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn
None
None
Mayor Kuhn thanked the audience for their partICIpation in this public process and
announced the last order of business for the Council/Agency this evening. Dates were set for
the following meetings:
July 16, 1996 - 7:00 a.m. Downtown 2000 project costs and Sully-Miller litigation
update
August 6, 1996 - 5:30 p.m. Joint City Council/Arcadia Unified School District Governing
Board Meeting to discuss youth activities
The City Council/Arcadia Redevelopment Agency adjourned regular meeting ADJOURNED
at 9:26 p.m. to Wednesday, July 10, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber for
an adjourned regular meeting to CONTINUE the public hearing regarding the Draft General
Plan Update and related Draft EIR.
-/ L ~MaYOr Pro
tern
Barbara D. Kuhn, Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
~,w/J~~
e D. Alford, Ci. crk "'"
5
7/8/96